Re: Anne Neville

Regarding Anne and Richard's marriage, didn't some contemporary (John
Howard, Duke of Norfolk?) describe him as "uxorious"? Norfolk, if
it was he who said it, made other mildly critical remarks about
Richard, so he probably meant it as "hen-pecked" but it can also mean
very devoted to one's wife...to some men the two meanings are
synonymous.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Regarding Anne and Richard's marriage, didn't some contemporary
(John
> Howard, Duke of Norfolk?) describe him as "uxorious"? Norfolk, if
> it was he who said it, made other mildly critical remarks about
> Richard, so he probably meant it as "hen-pecked" but it can also
mean
> very devoted to one's wife...to some men the two meanings are
> synonymous.
>
> Katy

Sorry, can only recall some non-contemporary (Bacon?) describing
Henry VII as "not uxorious".

Will that possibly do?

Marie

Katy asked:
> Regarding Anne and Richard's marriage, didn't some
contemporary (John > Howard, Duke of Norfolk?)
describe him as "uxorious"? Norfolk, if
> it was he who said it, made other mildly critical
remarks about > Richard, so he probably meant it as
"hen-pecked" but it can also mean
very devoted to one's wife...to some men the two
meanings are synonymous.
>
> Katy

Marie wrote: Sorry, can only recall some
non-contemporary (Bacon?) describing Henry VII as "not
uxorious".

Will that possibly do?

***

Francis Bacon described Henry VII this way:

"Towards his Queen he was nothing uxorious, nor scarce
indulgent, but companiable and respective, and without
jealousy. Towards his children he was full of
paternal affection, careful of their education,
aspiring to their high advancement, regular to see
that they should not want of any due honour and
respect, but not greatly willing to cast any popular
lustre upon them."

(The History of the Reign of King Henry VII and
selected works, Francis Bacon; ed. by Brian Vickers.
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. Series: Cambridge Texts
in the History of Political Thought)

This edition has a glossary, which is supposed to help
readers understand how words have changed in meaning
since Bacon wrote.

The two words which appear in the glossary from this
passage are:

uxorious: devoted to one's wife

respective: considerate


"Nothing" isn't in the glossary, so there's nothing
[sorry] to tell readers if "nothing uxorious" gives
more emphasis to the negative than "not uxorious"
would give. As in:

"Towards his Queen he was [anything but] [devoted to
his wife], nor scarce indulgent, but companiable and
[considerate], and without jealousy."

This sounds contradictory to me. But my
interpretation of "companiable and considerate" is
probably warmer than Bacon's and his contemporaries.

My interpretation is that Bacon is saying Henry VII
treated Elizabeth by the etiquette book, coolly and
correctly, at least in public.

Having read "The Queen's Mother," Michael Jones' and
Malcolm G. Underwood's biography of Lady Margaret
Beaufort, I feel Henry had little or no reason to be
jealous. Apparently Lady Margaret had Elizabeth
firmly under surveillance. Jones and Underwood write
that Lady Margaret seems to have gone over Elizabeth's
household servants' list and approved or dismissed
whoever she wanted to.

Katy, can you tell us where to find Norfolk's other
criticisms of Richard? The little I've read about him
so far makes him sound as if he had no criticisms of
Richard. So I'd be glad to know about anything that
would balance those brief sentences.

TIA!

