Amy Licence at it again

Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.

So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes?  For crying out loud.



________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again

 
Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.

Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes? For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again


Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.

With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money - and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous. Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes?  For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again


Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.













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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny

 but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?    Why do people always have to go to such extremes?


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:29
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 
With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money - and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous. Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes?  For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again

Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Indeed, is there any niche for a female character between Dragon and Doormat?
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again



Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny

but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf? Why do people always have to go to such extremes?

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:29
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money - and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous. Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes? For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again

Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Beautifully put Stephen



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 22:24
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 
Indeed, is there any niche for a female character between Dragon and Doormat?
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny

but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf? Why do people always have to go to such extremes?

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:29
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money - and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous. Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes? For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again

Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny
>
>  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?    Why do people always have to go to such extremes?

Carol responds:

I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points, though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did) that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.

Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?

As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!

Carol

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Indeed, is there any niche for a female character between Dragon and Doormat?

Carol responds:

Well, there's Elizabeth I, but even she was really a man in drag according to Bram Stoker's theory as discussed in this Daily Mail article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337774/Is-proof-Virgin-Queen-imposter-drag-Shocking-new-theory-Elizabeth-I-unearthed-historic-manuscripts.html?ICO=most_read_module

Carol

Mentioning Hicks, I read his Richard III some years back & got the feeling that he was having a go at the Blair government with those references to spin doctors & aiming propaganda at particular audiences. I forget the name of the writer who used his book on Tom Paine to criticise Margaret Thatcher's time in office.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Jun 2013, at 01:33, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny
> >
> > but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf? Why do people always have to go to such extremes?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points, though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did) that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
>
> Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
>
> As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
>
> Carol
>
>

Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161 onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though. Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny
>
>  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?    Why do people always have to go to such extremes?

Carol responds:

I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points, though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did) that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.

Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?

As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:

"With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money -
and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous.
Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring."

Somehow I don't think Amy Licence will have the same shelf-life as
Shakepeare...
Doug



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>"
<>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty
Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams"
<ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>>
wrote:



So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes? For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan
<janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To:
"<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again


Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.













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

Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."

Doug here:
Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
*were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
*only* apply to Richard?
Doug

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again





--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> a namby pampy ninny
>
>  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> always have to go to such extremes?

Carol responds:

I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.

Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
"good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?

As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!

Carol








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hilary, Hicks has written a fair few articles & books; I take it you mean his "Richard III" which came out in 2000? I have the paperback version 2nd hand so the pages numbers don't match up apparently. Are you able to pinpoint your reference to Anne Neville so that I can see what Hicks says? We need to know our "enemies".
Thank you for your patience.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 11 Jun 2013, at 14:50, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
> onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
> proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
> clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
> Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."
>
> Doug here:
> Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
> *were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
> household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
> when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
> *only* apply to Richard?
> Doug
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> > a namby pampy ninny
> >
> >  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> > always have to go to such extremes?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
> say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
> as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
> though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
> considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
> would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
> that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
> would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
> shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
> I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
>
> Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
> favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
> think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
> "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
>
> As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
> only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
> articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
> through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
> service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
> it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>

Carol. I have received the booklet by Rosemary Horrox, and it does not seem to mention John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, much at all. In fact, all I have found is on page 31:-

. . . John's (our John's father) wife was Elizabeth, the sister of Edward IV. This gave their sons a Yorkist claim to the throne which the Tudors suspected, John, the eldest son, died fighting against Henry VII at Stoke in 1487. His brother Edmund was executed by Henry VIII in 1513. All their brothers died without sons, the last, William, in the Tower in 1539, where he had been a prisoner for 38 years . . .

The main purpose of the pamphlet is to relate the origins and progress of the de la Pole family of Hull. So if that is of interest to you, go ahead.

Sandra

No sorry -it's actually in his Anne Neville. If he were not so extreme there are still some good bits.



________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 14:14
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


 

Hilary, Hicks has written a fair few articles & books; I take it you mean his "Richard III" which came out in 2000? I have the paperback version 2nd hand so the pages numbers don't match up apparently. Are you able to pinpoint your reference to Anne Neville so that I can see what Hicks says? We need to know our "enemies".
Thank you for your patience.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 11 Jun 2013, at 14:50, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <mailto:destama%40kconline.com> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
> onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
> proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
> clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
> Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."
>
> Doug here:
> Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
> *were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
> household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
> when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
> *only* apply to Richard?
> Doug
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> > a namby pampy ninny
> >
> >  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> > always have to go to such extremes?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
> say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
> as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
> though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
> considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
> would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
> that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
> would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
> shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
> I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
>
> Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
> favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
> think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
> "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
>
> As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
> only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
> articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
> through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
> service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
> it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>

Very true. At least Shakespeare was good at what he set out to be; and that's an understatement.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 14:33
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money -
and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous.
Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring."

Somehow I don't think Amy Licence will have the same shelf-life as
Shakepeare...
Doug

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>"
<>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty
Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams"
<ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>>
wrote:

So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes? For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan
<janmulrenan@...<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>
To:
"<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again

Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.







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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I hate to admit this, but I don't like Shakespeare at all. Only some of his sonnets. Does that make me a freak????? Chaucer? Now you're talking...!


From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Very true. At least Shakespeare was good at what he set out to be; and that's an understatement.

Dear, dear, I find myself defending Hicks!:) I think what he's saying (not me) is that there is no proof they did a lot together. But he does go on to say there's little about Anne Beauchamp and her thirty-five year old marriage to Warwick. Unless you were the Queen I doubt many would track you. But the only extant 'deed' of Anne is her recommendation that someone should be given a parish. And she did have her own  very generous 'allowance' for clothes (and he quotes the cloth etc) so at least Richard didn't keep her in rags. I doubt much of this setup changed for the next four hundred years, in fact insofaras the wealthy were concerned, into the first part of the twentieth century. Hidden away in there somewhere though is the point that she was not high profile like, say, MB.   



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 14:50
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."

Doug here:
Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
*were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
*only* apply to Richard?
Doug

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> a namby pampy ninny
>
>  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> always have to go to such extremes?

Carol responds:

I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.

Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
"good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?

As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

No. It's all a matter of opinion. I love Lear and Hamlet and the sonnets. Can find no emotion in Chaucer (but my hubby loves him; mainly because of the freestyle spelling). So it's what grabs you. I actually think his fictional Queen Margaret (another maligned character) is a masterpiece in the history plays.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 14:35
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


 

I hate to admit this, but I don't like Shakespeare at all. Only some of his sonnets. Does that make me a freak????? Chaucer? Now you're talking...!

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:31 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Very true. At least Shakespeare was good at what he set out to be; and that's an understatement.