Marion









__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Katy asked:
> > Regarding Anne and Richard's marriage, didn't some
> contemporary (John > Howard, Duke of Norfolk?)
> describe him as "uxorious"? Norfolk, if
> > it was he who said it, made other mildly critical
> remarks about > Richard, so he probably meant it as
> "hen-pecked" but it can also mean
> very devoted to one's wife...to some men the two
> meanings are synonymous.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Marie wrote: Sorry, can only recall some
> non-contemporary (Bacon?) describing Henry VII as "not
> uxorious".
>
> Will that possibly do?
>
> ***
>
> Francis Bacon described Henry VII this way:
>
> "Towards his Queen he was nothing uxorious, nor scarce
> indulgent, but companiable and respective, and without
> jealousy. Towards his children he was full of
> paternal affection, careful of their education,
> aspiring to their high advancement, regular to see
> that they should not want of any due honour and
> respect, but not greatly willing to cast any popular
> lustre upon them."
>
> (The History of the Reign of King Henry VII and
> selected works, Francis Bacon; ed. by Brian Vickers.
> Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. Series: Cambridge Texts
> in the History of Political Thought)
>
> This edition has a glossary, which is supposed to help
> readers understand how words have changed in meaning
> since Bacon wrote.
>
> The two words which appear in the glossary from this
> passage are:
>
> uxorious: devoted to one's wife
>
> respective: considerate
>
>
> "Nothing" isn't in the glossary, so there's nothing
> [sorry] to tell readers if "nothing uxorious" gives
> more emphasis to the negative than "not uxorious"
> would give. As in:
>
> "Towards his Queen he was [anything but] [devoted to
> his wife], nor scarce indulgent, but companiable and
> [considerate], and without jealousy."
>
> This sounds contradictory to me. But my
> interpretation of "companiable and considerate" is
> probably warmer than Bacon's and his contemporaries.
>
> My interpretation is that Bacon is saying Henry VII
> treated Elizabeth by the etiquette book, coolly and
> correctly, at least in public.
>
> Having read "The Queen's Mother," Michael Jones' and
> Malcolm G. Underwood's biography of Lady Margaret
> Beaufort, I feel Henry had little or no reason to be
> jealous. Apparently Lady Margaret had Elizabeth
> firmly under surveillance. Jones and Underwood write
> that Lady Margaret seems to have gone over Elizabeth's
> household servants' list and approved or dismissed
> whoever she wanted to.
>
> Katy, can you tell us where to find Norfolk's other
> criticisms of Richard? The little I've read about him
> so far makes him sound as if he had no criticisms of
> Richard. So I'd be glad to know about anything that
> would balance those brief sentences.
>
> TIA!

I don't have my still-missing notes (I've packed and moved four times
since collecting them) but Norfolk wrote to someone, possibly his
wife, that he wanted to keep Christmas at home, but "old Dick" had
other plans for him and was keeping him busy. Norfilk was older than
Richard, so the "old Dick" business sounds like a wry comment.

Katy
> Marion

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Katy asked:
> > > Regarding Anne and Richard's marriage, didn't some
> > contemporary (John > Howard, Duke of Norfolk?)
> > describe him as "uxorious"? Norfolk, if
> > > it was he who said it, made other mildly critical
> > remarks about > Richard, so he probably meant it as
> > "hen-pecked" but it can also mean
> > very devoted to one's wife...to some men the two
> > meanings are synonymous.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Marie wrote: Sorry, can only recall some
> > non-contemporary (Bacon?) describing Henry VII as "not
> > uxorious".
> >
> > Will that possibly do?
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Francis Bacon described Henry VII this way:
> >
> > "Towards his Queen he was nothing uxorious, nor scarce
> > indulgent, but companiable and respective, and without
> > jealousy. Towards his children he was full of
> > paternal affection, careful of their education,
> > aspiring to their high advancement, regular to see
> > that they should not want of any due honour and
> > respect, but not greatly willing to cast any popular
> > lustre upon them."
> >
> > (The History of the Reign of King Henry VII and
> > selected works, Francis Bacon; ed. by Brian Vickers.
> > Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. Series: Cambridge Texts
> > in the History of Political Thought)
> >
> > This edition has a glossary, which is supposed to help
> > readers understand how words have changed in meaning
> > since Bacon wrote.
> >
> > The two words which appear in the glossary from this
> > passage are:
> >
> > uxorious: devoted to one's wife
> >
> > respective: considerate
> >
> >
> > "Nothing" isn't in the glossary, so there's nothing
> > [sorry] to tell readers if "nothing uxorious" gives
> > more emphasis to the negative than "not uxorious"
> > would give. As in:
> >
> > "Towards his Queen he was [anything but] [devoted to
> > his wife], nor scarce indulgent, but companiable and
> > [considerate], and without jealousy."
> >
> > This sounds contradictory to me. But my
> > interpretation of "companiable and considerate" is
> > probably warmer than Bacon's and his contemporaries.
> >
> > My interpretation is that Bacon is saying Henry VII
> > treated Elizabeth by the etiquette book, coolly and
> > correctly, at least in public.
> >
> > Having read "The Queen's Mother," Michael Jones' and
> > Malcolm G. Underwood's biography of Lady Margaret
> > Beaufort, I feel Henry had little or no reason to be
> > jealous. Apparently Lady Margaret had Elizabeth
> > firmly under surveillance. Jones and Underwood write
> > that Lady Margaret seems to have gone over Elizabeth's
> > household servants' list and approved or dismissed
> > whoever she wanted to.
> >
> > Katy, can you tell us where to find Norfolk's other
> > criticisms of Richard? The little I've read about him
> > so far makes him sound as if he had no criticisms of
> > Richard. So I'd be glad to know about anything that
> > would balance those brief sentences.
> >
> > TIA!
>
> I don't have my still-missing notes (I've packed and moved four
times
> since collecting them) but Norfolk wrote to someone, possibly his
> wife, that he wanted to keep Christmas at home, but "old Dick" had
> other plans for him and was keeping him busy. Norfilk was older
than
> Richard, so the "old Dick" business sounds like a wry comment.
>
> Katy
> > Marion