We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Dear, dear, I find myself defending Hicks!:) I think what he's saying (not me) is that there is no proof they did a lot together. But he does go on to say there's little about Anne Beauchamp and her thirty-five year old marriage to Warwick. Unless you were the Queen I doubt many would track you. But the only extant 'deed' of Anne is her recommendation that someone should be given a parish. And she did have her own  very generous 'allowance' for clothes (and he quotes the cloth etc) so at least Richard didn't keep her in rags. I doubt much of this setup changed for the next four hundred years, in fact insofaras the wealthy were concerned, into the first part of the twentieth century. Hidden away in there somewhere though is the point that she was not high profile like, say, MB.   
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 14:50
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
> onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
> proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
> clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
> Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."
>
> Doug here:
> Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
> *were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
> household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
> when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
> *only* apply to Richard?
> Doug
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> > a namby pampy ninny
> >
> >  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> > always have to go to such extremes?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
> say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
> as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
> though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
> considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
> would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
> that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
> would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
> shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
> I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
>
> Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
> favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
> think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
> "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
>
> As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
> only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
> articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
> through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
> service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
> it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps I can get it 2nd hand...
Thank you!
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Jun 2013, at 14:29, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> No sorry -it's actually in his Anne Neville. If he were not so extreme there are still some good bits.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 14:14
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
>
>
> Hilary, Hicks has written a fair few articles & books; I take it you mean his "Richard III" which came out in 2000? I have the paperback version 2nd hand so the pages numbers don't match up apparently. Are you able to pinpoint your reference to Anne Neville so that I can see what Hicks says? We need to know our "enemies".
> Thank you for your patience.
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 14:50, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <mailto:destama%40kconline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
> > onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
> > proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
> > clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
> > Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
> > *were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
> > household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
> > when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
> > *only* apply to Richard?
> > Doug
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
> > Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> > <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> > > a namby pampy ninny
> > >
> > >  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> > > always have to go to such extremes?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
> > say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
> > as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
> > though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
> > considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
> > would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
> > that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
> > would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
> > shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
> > I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
> >
> > Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
> > favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
> > think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
> > "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
> >
> > As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
> > only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
> > articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
> > through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
> > service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
> > it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sandra: If I could connect this to the previous message you are dealing with, it would be VERY useful.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: The de la Poles of Hull



Carol. I have received the booklet by Rosemary Horrox, and it does not seem to mention John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, much at all. In fact, all I have found is on page 31:-

. . . John's (our John's father) wife was Elizabeth, the sister of Edward IV. This gave their sons a Yorkist claim to the throne which the Tudors suspected, John, the eldest son, died fighting against Henry VII at Stoke in 1487. His brother Edmund was executed by Henry VIII in 1513. All their brothers died without sons, the last, William, in the Tower in 1539, where he had been a prisoner for 38 years . . .

The main purpose of the pamphlet is to relate the origins and progress of the de la Pole family of Hull. So if that is of interest to you, go ahead.

Sandra

I think the proof of their relationship is there for all to see in the
fact that she was the first Queen to be crowned in the same ceremony as
her husband was crowned King, a mark of immense significance, telling
one and all that Richard saw his wife as his partner in everything.
Paul


On 11/06/2013 14:50, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
> onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
> proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
> clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
> Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."
>
> Doug here:
> Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
> *were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
> household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
> when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
> *only* apply to Richard?
> Doug
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>> Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
>> a namby pampy ninny
>>
>>  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
>> always have to go to such extremes?
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
> say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
> as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
> though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
> considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
> would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
> that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
> would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
> shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
> I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
>
> Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
> favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
> think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
> "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
>
> As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
> only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
> articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
> through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
> service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
> it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Agreed....there is some useful stuff in this book which is why I still have my copy....it's a shame he, Hicks, spoilt his book with his spiteful and vitriolic assessment of Anne and Richard's relationship. The name of one chapter. "Past Her Sell-By Date" (which tells us more about Hicks than it does the couple) is burnt into my brain as one of the most nastiest, lowest things I have ever had the misfortune to read about Richard. ..and there have been some....as we all know..Eileen

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I can get it 2nd hand...
> Thank you!
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 12 Jun 2013, at 14:29, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > No sorry -it's actually in his Anne Neville. If he were not so extreme there are still some good bits.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 14:14
> > Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary, Hicks has written a fair few articles & books; I take it you mean his "Richard III" which came out in 2000? I have the paperback version 2nd hand so the pages numbers don't match up apparently. Are you able to pinpoint your reference to Anne Neville so that I can see what Hicks says? We need to know our "enemies".
> > Thank you for your patience.
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 11 Jun 2013, at 14:50, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <mailto:destama%40kconline.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > "Sorry but Hicks is quite good on your second para from about pages 161
> > > onwards (before he becomes vitriolic). There would seem to be very little
> > > proof that Anne operated separately apart from recommending one of her
> > > clerks for a vicarage. Richard gave her a good allowance for clothes though.
> > > Indeed there's actually little proof that they lived together."
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Just out of curiousity, what sort of "proof" would there be anyway if they
> > > *were* together? There wouldn't be letters, of course. Would any extant
> > > household accounts show a difference between when the two were together and
> > > when they were apart? Would a reference to, say, supplies for "His Grace"
> > > *only* apply to Richard?
> > > Doug
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 1:33
> > > Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> > > <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't
> > > > a namby pampy ninny
> > > >
> > > >  but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf?  Why do people
> > > > always have to go to such extremes?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to make a similar comment. To be fair, Amy doesn't come out and
> > > say that Anne did it, only that if we're going to consider Margaret Beaufort
> > > as a suspect, we might as well consider Anne, too. Some of her points,
> > > though worded a bit strongly (as in Anne "egging [Richard] on") are worth
> > > considering. Usually, Anne is depicted as "the reluctant queen," but why
> > > would she be reluctant? She may well have felt (as Richard undoubtedly did)
> > > that she and her family were in danger from the Woodvilles and that they
> > > would be safer if Richard accepted (not "took") the crown. Whether she
> > > shared his concern for the legitimacy of the Yorkist line, I don't know, but
> > > I think she would have encouraged him to take advantage of the opportunity.
> > >
> > > Since her research doesn't seem quite up to par (Margaret Beaufort as the
> > > favorite suspect ever since Tey's book came out?), I'm not sure what to
> > > think of her statement that Richard deputized Anne at least once to serve as
> > > "good lord" in his absence. Anyone know anything about that?
> > >
> > > As for the Lady Macbeth allusion, Amy is clearly sensationalizing, but she's
> > > only suggesting, not accusing. If she inspires a few people to make
> > > articulate rebuttals, or encourages a few people to read about Anne and
> > > through her acquire an interest in Richard, she may actually be doing us a
> > > service. I say that without having read her book. I'll change my mind if
> > > it's anywhere near as bad as Hicks's so-called biography!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Carol. I have received the booklet by Rosemary Horrox, and it does not seem to mention John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, much at all. In fact, all I have found is on page 31:-
>
> . . . John's (our John's father) wife was Elizabeth, the sister of Edward IV. This gave their sons a Yorkist claim to the throne which the Tudors suspected, John, the eldest son, died fighting against Henry VII at Stoke in 1487. His brother Edmund was executed by Henry VIII in 1513. All their brothers died without sons, the last, William, in the Tower in 1539, where he had been a prisoner for 38 years . . .
>
> The main purpose of the pamphlet is to relate the origins and progress of the de la Pole family of Hull. So if that is of interest to you, go ahead.
>
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Thanks, Sandra. How disappointing. I'll save my money. Poor William. Wonder what he did, aside from having Yorkist blood, to merit his long imprisonment (in the Tudor view)?

BTW, I wonder if the theories about Richard's tyranny could be the result of projection on the part of Tudor historians--the Tudors were tyrants, but Henry VII ostensibly saved England from tyranny, so Richard must have been even worse? Of course, he didn't live long enough to imprison anyone for 38 years. (I would be quite happy if he'd done that to Morton and MB.)

Carol

Carol, I have sent a note to your other email address. Would you take a peek please, and get back to me? Thanks.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The de la Poles of Hull


"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Carol. I have received the booklet by Rosemary Horrox, and it does not seem to mention John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, much at all. In fact, all I have found is on page 31:-
>
> . . . John's (our John's father) wife was Elizabeth, the sister of Edward IV. This gave their sons a Yorkist claim to the throne which the Tudors suspected, John, the eldest son, died fighting against Henry VII at Stoke in 1487. His brother Edmund was executed by Henry VIII in 1513. All their brothers died without sons, the last, William, in the Tower in 1539, where he had been a prisoner for 38 years . . .
>
> The main purpose of the pamphlet is to relate the origins and progress of the de la Pole family of Hull. So if that is of interest to you, go ahead.
>
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Thanks, Sandra. How disappointing. I'll save my money. Poor William. Wonder what he did, aside from having Yorkist blood, to merit his long imprisonment (in the Tudor view)?