Ah! This comes from a letter from Sir William Stanley to a mate
(forget name) in Cheshire (owner of Arley nearby me), excusing
himself for failing to accept invitation to hunt there because he
couldn't get leave from 'Old Dyk'. Unfortunately, as Michael Jones
pointed out some years back, the letter was written in September from
a manor that Sir W. didn't acquire until December 1484, so a very
quick computation shows Old Dyk cannot have been Richard III -
suggestion that it could have been an old dyke on the estate, on
which much work taking place, but I am unconvinced.
But not Norfolk.
And not Richard III.
And I am sure, no extant letter from Norfolk saying RIII was
uxorious, nice though that would be - I mentioned the Henry VII/
Bacon negative version as I feel it is probably the root of
Katy's 'memory' of same.
Something like my 'memory' of non-existant Anna Comnena.
As far as I am aware, nothing from Norfolk other than what is in his
household book and possibly Paston Letters. Stand to be proved wrong.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't have my still-missing notes (I've packed and moved four
> times
> > since collecting them) but Norfolk wrote to someone, possibly his
> > wife, that he wanted to keep Christmas at home, but "old Dick"
had
> > other plans for him and was keeping him busy. Norfilk was older
> than
> > Richard, so the "old Dick" business sounds like a wry comment.
> >
> > Katy
> > > Marion
>
> Ah! This comes from a letter from Sir William Stanley to a mate
> (forget name) in Cheshire (owner of Arley nearby me), excusing
> himself for failing to accept invitation to hunt there because he
> couldn't get leave from 'Old Dyk'. Unfortunately, as Michael Jones
> pointed out some years back, the letter was written in September
from
> a manor that Sir W. didn't acquire until December 1484, so a very
> quick computation shows Old Dyk cannot have been Richard III -
> suggestion that it could have been an old dyke on the estate, on
> which much work taking place, but I am unconvinced.
> But not Norfolk.
> And not Richard III.
> And I am sure, no extant letter from Norfolk saying RIII was
> uxorious, nice though that would be - I mentioned the Henry VII/
> Bacon negative version as I feel it is probably the root of
> Katy's 'memory' of same.
> Something like my 'memory' of non-existant Anna Comnena.
> As far as I am aware, nothing from Norfolk other than what is in
his
> household book and possibly Paston Letters. Stand to be proved
wrong.
>
> Marie

Ah, thank you, Marie. I misremembered who wrote the letter to whom,
but I do recall that the author of whatever book I read it in
definitely thought the old Dick in question was Richard, because he
mentioned that the writer (Stanley, it turns out) was older than
Richard. Which just goes to show you once again that 1) I can't
trust my memory of what I read ten or twenty years ago and 2) things
taken out of context (when and where the letter was written, much
less by whom) are unreliable, because the writer I got it from either
didn't research it as wel as Marie did, or chose to ignore
inconvenient facts.