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> No. It's all a matter of opinion. I love Lear and Hamlet and the sonnets. Can find no emotion in Chaucer (but my hubby loves him; mainly because of the freestyle spelling). So it's what grabs you. I actually think his fictional Queen Margaret (another maligned character) is a masterpiece in the history plays.

Carol responds:

Though, of course, Shakespeare collapses time and indulges in anachronisms, having her present in England to harangue Richard III after his coronation when in fact she was ransomed and returned to France in 1475 and died in 1482. (If she harangued any Yorkist king, it would have been Edward IV!)

As for Shakespeare vs. Chaucer, that's like comparing Dickens and Donne--different genres, different eras. Shakespeare's language is actually more accessible than Chaucer's unless you (generic you) read a very good translation. Chaucer is, of course, (re)telling a collection of tales through a variety of narrators whereas Shakespeare is writing dialogue to be acted, so it's not surprising that Shakespeare's writing (in the plays as opposed to the sonnets, which are more self-consciously artistic) is much more intensely emotional than Chaucer's.

Carol

Self-consciously artistic? Ouch. But I still like the sonnets. And still prefer Chaucer! =^..^=

From: justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:08 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> No. It's all a matter of opinion. I love Lear and Hamlet and the sonnets. Can find no emotion in Chaucer (but my hubby loves him; mainly because of the freestyle spelling). So it's what grabs you. I actually think his fictional Queen Margaret (another maligned character) is a masterpiece in the history plays.

Carol responds:

Though, of course, Shakespeare collapses time and indulges in anachronisms, having her present in England to harangue Richard III after his coronation when in fact she was ransomed and returned to France in 1475 and died in 1482. (If she harangued any Yorkist king, it would have been Edward IV!)

As for Shakespeare vs. Chaucer, that's like comparing Dickens and Donne--different genres, different eras. Shakespeare's language is actually more accessible than Chaucer's unless you (generic you) read a very good translation. Chaucer is, of course, (re)telling a collection of tales through a variety of narrators whereas Shakespeare is writing dialogue to be acted, so it's not surprising that Shakespeare's writing (in the plays as opposed to the sonnets, which are more self-consciously artistic) is much more intensely emotional than Chaucer's.

Carol



.

"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen

Carol responds:

I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.

Carol

Of course - she's fictional, but we'll forever associate her with a paper crown. I'm off to Angers next week and I always think of the poor woman, or girl as she originally was, dragged into a miserable England and wife to a mentally unstable king. Chaucer - well I hated learning huge quotes in odd spellings. But Milton and PLOS I loved  - totally OT but all a matter of taste.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:08
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> No. It's all a matter of opinion. I love Lear and Hamlet and the sonnets. Can find no emotion in Chaucer (but my hubby loves him; mainly because of the freestyle spelling). So it's what grabs you. I actually think his fictional Queen Margaret (another maligned character) is a masterpiece in the history plays.

Carol responds:

Though, of course, Shakespeare collapses time and indulges in anachronisms, having her present in England to harangue Richard III after his coronation when in fact she was ransomed and returned to France in 1475 and died in 1482. (If she harangued any Yorkist king, it would have been Edward IV!)

As for Shakespeare vs. Chaucer, that's like comparing Dickens and Donne--different genres, different eras. Shakespeare's language is actually more accessible than Chaucer's unless you (generic you) read a very good translation. Chaucer is, of course, (re)telling a collection of tales through a variety of narrators whereas Shakespeare is writing dialogue to be acted, so it's not surprising that Shakespeare's writing (in the plays as opposed to the sonnets, which are more self-consciously artistic) is much more intensely emotional than Chaucer's.

Carol

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Sandra: If I could connect this to the previous message you are dealing with, it would be VERY useful.

Carol responds:

Stephen, the orphan message you're referring to is actually my fault. Sandra and I were discussing the de la Poles off list but since I seldom check my Yahoo e-mail, I asked her to post it here. It relates to our earlier onlist discussion of John, Earl of Lincoln. It seems that "The de la Poles of Hull" is not helpful in providing information about this shadowy figure.

Carol

"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
> Agreed....there is some useful stuff in this book which is why I still have my copy....it's a shame he, Hicks, spoilt his book with his spiteful and vitriolic assessment of Anne and Richard's relationship. The name of one chapter. "Past Her Sell-By Date" (which tells us more about Hicks than it does the couple) is burnt into my brain as one of the most nastiest, lowest things I have ever had the misfortune to read about Richard. ..and there have been some....as we all know..Eileen

Carol responds:

Not to mention what it says about his view of Anne as a commodity. I'm no feminist, but referring to a young woman as used goods is the statement of what used to be called a male chauvinist pig.

Carol

The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 

"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen

Carol responds:

I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.

Carol

Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen

Carol responds:

I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.

Carol

Thankyou.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: The de la Poles of Hull




"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Sandra: If I could connect this to the previous message you are dealing with, it would be VERY useful.

Carol responds:

Stephen, the orphan message you're referring to is actually my fault. Sandra and I were discussing the de la Poles off list but since I seldom check my Yahoo e-mail, I asked her to post it here. It relates to our earlier onlist discussion of John, Earl of Lincoln. It seems that "The de la Poles of Hull" is not helpful in providing information about this shadowy figure.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!

Carol responds:

We do have Richard's statement to the mayor and citizens after Anne's death as reported by the Mercers:

"[I]n a loud and distinct voice," he "showed his grief and displeasure [at her death and the rumors that he intended to marry EoY] and said it never came into his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor glad of the death of his queen but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be." Sounds to me as if he loved her.

And there's also his promise to require the husbands he found for EW's daughters "lovingly to love them" or suffer his displeasure.

Yes, the marriage was to both parties' advantage, but Warwick had apparently already provided them with the necessary papal dispensation long before (per Marie) and they must have expected--and wanted--to marry. It would be easy, under those circumstances, especially given that they already knew each other, to fall in love either before or after marriage.

I suspect that Anne was miserable in being required to marry her father's former enemy, Edward of Lancaster, but submitted to that marriage as a dynastic or political necessity. Her marriage to Richard, as much her choice as his, would have been altogether different.

Carol

Do we have any evidence that Anne lived with Edward, Prince of Wales? Were
they married in person or by proxy?

A J


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:02 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married
> when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine
> of Aragon! As for their relationship Iý honestly don't know - I was merely
> quoting Hicks.ý At the risk of all yourý wrath I see it very much as a
> dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love
> one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the
> passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They
> would naturally grieve at the loss ofý a child who was also the only heir.
> I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we
> never will.ý Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> We do have Richard's statement to the mayor and citizens after Anne's
> death as reported by the Mercers:
>
> "[I]n a loud and distinct voice," he "showed his grief and displeasure [at
> her death and the rumors that he intended to marry EoY] and said it never
> came into his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor
> glad of the death of his queen but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man
> might be." Sounds to me as if he loved her.
>
> And there's also his promise to require the husbands he found for EW's
> daughters "lovingly to love them" or suffer his displeasure.
>
> Yes, the marriage was to both parties' advantage, but Warwick had
> apparently already provided them with the necessary papal dispensation long
> before (per Marie) and they must have expected--and wanted--to marry. It
> would be easy, under those circumstances, especially given that they
> already knew each other, to fall in love either before or after marriage.
>
> I suspect that Anne was miserable in being required to marry her father's
> former enemy, Edward of Lancaster, but submitted to that marriage as a
> dynastic or political necessity. Her marriage to Richard, as much her
> choice as his, would have been altogether different.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Well, I have been warned. Sometimes I feel we need no historical fiction when we have historians!
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 12 Jun 2013, at 17:26, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> > Agreed....there is some useful stuff in this book which is why I still have my copy....it's a shame he, Hicks, spoilt his book with his spiteful and vitriolic assessment of Anne and Richard's relationship. The name of one chapter. "Past Her Sell-By Date" (which tells us more about Hicks than it does the couple) is burnt into my brain as one of the most nastiest, lowest things I have ever had the misfortune to read about Richard. ..and there have been some....as we all know..Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not to mention what it says about his view of Anne as a commodity. I'm no feminist, but referring to a young woman as used goods is the statement of what used to be called a male chauvinist pig.
>
> Carol
>
>

We actually do have some evidence of fondness for Anne from Richard, and
evidence of shared interest:

There is a receipt for a gift to Anne from Richard, dating, I think, from
1484, in which he calls her "my beloved consort". This is hardly a public
document and he wouldn't think he was winning points for calling her such
on the equivalent of check's carbon copy.

In an interesting publication called _Richard III's Books_, Anne Sutton and
Livia Fuchs discuss a biography of a German saint (I forget who), which is
signed by both Richard and Anne, together.

These items, I think, can be taken into account as evidence of positive
feeling.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband?
> How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or
> so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have
> been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought
> at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away
> with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her
> prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married
> when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine
> of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely
> quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a
> dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love
> one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the
> passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They
> would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I
> just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we
> never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the
> news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last
> Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on
> these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on
> these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home,
> correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would
> have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at
> least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to
> me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time
> together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home,
> such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son
> at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they
> heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side
> between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at
> his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after
> George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and
> futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to
> be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had
> Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal
> (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was
> possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>

How little we know about Anne's first marriage. If the kitchen maid story is true and Croyland mentions it so I'm inclined to believe it is, Anne run away from George and must have allowed her whereabouts to become known to Richard.... (who then took her to sanctuary) so this would indicate that she liked him and trusted him. I think it was probably as Hilary said, a marriage that suited them both but I get the impression that it was a successful marriage and happy as a lot of those marriages for convenience, dynasty etc., turn out to be....

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think we're more or less saying the same thing, and he could indeed have grown to love her. And I think Anne was astute enough to know when she'd got a good match. As we know, Richard wasn't at all bad looking either. What I don't nuy into is the child sweetheart thing. I doubt a boy of 13 would have fancied a nine-year old, or she him.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 18:02
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!

Carol responds:

We do have Richard's statement to the mayor and citizens after Anne's death as reported by the Mercers:

"[I]n a loud and distinct voice," he "showed his grief and displeasure [at her death and the rumors that he intended to marry EoY] and said it never came into his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor glad of the death of his queen but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be." Sounds to me as if he loved her.

And there's also his promise to require the husbands he found for EW's daughters "lovingly to love them" or suffer his displeasure.

Yes, the marriage was to both parties' advantage, but Warwick had apparently already provided them with the necessary papal dispensation long before (per Marie) and they must have expected--and wanted--to marry. It would be easy, under those circumstances, especially given that they already knew each other, to fall in love either before or after marriage.

I suspect that Anne was miserable in being required to marry her father's former enemy, Edward of Lancaster, but submitted to that marriage as a dynastic or political necessity. Her marriage to Richard, as much her choice as his, would have been altogether different.

Carol

It's a difficult one; we know so little about EOL and that's all rumour as well. Anne and Richard must have been quite wary of getting attached to anyone, given the deaths of their loved ones in the previous decade.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:56
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


 

Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen

Carol responds:

I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.

Carol

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.

Carol responds:

Since her father had been calling Edward of Lancaster a bastard (the son of either Somerset or Suffolk, I forget, rather than feeble-minded Henry) since Anne was a small child, and she had been brought up to think of him as an enemy (and he to view her father as an enemy), I can't see that marriage being happy. Some historians think that Margaret of Anjou insisted that the marriage not be consummated until after Warwick had defeated Edward IV, but I doubt that she could have restrained a willful seventeen-year-old from deflowering his bride though I can't see it as being an act of love. The only characterization of Edward of Lancaster that I know of, made by the Milanese ambassador, said "this boy, though only thirteen years of age, talks of nothing but of cutting off heads and making war." Charming.

Given his mother's hatred of the House of York and Warwick (even after their alliance, another bit of manipulation by the Spider King) and Edward's own real or perceived wrongs at the hands of Edward IV, I suspect that the talk of war had only intensified. His father was, in his view, the rightful king and he himself the rightful heir; Edward IV was, in his eyes (and to some extent in reality despite an arguably superior claim), a usurper. Richard of Gloucester, just one year older than EoL almost to the day, would have been his enemy as well, in part as a scion of the House of York and in part as Edward IV's faithful supporter, and the Lancastrian prince would not have been pleased if Anne dared to mention the Duke of Gloucester as her preferred husband. Probably, though, she would have kept such thoughts to herself and accepted what seemed at the time to be her fate--an unhappy marriage and a mother-in-law who must have hated the sight of her.

Just my take, of course, but I suspect that Anne was much happier with Richard than with Lancaster.

Carol

Wasn't that a letter from the King of Portugal (or was it Spain) calling Anne his 'beloved consort' after her death - JAH mentions it in the 'Last Days'. Yes the book 'St somethinggermanic' is signed Anne Warwick but there is some dissent over whether this was Anne or her mother. I think it was a gift from Cis?



________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 18:14
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


We actually do have some evidence of fondness for Anne from Richard, and
evidence of shared interest:

There is a receipt for a gift to Anne from Richard, dating, I think, from
1484, in which he calls her "my beloved consort".  This is hardly a public
document and he wouldn't think he was winning points for calling her such
on the equivalent of check's carbon copy.

In an interesting publication called _Richard III's Books_, Anne Sutton and
Livia Fuchs discuss a biography of a German saint (I forget who), which is
signed by both Richard and Anne, together.

These items, I think, can be taken into account as evidence of positive
feeling.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband?
> How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or
> so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have
> been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought
> at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away
> with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her
> prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married
> when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine
> of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely
> quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a
> dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love
> one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the
> passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They
> would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I
> just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we
> never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the
> news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last
> Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on
> these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on
> these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home,
> correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would
> have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at
> least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to
> me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time
> together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home,
> such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son
> at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they
> heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side
> between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at
> his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after
> George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and
> futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to
> be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had
> Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal
> (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was
> possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I don't know. I certainly have known children of opposite sexes to become
attached to each other at tender ages. Not overtly sexual at age 7, but
still involving some gender-specific attraction.

In other words, I'm not willing to absolutely rule out an attraction
between a 13 year old boy & a nine year old girl. Not to mention, that we
really don't have a lot of evidence about when Anne & Richard got to know
each, and are left, as usual, weighing probabilities. It's all too easy to
fill in the gaps with what we know from our own experience.