Okay, here's something else I think I remember: wasn't it remarked
upon (meaning it was remarkable and not the norm) that after the
Corpus Christi service at York, or a service into which one or both
was inducted into a Corpus Christi group, Richard and Anne
waledthrough the streets holding hands?

Katy

> >
> Ah, thank you, Marie. I misremembered who wrote the letter to
whom,
> but I do recall that the author of whatever book I read it in
> definitely thought the old Dick in question was Richard, because he
> mentioned that the writer (Stanley, it turns out) was older than
> Richard. Which just goes to show you once again that 1) I can't
> trust my memory of what I read ten or twenty years ago and 2)
things
> taken out of context (when and where the letter was written, much
> less by whom) are unreliable, because the writer I got it from
either
> didn't research it as wel as Marie did, or chose to ignore
> inconvenient facts.
>
> Okay, here's something else I think I remember: wasn't it remarked
> upon (meaning it was remarkable and not the norm) that after the
> Corpus Christi service at York, or a service into which one or both
> was inducted into a Corpus Christi group, Richard and Anne
> waledthrough the streets holding hands?

As it happens this is very fresh in my memory as I've just been
reading about it in Joanna Laynesmith's book. They walked through the
streets together holding their son by the hand. Even if you dismiss
it as evidence of lovey-doveyness, it does show that Richard accorded
Anne a major part in the secular end of the proceedings.

By the by, my memory is also clear on the 'Old Dyk' thing as it came
up on this forum some months ago, so with another lister's help we
hunted out Jones' published note on this in an old Ricardian. Until
that came out Stanley's letter was often used in evidence of
Richard's personality. But these things take on a life of their own
once in print, and I see it's now being revived again by writers of
recent books who've obviously either not read, or have forgotten,
Jones' work on the subject.

It's frightening how much even serious historians just copy each
other, often copying each other's mistakes.

Marie
>
> Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, here's something else I think I remember: wasn't it
remarked
> > upon (meaning it was remarkable and not the norm) that after the
> > Corpus Christi service at York, or a service into which one or
both
> > was inducted into a Corpus Christi group, Richard and Anne
> > waledthrough the streets holding hands?
>
> As it happens this is very fresh in my memory as I've just been
> reading about it in Joanna Laynesmith's book. They walked through
the
> streets together holding their son by the hand. Even if you dismiss
> it as evidence of lovey-doveyness, it does show that Richard
accorded
> Anne a major part in the secular end of the proceedings.
>
> >
> > Katy

IIRC this wasn't the Corpus Christi parade, it was the inauguration
of Edward of Middleham as Prince of Wales in Sept 1483 at York. I
think I read that Anne was holding Edward's hand, but I don't think
Richard held his son's hand.

Am I right in thinking the original sources for this are the York
City Council records and a mention by Rous?

Back to the Anne Neville article - which issue of BBC History
magazine was it in? When did it come out? I've looked in lots of
newsagents from W H Smith downwards but can't find a copy. Do you
think it's sold out and it's too late to get one?