A J


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think we're more or less saying the same thing, and he could indeed have
> grown to love her. And I think Anne was astute enough to know when she'd
> got a good match. As we know, Richard wasn't at all bad looking either.
> What I don't nuy into is the child sweetheart thing. I doubt a boy of 13
> would have fancied a nine-year old, or she him.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 18:02
>
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married
> when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine
> of Aragon! As for their relationship Iý honestly don't know - I was merely
> quoting Hicks.ý At the risk of all yourý wrath I see it very much as a
> dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love
> one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the
> passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They
> would naturally grieve at the loss ofý a child who was also the only heir.
> I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we
> never will.ý Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> We do have Richard's statement to the mayor and citizens after Anne's
> death as reported by the Mercers:
>
> "[I]n a loud and distinct voice," he "showed his grief and displeasure [at
> her death and the rumors that he intended to marry EoY] and said it never
> came into his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor
> glad of the death of his queen but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man
> might be." Sounds to me as if he loved her.
>
> And there's also his promise to require the husbands he found for EW's
> daughters "lovingly to love them" or suffer his displeasure.
>
> Yes, the marriage was to both parties' advantage, but Warwick had
> apparently already provided them with the necessary papal dispensation long
> before (per Marie) and they must have expected--and wanted--to marry. It
> would be easy, under those circumstances, especially given that they
> already knew each other, to fall in love either before or after marriage.
>
> I suspect that Anne was miserable in being required to marry her father's
> former enemy, Edward of Lancaster, but submitted to that marriage as a
> dynastic or political necessity. Her marriage to Richard, as much her
> choice as his, would have been altogether different.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I believe the cookshop story - it's so odd it must be true. As I said to Carol, I think our Anne knew a good deal when she saw one and he was descibed as the second most handsome man in the kingdom (and now we've seen proof of that). I think there's little doubt their affection grew; it must have been one of the few stable things in a harsh world.


________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 18:22
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 

How little we know about Anne's first marriage. If the kitchen maid story is true and Croyland mentions it so I'm inclined to believe it is, Anne run away from George and must have allowed her whereabouts to become known to Richard.... (who then took her to sanctuary) so this would indicate that she liked him and trusted him. I think it was probably as Hilary said, a marriage that suited them both but I get the impression that it was a successful marriage and happy as a lot of those marriages for convenience, dynasty etc., turn out to be....

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's a difficult one; we know so little about EOL and that's all rumour as well. Anne and Richard must have been quite wary of getting attached to anyone, given the deaths of their loved ones in the previous decade.

Carol responds:

I wouldn't call what we know of him rumor. The bit about talking about cutting off heads (I omitted the part about "as if he if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle") is from a conversation between Louis XI and Duke John of Calabria, Margaret of Anjou's brother, neither of whom was likely to slander the duke's nephew. This description is corroborated by another from Chief Justice John Fortescue, who was in exile with Margaret and her son:

"The prince, as soon as he became grown up, gave himself over entirely to martial exercises; and, seated on fierce and half-tamed steeds urged on by his spurs, he often delighted in attacking and assaulting the young companions attending him, sometimes with a lance, sometimes with a sword, sometimes with other weapons, in a warlike manner and in accordance with the rules of military discipline."

We can hardly blame Edward of Lancaster for this mindset given his circumstances and his mother's obsession with vengeance (or, more charitably, with restoring the Lancastrian line, focusing on her son rather than her feeble husband, who was no doubt enjoying his stay in the Tower away from the cares of kingship), but I can't imagine his being happy at the prospect of marrying the daughter of his and his mother's longtime enemy, having as a father-in-law the man who had publicly challenged his paternity, or Anne being happy to marry him for similar reasons. And Anne must have wondered what would happen to her father if he won the battle against Edward IV. Would Margaret seek vengeance after using him to overthrow the "usurper"? And Richard of Gloucester, if he didn't die in the battle, would certainly have been executed as a traitor if Lancaster defeated York.

I imagine they were a very unhappy pair of adolescents on the day of their marriage. Their only consolation, if any, would have been shared misery.

Again, just my take, but surely we must consider their upbringing, their expectations, and the longtime bitter enmity of their parents in any consideration of this politically determined union.

Carol

Oh, that trunk, that trunk...

Hilary wrote:
> I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we
> never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>

But we don't know for certain about Anne's view of Edward of Lancaster. All that macho stuff might have made her toes curl and her eyes sparkle. Perhaps she clasped her hands aloft and breathed, Oh, my hero, my hero! OK, perhaps she saw him and was sick over his pointy little shoes. We just do not know. Their shared misery may have been a comfort, and we all now where a little bit of comfort can lead. So I reserve judgement on that particular marriage. And a teenager who was as warlike as he is said to have been, is quite likely to defy Mummy. IMHO anyway. I mean, what exactly was she going to do about it? He was the heir, she didn't have another one to substitute. I think he may have had her over a barrel. Mummy that is, not Anne, and figuratively speaking.

And, of course, Anne may have worshipped Richard from the outset, and never wavered. If it were me, I know which one I'd choose. And his name wasn't Edward.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's a difficult one; we know so little about EOL and that's all rumour as well. Anne and Richard must have been quite wary of getting attached to anyone, given the deaths of their loved ones in the previous decade.

Carol responds:

I wouldn't call what we know of him rumor. The bit about talking about cutting off heads (I omitted the part about "as if he if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle") is from a conversation between Louis XI and Duke John of Calabria, Margaret of Anjou's brother, neither of whom was likely to slander the duke's nephew. This description is corroborated by another from Chief Justice John Fortescue, who was in exile with Margaret and her son:

"The prince, as soon as he became grown up, gave himself over entirely to martial exercises; and, seated on fierce and half-tamed steeds urged on by his spurs, he often delighted in attacking and assaulting the young companions attending him, sometimes with a lance, sometimes with a sword, sometimes with other weapons, in a warlike manner and in accordance with the rules of military discipline."

We can hardly blame Edward of Lancaster for this mindset given his circumstances and his mother's obsession with vengeance (or, more charitably, with restoring the Lancastrian line, focusing on her son rather than her feeble husband, who was no doubt enjoying his stay in the Tower away from the cares of kingship), but I can't imagine his being happy at the prospect of marrying the daughter of his and his mother's longtime enemy, having as a father-in-law the man who had publicly challenged his paternity, or Anne being happy to marry him for similar reasons. And Anne must have wondered what would happen to her father if he won the battle against Edward IV. Would Margaret seek vengeance after using him to overthrow the "usurper"? And Richard of Gloucester, if he didn't die in the battle, would certainly have been executed as a traitor if Lancaster defeated York.

I imagine they were a very unhappy pair of adolescents on the day of their marriage. Their only consolation, if any, would have been shared misery.

Again, just my take, but surely we must consider their upbringing, their expectations, and the longtime bitter enmity of their parents in any consideration of this politically determined union.

Carol



.

I've said this before on here but I will say it again...the fact that Richard did not leave Westminster or Anne in the last few weeks of her life when he could easily have made excuses to be somewhere else speak volumes to me.......this fact leaves me in no doubt that he loved her.

When you consider how Fat Henry treated KoA in her last days....I believe there is a letter that survives where she says she longs for the sight of his face....!....I know, I know ....should have gone to Specsavers....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I believe the cookshop story - it's so odd it must be true. As I said to Carol, I think our Anne knew a good deal when she saw one and he was descibed as the second most handsome man in the kingdom (and now we've seen proof of that). I think there's little doubt their affection grew; it must have been one of the few stable things in a harsh world.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 18:22
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>
> How little we know about Anne's first marriage. If the kitchen maid story is true and Croyland mentions it so I'm inclined to believe it is, Anne run away from George and must have allowed her whereabouts to become known to Richard.... (who then took her to sanctuary) so this would indicate that she liked him and trusted him. I think it was probably as Hilary said, a marriage that suited them both but I get the impression that it was a successful marriage and happy as a lot of those marriages for convenience, dynasty etc., turn out to be....
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
> >
> >
> > The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> > Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
> >
> >
> > "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

  Six months is nothing when you have to marry someone who you have been brought up to despise probably.  If anyone was from the wrong side, it was Edward of Lancaster.  Anne was brought up as a Yorkist and then suddenly Dad does a volte face and gets her engaged to Eddie Lancaster.  She'd also known Richard as a child and even if she had no great opinion of him  one way or another at that time , she knew him and had been brought up to believe they were on the same side. 
 
Edward might have been a charming young man but we don't even know if the marriage was consummated - she was 14 and I think girls normally were a tad older than that when they moved out of the mother in law's house and in with hubby.  If she didn't live with him I doubt if she thought anything much when he died other than he was young, it was a shame but I expect she was far more concerned with the death of her father.    His death might have been hard to forgive but she did it.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:56
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 
Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen

Carol responds:

I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.

Carol

I mean Warwick's death might have been hard to forgive, of course.  And you could say it brought it on himself but I doubt if a 14 year old who just lost her father would see that.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 20:19
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 
  Six months is nothing when you have to marry someone who you have been brought up to despise probably.  If anyone was from the wrong side, it was Edward of Lancaster.  Anne was brought up as a Yorkist and then suddenly Dad does a volte face and gets her engaged to Eddie Lancaster.  She'd also known Richard as a child and even if she had no great opinion of him  one way or another at that time , she knew him and had been brought up to believe they were on the same side. 
 
Edward might have been a charming young man but we don't even know if the marriage was consummated - she was 14 and I think girls normally were a tad older than that when they moved out of the mother in law's house and in with hubby.  If she didn't live with him I doubt if she thought anything much when he died other than he was young, it was a shame but I expect she was far more concerned with the death of her father.    His death might have been hard to forgive but she did it.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:56
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 
Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen

Carol responds:

I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.

Carol

Anne must have been in such a turmoil.....things like this break you or make you strong. I would like to believe it made her feisty as in the kitchenmaid story. After all she was the Kingmaker's daughter...We can only surmise .....again....eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I mean Warwick's death might have been hard to forgive, of course.  And you could say it brought it on himself but I doubt if a 14 year old who just lost her father would see that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 20:19
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>   Six months is nothing when you have to marry someone who you have been brought up to despise probably.  If anyone was from the wrong side, it was Edward of Lancaster.  Anne was brought up as a Yorkist and then suddenly Dad does a volte face and gets her engaged to Eddie Lancaster.  She'd also known Richard as a child and even if she had no great opinion of him  one way or another at that time , she knew him and had been brought up to believe they were on the same side. 
>  
> Edward might have been a charming young man but we don't even know if the marriage was consummated - she was 14 and I think girls normally were a tad older than that when they moved out of the mother in law's house and in with hubby.  If she didn't live with him I doubt if she thought anything much when he died other than he was young, it was a shame but I expect she was far more concerned with the death of her father.    His death might have been hard to forgive but she did it.
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:56
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dominatrix?
 
Alison




-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:22
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

  Indeed, is there any niche for a female character between Dragon and Doormat?
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Some of her points are worth considering - after all Anne probably wasn't a namby pampy ninny

but equally why should she be some kind of she wolf? Why do people always have to go to such extremes?

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:29
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

With a parrot? It shows to what lengths people will go to to make money - and unfortunately Richard is yet again a money-maker for the unscrupulous. Shakespeare lives; the truth is so much more boring.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>;
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"; <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>;
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

Maybe is was a mass of Plantagenets storming the Tower, dressed as Monty Python troupe, oh wait, Monty Python troupe dressed as Royals.

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>; wrote:

So now it's Anne who did away with the Princes? For crying out loud.

________________________________
From: Jan Mulrenan <mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com<mailto:janmulrenan%40btinternet.com>>;
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"; <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>;
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 20:18
Subject: Amy Licence at it again

Anne Neville gets the treatment; isn't this a rehash of her latest book?

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/06/passive-pawn-or-lady-macbeth-who-was-richard-iiis-queen

Jan.







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I mean Warwick's death might have been hard to forgive, of course.  And you could say it brought it on himself but I doubt if a 14 year old who just lost her father would see that.

Carol responds:

I think Anne must have been terribly torn. On the one hand, she probably loved her father. On the other hand, she knew that he had turned against the cousin (Edward IV) whom he had helped to put on the throne and had served faithfully at first and then perhaps grudgingly after the embarrassment of the Bona of Savoy negotiations having been all for nothing. Warwick would have made no secret of his resentment of the Woodville marriage. (I'm assuming that he knew nothing of Eleanor Butler or he'd never have negotiated for a different marriage.) Still, however angry he was, Anne must have been shocked when he turned traitor and planned not only to fight Edward (which would also mean fighting Richard) but to marry her to the boy whose father Warwick had always fought to keep *off* the throne. At the very least, her father (and later, her uncle, John Neville, Marquis of Montagu) intended to fight, depose, and kill her cousin, Edward (which would also mean death to her cousin Richard). And, if he failed, Edward would have to kill him (and Uncle John) or at least imprison them for life. It could not have been a happy prospect. But I don't see how she could be angry with Edward IV (or Richard) for defending the kingdom against her father and his Lancastrian allies. Anne was young, but there's no indication that she was naive or stupid. Now, granted, Edward had treated the Nevilles rather shabbily, but he had done nothing to justify deposition and death. The fault, or most of it, lay with Warwick, and however much she loved her father, Anne must have known that.

Carol

I guess it means nothing that the doctors had to tell Richard to stay out of Anne's bed after she became sick, which basically means the entire court knew they had a habit of sleeping together -- at least when he was king.

His actions after her death (Ashdown-Hill nailed it for me), seems to be that all that's left to him is duty. Then again, maybe that was his attitude before her death as well.

At least we know they were both almost mad with grief at the death of their son, so perhaps they are allowed some small proof to have loved him, if not each other?

If his treatment of Anne was half so tolerant as his treatment of Margaret of Beaufort...oh, never mind. It's not chronicled, so let's just call it a marriage of convenience to secure Richard's power in the North and Anne's luck to marry a prince of the blood. Never call it love, regardless the Duke of Gloucester could have had any woman in the kingdom for his wife instead of the widow of the son of the House of York's greatest enemy at the time.

However, I have to wonder at a man who let his mother-in-law live in the same castle as he did. Maybe he had more affection for Anne's mother than he did for Anne. Or maybe he was just a masochist.

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

At the risk of prolonging the argument the Duke of Gloucester couldn't have any woman he fancied could he? He would be expected to make a dynastic marriage, even a foreign one. Look at John of Gaunt, H4's daughter, H5. Love for a King and his family had nothing to do with it. In fact when two of them, E4 and H8, broke the mold it was with disasterous consequences. I'm not saying he might not have grown to love her; I'm saying I doubt it was a love match.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 0:15
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 

I guess it means nothing that the doctors had to tell Richard to stay out of Anne's bed after she became sick, which basically means the entire court knew they had a habit of sleeping together -- at least when he was king.

His actions after her death (Ashdown-Hill nailed it for me), seems to be that all that's left to him is duty. Then again, maybe that was his attitude before her death as well.

At least we know they were both almost mad with grief at the death of their son, so perhaps they are allowed some small proof to have loved him, if not each other?

If his treatment of Anne was half so tolerant as his treatment of Margaret of Beaufort...oh, never mind. It's not chronicled, so let's just call it a marriage of convenience to secure Richard's power in the North and Anne's luck to marry a prince of the blood. Never call it love, regardless the Duke of Gloucester could have had any woman in the kingdom for his wife instead of the widow of the son of the House of York's greatest enemy at the time.