Joanne

--- In , "jotwo2003"
<jsummerill@s...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Okay, here's something else I think I remember: wasn't it
> remarked
> > > upon (meaning it was remarkable and not the norm) that after
the
> > > Corpus Christi service at York, or a service into which one or
> both
> > > was inducted into a Corpus Christi group, Richard and Anne
> > > waledthrough the streets holding hands?
> >
> > As it happens this is very fresh in my memory as I've just been
> > reading about it in Joanna Laynesmith's book. They walked through
> the
> > streets together holding their son by the hand. Even if you
dismiss
> > it as evidence of lovey-doveyness, it does show that Richard
> accorded
> > Anne a major part in the secular end of the proceedings.
> >
> > >
> > > Katy
>
> IIRC this wasn't the Corpus Christi parade, it was the inauguration
> of Edward of Middleham as Prince of Wales in Sept 1483 at York. I
> think I read that Anne was holding Edward's hand, but I don't think
> Richard held his son's hand.

You're right. I read this very quickly this am before starting work,
and didn't notice Katy said Corpus Xi.
>
> Am I right in thinking the original sources for this are the York
> City Council records and a mention by Rous?
>
> Back to the Anne Neville article - which issue of BBC History
> magazine was it in? When did it come out? I've looked in lots of
> newsagents from W H Smith downwards but can't find a copy. Do you
> think it's sold out and it's too late to get one?

It is the March issue, so you should definitely still get; I first
saw it a week ago. I got mine from WH Smith. You won't see Anne
Neville's name on the cover though - just "The Lost Queen".

Marie
>
> Joanne

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "jotwo2003"
> <jsummerill@s...> wrote:
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, here's something else I think I remember: wasn't it
> > remarked
> > > > upon (meaning it was remarkable and not the norm) that after
> the
> > > > Corpus Christi service at York, or a service into which one
or
> > both
> > > > was inducted into a Corpus Christi group, Richard and Anne
> > > > waledthrough the streets holding hands?
> > >
> > > As it happens this is very fresh in my memory as I've just been
> > > reading about it in Joanna Laynesmith's book. They walked
through
> > the
> > > streets together holding their son by the hand. Even if you
> dismiss
> > > it as evidence of lovey-doveyness, it does show that Richard
> > accorded
> > > Anne a major part in the secular end of the proceedings.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> >
> > IIRC this wasn't the Corpus Christi parade, it was the
inauguration
> > of Edward of Middleham as Prince of Wales in Sept 1483 at York.
I
> > think I read that Anne was holding Edward's hand, but I don't
think
> > Richard held his son's hand.
>
> You're right. I read this very quickly this am before starting
work,
> and didn't notice Katy said Corpus Xi.

To add to this - when I said "you're right" I meant about the
occasion, not that Richard didn't hold the Prince's hand. I was going
by Laynesmith, who writes: "... a procession through the streets of
York - at which she and Richard, both wearing their crowns, led their
son by the hand."
However, it looks as though you may well be right as well about
Richard not holding Edward's hand. The footnote to that statement
gives Laynesmith's source as PW Hammond's booklet "Edward of
Middleham: Prince of Wales". And looking in that (fortunately just
beside me on shelf) I see that what Peter actually wrote was "After
the ceremony, in a magnificent procession the King went crowned
through the streets of the City, accompanied by a great number of
nobles, and followed by the Queen, Anne, led by the hand their son
Edward wearing his coronet."
Although the English here is rather flawed, evidently if Anne was
behind Richard they can't both have been holding Edward's hand.
However, Peter Hammond's source for the above is given as Vergil,
which is a bit worrying.
Demonstrates just what I was talking about this morning - how the
whole business of writing history can get further from the truth over
time rather than closer, as historians copy each other with
insufficient care - perhaps we should call it the Chinese Whispers
Effect (I don't know whether you have that children's game in the US
but basically a message gets whispered from person to person, and the
last one then says out loud what they heard, usually fairly amusingly
different from the original).

I'm sure there's just recently been an article in the Ricardian
sorting out the hard evidence for what actually happened at Edward's
investiture; I'll see if I can find it when I get a minute.
By the by, the confusion with the Corpus Christi play perhaps came
from the fact that the day before the investiture the city had put on
its Creed Play for the royal family - I think this was normally
performed as part of the Corpus Xi celebrations.

Marie


> >
> > Am I right in thinking the original sources for this are the York
> > City Council records and a mention by Rous?
> >
> > Back to the Anne Neville article - which issue of BBC History
> > magazine was it in? When did it come out? I've looked in lots
of
> > newsagents from W H Smith downwards but can't find a copy. Do
you
> > think it's sold out and it's too late to get one?
>
> It is the March issue, so you should definitely still get; I first
> saw it a week ago. I got mine from WH Smith. You won't see Anne
> Neville's name on the cover though - just "The Lost Queen".
>
> Marie
> >
> > Joanne

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> It's frightening how much even serious historians just copy each
> other, often copying each other's mistakes.
>
> Marie

The late science writer Stephen Jay Gould called that syndrome of
cribbing from previously-published writers, rather than doing
original research, "fox-terriering." He got to wondering why so
many science textbooks described the eohippus as being about the size
of a fox terrier, and traced it back to the description of the little
beastie in a paper written about the time the fossils were first
discovered.

Katy

In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael Hicks about Anne Neville he states...

"Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
could be realised, was the most attractive match.
Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
the most prudential for both parties. It could have
been a love match, but actually no romantic element
is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
three decisions that were probably taken together.
From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess –
the best possible result for her and one indeed that
her father may also have contemplated."

I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death and the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the author (Roger being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective), with Clarence being cast as one of the villains of the piece. (Roger finds Anne in a city tavern working as said maid where Richard rescues her.)

But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic fiction?

Thanks,
Paul.

Sorry, the link doesn`t take you to the article directly, but it`s within the website as I`m sure you`re all aware.

Paul.

--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael Hicks about Anne Neville he states...
>
> "Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
> in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
> had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
> Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
> remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
> Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
> could be realised, was the most attractive match.
> Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
> the most prudential for both parties. It could have
> been a love match, but actually no romantic element
> is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
> the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
> as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
> Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
> sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
> him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
> three decisions that were probably taken together.
> From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess –
> the best possible result for her and one indeed that
> her father may also have contemplated."
>
> I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death and the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the author (Roger being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective), with Clarence being cast as one of the villains of the piece. (Roger finds Anne in a city tavern working as said maid where Richard rescues her.)
>
> But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic fiction?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
>

From Croyland: "...It is my intention here to insert an account of the
dissensions which arose during the Michaelmas Term between the two
brothers of the king, already mentioned and which were with
difficulty quieted. After, as already stated, the son of king Henry,
to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick,
had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke
of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal,
however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of
Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same
earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in
order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was
afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to
himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share
it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke
of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady
in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon
which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's...."

Ref: Croyland Chronicle as transcribed on The American Branch site
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy6.html>

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist

--- In , "pneville49"
<pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael Hicks
about Anne Neville he states...
>
> "Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
> in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
> had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
> Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
> remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
> Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
> could be realised, was the most attractive match.
> Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
> the most prudential for both parties. It could have
> been a love match, but actually no romantic element
> is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
> the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
> as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
> Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
> sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
> him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
> three decisions that were probably taken together.
> From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess –
> the best possible result for her and one indeed that
> her father may also have contemplated."
>
> I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in
some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate
Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death and
the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the author (Roger
being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective), with Clarence being
cast as one of the villains of the piece. (Roger finds Anne in a city
tavern working as said maid where Richard rescues her.)
>
> But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen
maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic fiction?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
>

Thanks Joan. D`you know I already read that extract from Croylands.
I must have scanned over it too quickly and missed that particular sentence. Oi vey! :-)

Paul.