However, I have to wonder at a man who let his mother-in-law live in the same castle as he did. Maybe he had more affection for Anne's mother than he did for Anne. Or maybe he was just a masochist.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

It depends what you mean by 'a love match'.  In 21st century lives, a love match implies something passionate etc, but in Medieval lives, marriage among the wealthy was more of 'business' contract involving transfers of land and wealth.  Often the couple had never met or their ages were significantly different.  In Richard's and Anne's case, they did know each other and their ages were compatible.  He had lived as part of the household and presumably they had seen each other in good times and bad, when things were going well or when one or other of them was in trouble over something.  They were also cousins, with a large number of relatives in common.  In many respects, they had a shared upbringing - at least as far as it was possible bearing in mind the different activities of different sexes.

I think it's possible to think of it as a love match, in Medieval terms, if not 21st century terms.  They were probably comfortable with each other.  They had a lot of shared memories to mull over.  She had gone through a terrible time what with the Lancaster marriage, the death of her father and the actions of George.  He had an opportunity to act the knight and rescue her from that.  She lived in familiar surroundings after their marriage.  He seems to have provided for her and her mother and there was a child they both loved.

In those terms, I think it was a match where love was involved from the beginning.  


________________________________
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:




 
At the risk of prolonging the argument the Duke of Gloucester couldn't have any woman he fancied could he? He would be expected to make a dynastic marriage, even a foreign one. Look at John of Gaunt, H4's daughter, H5. Love for a King and his family had nothing to do with it. In fact when two of them, E4 and H8, broke the mold it was with disasterous consequences. I'm not saying he might not have grown to love her; I'm saying I doubt it was a love match.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 0:15
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 

I guess it means nothing that the doctors had to tell Richard to stay out of Anne's bed after she became sick, which basically means the entire court knew they had a habit of sleeping together -- at least when he was king.

His actions after her death (Ashdown-Hill nailed it for me), seems to be that all that's left to him is duty. Then again, maybe that was his attitude before her death as well.

At least we know they were both almost mad with grief at the death of their son, so perhaps they are allowed some small proof to have loved him, if not each other?

If his treatment of Anne was half so tolerant as his treatment of Margaret of Beaufort...oh, never mind. It's not chronicled, so let's just call it a marriage of convenience to secure Richard's power in the North and Anne's luck to marry a prince of the blood. Never call it love, regardless the Duke of Gloucester could have had any woman in the kingdom for his wife instead of the widow of the son of the House of York's greatest enemy at the time.

However, I have to wonder at a man who let his mother-in-law live in the same castle as he did. Maybe he had more affection for Anne's mother than he did for Anne. Or maybe he was just a masochist.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry - my last sentence should have had the addition of 'from the beginning'.



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 9:14
Subject: Re: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 

It depends what you mean by 'a love match'.  In 21st century lives, a love match implies something passionate etc, but in Medieval lives, marriage among the wealthy was more of 'business' contract involving transfers of land and wealth.  Often the couple had never met or their ages were significantly different.  In Richard's and Anne's case, they did know each other and their ages were compatible.  He had lived as part of the household and presumably they had seen each other in good times and bad, when things were going well or when one or other of them was in trouble over something.  They were also cousins, with a large number of relatives in common.  In many respects, they had a shared upbringing - at least as far as it was possible bearing in mind the different activities of different sexes.

I think it's possible to think of it as a love match, in Medieval terms, if not 21st century terms.  They were probably comfortable with each other.  They had a lot of shared memories to mull over.  She had gone through a terrible time what with the Lancaster marriage, the death of her father and the actions of George.  He had an opportunity to act the knight and rescue her from that.  She lived in familiar surroundings after their marriage.  He seems to have provided for her and her mother and there was a child they both loved.

In those terms, I think it was a match where love was involved from the beginning.  

________________________________
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
At the risk of prolonging the argument the Duke of Gloucester couldn't have any woman he fancied could he? He would be expected to make a dynastic marriage, even a foreign one. Look at John of Gaunt, H4's daughter, H5. Love for a King and his family had nothing to do with it. In fact when two of them, E4 and H8, broke the mold it was with disasterous consequences. I'm not saying he might not have grown to love her; I'm saying I doubt it was a love match.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 0:15
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 

I guess it means nothing that the doctors had to tell Richard to stay out of Anne's bed after she became sick, which basically means the entire court knew they had a habit of sleeping together -- at least when he was king.

His actions after her death (Ashdown-Hill nailed it for me), seems to be that all that's left to him is duty. Then again, maybe that was his attitude before her death as well.

At least we know they were both almost mad with grief at the death of their son, so perhaps they are allowed some small proof to have loved him, if not each other?

If his treatment of Anne was half so tolerant as his treatment of Margaret of Beaufort...oh, never mind. It's not chronicled, so let's just call it a marriage of convenience to secure Richard's power in the North and Anne's luck to marry a prince of the blood. Never call it love, regardless the Duke of Gloucester could have had any woman in the kingdom for his wife instead of the widow of the son of the House of York's greatest enemy at the time.

However, I have to wonder at a man who let his mother-in-law live in the same castle as he did. Maybe he had more affection for Anne's mother than he did for Anne. Or maybe he was just a masochist.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>  
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

What has turned you ladies Hilary, Sandra, so cynical?
As for between the sheets, I have no doubt Margaret of Anjou would have
allowed no union until the crown was back on her head and Warwick had
kept his part of the deal.
Anne as actress? For how long? 71 - 84? No way.
Paul


On 12/06/2013 17:56, SandraMachin wrote:
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>>
>> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thank you Carol. Sensible and probably accurate reading.
Paul

On 12/06/2013 18:02, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
> Carol responds:
>
> We do have Richard's statement to the mayor and citizens after Anne's death as reported by the Mercers:
>
> "[I]n a loud and distinct voice," he "showed his grief and displeasure [at her death and the rumors that he intended to marry EoY] and said it never came into his thought or mind to marry in such manner wise, nor willing nor glad of the death of his queen but as sorry and in heart as heavy as man might be." Sounds to me as if he loved her.
>
> And there's also his promise to require the husbands he found for EW's daughters "lovingly to love them" or suffer his displeasure.
>
> Yes, the marriage was to both parties' advantage, but Warwick had apparently already provided them with the necessary papal dispensation long before (per Marie) and they must have expected--and wanted--to marry. It would be easy, under those circumstances, especially given that they already knew each other, to fall in love either before or after marriage.
>
> I suspect that Anne was miserable in being required to marry her father's former enemy, Edward of Lancaster, but submitted to that marriage as a dynastic or political necessity. Her marriage to Richard, as much her choice as his, would have been altogether different.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Reading too much Hicks and Amy Licence! A agree with you about MA though; when the crown was back on her head I wonder whether there would have been an annulment to find Edward a higher status bride?