--- In , "Joan" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> From Croyland: "...It is my intention here to insert an account of the
> dissensions which arose during the Michaelmas Term between the two
> brothers of the king, already mentioned and which were with
> difficulty quieted. After, as already stated, the son of king Henry,
> to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick,
> had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke
> of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal,
> however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of
> Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same
> earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in
> order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was
> afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to
> himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share
> it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke
> of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady
> in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon
> which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's...."
>
> Ref: Croyland Chronicle as transcribed on The American Branch site
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy6.html>
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>
> --- In , "pneville49"
> <pneville49@> wrote:
> >
> > In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael Hicks
> about Anne Neville he states...
> >
> > "Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
> > in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
> > had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
> > Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
> > remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
> > Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
> > could be realised, was the most attractive match.
> > Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
> > the most prudential for both parties. It could have
> > been a love match, but actually no romantic element
> > is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
> > the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
> > as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
> > Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
> > sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
> > him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
> > three decisions that were probably taken together.
> > From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess –
> > the best possible result for her and one indeed that
> > her father may also have contemplated."
> >
> > I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in
> some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate
> Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death and
> the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the author (Roger
> being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective), with Clarence being
> cast as one of the villains of the piece. (Roger finds Anne in a city
> tavern working as said maid where Richard rescues her.)
> >
> > But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen
> maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic fiction?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

It's more than wishful romantic fiction. Jacqueline of Hainault, (wife of Humphrey, who was duke of Gloucester from 1414-1447) escaped from Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, disguised as a man.

She was already married to Humphrey, but Philip the Good and her uncle, John of Bavaria, usurped the lands she should have inherited. Supported by allies in the Low Countries and neighboring counties, Jacqueline resisted Philip the Good's takeover for nearly 5 years.

Duke Humphrey's efforts to assist his wife were undermined by his brother, John, Duke of Bedford, and Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, later Cardinal. Eventually Philip the Good pressured Pope Martin V into annulling Jacqueline's marriage to Duke Humphrey.

Popular opinion in England supported Duke Humphrey and Jacqueline against Philip the Good, just as it supported Margaret of York, dowager Duchess of Burgundy against Louis XI, after Charles the Bold was killed in 1477. Many people expected Richard and Clarence to lead an expedition against Louis XI in support of Margaret and Charles the Bold's heiress, Mary of Burgundy. But Edward IV decided to keep England neutral, in hopes of holding Louis XI to the Treaty of Picquigny.

I've never read that Anne Nevelle knew Jacqueline of Hainault's story, but it's possible that she did. I think it's likely that Richard, duke of Gloucester, knew a lot about Duke Humphrey's life and death. Richard's father, Richard, Duke of York, also served as Henry VI's protector, and York faced the same problems and dangers that Duke Humphrey did. Richard, duke of Gloucester, was likely to have given his father's (and Duke Humphrey's?) experiences a lot of thought as his own troubles escalated.

Marion



--- In , "pneville49" <pneville49@...> wrote:
>
> In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael Hicks about Anne Neville he states...
>
> "Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
> in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
> had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
> Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
> remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
> Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
> could be realised, was the most attractive match.
> Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
> the most prudential for both parties. It could have
> been a love match, but actually no romantic element
> is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
> the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
> as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
> Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
> sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
> him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
> three decisions that were probably taken together.
> From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess –
> the best possible result for her and one indeed that
> her father may also have contemplated."
>
> I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death and the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the author (Roger being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective), with Clarence being cast as one of the villains of the piece. (Roger finds Anne in a city tavern working as said maid where Richard rescues her.)
>
> But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic fiction?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
>

Paul
I would advise you to throw Hicks book as far away as possible as
most of it is poison, and badly written as well as badly researched,
if at all.
As for the story being 'mere' romantic fiction, Croyland was never a
romantic in his writings about Richard, calling him 'crafty' possibly
in hindsight.
Still he doesn't go as far as calling Richard rescuing his cousin
from a kitchen and taking her to the sanctuary with the nuns at St
Martins le Grand as an 'abduction' as Hicks does. When it comes to
Hicks, one word comes to my mind, ignore!
Paul


On 25 Aug 2010, at 12:58, pneville49 wrote:

> In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael
> Hicks about Anne Neville he states...
>
> "Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
> in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
> had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
> Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
> remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
> Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
> could be realised, was the most attractive match.
> Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
> the most prudential for both parties. It could have
> been a love match, but actually no romantic element
> is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
> the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
> as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
> Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
> sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
> him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
> three decisions that were probably taken together.
> From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess 
> the best possible result for her and one indeed that
> her father may also have contemplated."
>
> I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in
> some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate
> Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death
> and the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the
> author (Roger being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective),
> with Clarence being cast as one of the villains of the piece.
> (Roger finds Anne in a city tavern working as said maid where
> Richard rescues her.)
>
> But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen
> maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic
> fiction?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I`ll keep that in mind Paul. Didn`t actually know he`d written a book. His words reproduced below came from the article included the Richard III Society website.