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 10:54
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again


 

What has turned you ladies Hilary, Sandra, so cynical?
As for between the sheets, I have no doubt Margaret of Anjou would have
allowed no union until the crown was back on her head and Warwick had
kept his part of the deal.
Anne as actress? For how long? 71 - 84? No way.
Paul

On 12/06/2013 17:56, SandraMachin wrote:
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 17:16
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>>
>> We do know though on occasions that have come down to us, such as the news being brought to them of EofM's death (Nottingham), Anne's last Christmas and her illness (Westminster Palace) that they were together on these occasions...was it simply coincidence that they were together on these occasions? Plus Middleham is known as Richard's favourite home, correct me if I am wrong on that, where his son lived and died and I would have thought that where her son was there you would have found Anne at least prior to Richard being offered the crown. All in all IMHO it looks to me as if yes, Richard and Anne spent a good deal of their time together.....Eileen
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree with you. We can account for most of Richard's absences from home, such as the Scottish campaign. Anne may have spent some time with their son at Middleham but, as you say, she was with Richard at Nottingham when they heard of their son's death and would have had no reason to leave his side between then and her death. It seems likely that Anne was with Richard at his nephew Richard's wedding and returned to Middleham with him after George's execution and again when Margaret of York came to visit (and futilely request aid from Edward). Unless one or the other had a reason to be absent, they would surely have been together. The fact that Richard had Anne crowned with him suggests that he did indeed think of her as his equal (as suggested in the chivalric manuals) to the extent that equality was possible in their society.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Aw, come on, Paul, don't tell me you haven't got a teensy-weensy little bit of cynicism buried deep? And yes, a woman can act for a hell of a long time if she has to. No, that's not me speaking from experience, it's me speaking of others I know. I still suspect there was some hanky-panky between Anne and Edward of Lancaster. And if lovers want to get together when they shouldn't, they will. I do not know of any record that has them locked up 24/7 in separate cells. She might indeed have loved Richard all along, but fierce sexual attraction to another can still strike out of nowhere. Especially when all those teenage hormones are boiling and bubbling. Being 14 or so in the 15th century means she was old enough to know what was what. And what to do with it! Sooo... I'm sticking to my cynical guns, and am now lowering my impudent head below the parapet, because I just know you're reaching for that rifle. <grin>

From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

What has turned you ladies Hilary, Sandra, so cynical?
As for between the sheets, I have no doubt Margaret of Anjou would have
allowed no union until the crown was back on her head and Warwick had
kept his part of the deal.
Anne as actress? For how long? 71 - 84? No way.
Paul

On 12/06/2013 17:56, SandraMachin wrote:
> Perhaps Anne liked Richard well enough, but preferred her first husband? How long was she married to the Lancastrian Prince of Wales? Six months or so? Long enough for him to win her over between the sheets. He must have been hale and hearty enough, as was Richard, of course, as they both fought at Tewkesbury. And Richard was on a wrong side then. The side that did away with her prince. Hard to completely forgive. So, if she did indeed like her prince more than her duke, it would depend upon how good an actress she was.
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:32 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again
>
>
> The crowning I don't buy. Going back to Eddie 3 no king had been married when he was crowned, simple as that. And the next would be H8 and Catherine of Aragon! As for their relationship I honestly don't know - I was merely quoting Hicks. At the risk of all your wrath I see it very much as a dynastic marriage which suited both parties. They may have grown to love one another (as did Eddie 3 and Philippa) but there's no proof of the passion that Edward had for EW or the grief of George for Isabel. They would naturally grieve at the loss of a child who was also the only heir. I just don't know and unless that trunk is found in the attic, I guess we never will. Sorry, I'm hard-hearted!
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Dear, dear, I find myself defending Hicks!:) I think what he's saying (not
me) is that there is no proof they did a lot together. But he does go on to
say there's little about Anne Beauchamp and her thirty-five year old
marriage to Warwick. Unless you were the Queen I doubt many would track you.
But the only extant 'deed' of Anne is her recommendation that someone should
be given a parish. And she did have her own very generous 'allowance' for
clothes (and he quotes the cloth etc) so at least Richard didn't keep her in
rags. I doubt much of this setup changed for the next four hundred years, in
fact insofaras the wealthy were concerned, into the first part of the
twentieth century. Hidden away in there somewhere though is the point that
she was not high profile like, say, MB."

Doug here:
Sorry about forcing you to defend Hicks!
Seriously though, why would Hicks, or any "historian", think there *should*
be such proof? Wouldn't the usual expenses associated with being a Duchess,
or a Queen, come under ducal, or Royal, expenses anyway? Were
Ladies-in-Waiting paid, or was their only recompense the status of *being* a
"Lady-in-Waiting"?
Actually, what it boils down to is did the Queen have her own household;
with Chamberlains, etc? If she did, then there should be accounts
(somewhere!) that mentions providing funds to pay the people in those
positions. If, on the other hand, Anne *didn't* have a separate Household,
there wouldn't be accounts that to show, one way or the other, whether or
not Anne and Richard spent their time together or apart.
Would there?
Doug

It's down no doubt to that old problem that they were not on the throne for long and no doubt some records were scuppered. H7 and MB did well to obliterate Richard and Anne's gifts to Queen's College Cambridge for example. We know more about EW because she was high profile for longer - simple as that.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 16:43
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Dear, dear, I find myself defending Hicks!:) I think what he's saying (not
me) is that there is no proof they did a lot together. But he does go on to
say there's little about Anne Beauchamp and her thirty-five year old
marriage to Warwick. Unless you were the Queen I doubt many would track you.
But the only extant 'deed' of Anne is her recommendation that someone should
be given a parish. And she did have her own very generous 'allowance' for
clothes (and he quotes the cloth etc) so at least Richard didn't keep her in
rags. I doubt much of this setup changed for the next four hundred years, in
fact insofaras the wealthy were concerned, into the first part of the
twentieth century. Hidden away in there somewhere though is the point that
she was not high profile like, say, MB."

Doug here:
Sorry about forcing you to defend Hicks!
Seriously though, why would Hicks, or any "historian", think there *should*
be such proof? Wouldn't the usual expenses associated with being a Duchess,
or a Queen, come under ducal, or Royal, expenses anyway? Were
Ladies-in-Waiting paid, or was their only recompense the status of *being* a
"Lady-in-Waiting"?
Actually, what it boils down to is did the Queen have her own household;
with Chamberlains, etc? If she did, then there should be accounts
(somewhere!) that mentions providing funds to pay the people in those
positions. If, on the other hand, Anne *didn't* have a separate Household,
there wouldn't be accounts that to show, one way or the other, whether or
not Anne and Richard spent their time together or apart.
Would there?
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:

"It's down no doubt to that old problem that they were not on the throne for
long and no doubt some records were scuppered. H7 and MB did well to
obliterate Richard and Anne's gifts to Queen's College Cambridge for
example. We know more about EW because she was high profile for longer -
simple as that."

So, once again, Hicks is stating something as a fact that is, at best, a
conjecture on his part.
Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Doug



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 16:43
Subject: Re: Amy Licence at it again




Hilary Jones wrote:

"Dear, dear, I find myself defending Hicks!:) I think what he's saying (not
me) is that there is no proof they did a lot together. But he does go on to
say there's little about Anne Beauchamp and her thirty-five year old
marriage to Warwick. Unless you were the Queen I doubt many would track you.
But the only extant 'deed' of Anne is her recommendation that someone should
be given a parish. And she did have her own very generous 'allowance' for
clothes (and he quotes the cloth etc) so at least Richard didn't keep her in
rags. I doubt much of this setup changed for the next four hundred years, in
fact insofaras the wealthy were concerned, into the first part of the
twentieth century. Hidden away in there somewhere though is the point that
she was not high profile like, say, MB."

Doug here:
Sorry about forcing you to defend Hicks!
Seriously though, why would Hicks, or any "historian", think there *should*
be such proof? Wouldn't the usual expenses associated with being a Duchess,
or a Queen, come under ducal, or Royal, expenses anyway? Were
Ladies-in-Waiting paid, or was their only recompense the status of *being* a
"Lady-in-Waiting"?
Actually, what it boils down to is did the Queen have her own household;
with Chamberlains, etc? If she did, then there should be accounts
(somewhere!) that mentions providing funds to pay the people in those
positions. If, on the other hand, Anne *didn't* have a separate Household,
there wouldn't be accounts that to show, one way or the other, whether or
not Anne and Richard spent their time together or apart.
Would there?
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links