Paul.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Paul
> I would advise you to throw Hicks book as far away as possible as
> most of it is poison, and badly written as well as badly researched,
> if at all.
> As for the story being 'mere' romantic fiction, Croyland was never a
> romantic in his writings about Richard, calling him 'crafty' possibly
> in hindsight.
> Still he doesn't go as far as calling Richard rescuing his cousin
> from a kitchen and taking her to the sanctuary with the nuns at St
> Martins le Grand as an 'abduction' as Hicks does. When it comes to
> Hicks, one word comes to my mind, ignore!
> Paul
>
>
> On 25 Aug 2010, at 12:58, pneville49 wrote:
>
> > In the article http://www.richardiii.net/ by Professor Michael
> > Hicks about Anne Neville he states...
> >
> > "Anne had no recognizable prospects. Like others
> > in their position, Clarence and her sister obviously
> > had no intention of allowing her to marry or inherit.
> > Anne, however, determined not to become a nun but to
> > remarry to her brother-in-law Richard Duke of
> > Gloucester, for whom she and her inheritance, if it
> > could be realised, was the most attractive match.
> > Whenever it was agreed, it was a lightning match and
> > the most prudential for both parties. It could have
> > been a love match, but actually no romantic element
> > is required to explain it. As soon as he recognized
> > the danger, Clarence sought to conceal Anne, supposedly
> > as a kitchen maid.11 Although only fourteen years old,
> > Anne consented to her abduction by Duke Richard to the
> > sanctuary of St Martin's le Grand in London, to marry
> > him, and to dispossess her mother of her inheritance:
> > three decisions that were probably taken together.
> > From a destitute anomaly Anne became a royal duchess –
> > the best possible result for her and one indeed that
> > her father may also have contemplated."
> >
> > I believe that the "kitchen maid" scenario has indeed been used in
> > some novels about Richard and Anne, one that I do know of is Kate
> > Sedley`s first "Roger the Chapman" mystery (1991) entitled "Death
> > and the Chapman", in which Richard is viewed favourably by the
> > author (Roger being employed by Richard as a mediaeval detective),
> > with Clarence being cast as one of the villains of the piece.
> > (Roger finds Anne in a city tavern working as said maid where
> > Richard rescues her.)
> >
> > But is there any substantiating evidence to support this "kitchen
> > maid" scenario in any capacity, or is it just wishful romantic
> > fiction?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Has anyone read Licence's new biography of Anne Neville? I was wondering whether to give it a try.

"katia.james90" wrote:
>
> Has anyone read Licence's new biography of Anne Neville? I was wondering whether to give it a try.

Carol responds:

I haven't, but I've heard nothing good about it. If you do a site search for "Amy License," you'll find posts related to this "biography."

Or just read her article on "hunchback" Richard and decide for yourself whether you want to read her biography of Anne:

http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-iii-might-i-very-politely.html

I won't be reading it or anything else she's written (other than the article, which says all I need to know about her views).

Carol

Carol earlier:

> I won't be reading it or anything else she's written (other than the article, which says all I need to know about her views).

Carol again:

Forgot to say that I did enjoy her misquotation of Shakespeare's Richard: "A kingdom for my horse!" Richard wanted his horse to be king? Who knew? That beats even Caligula.

Carol

Re: Anne Neville: I leafed through the new book out about the Royal Women of the middle ages, and read the nastiest comments about Richard and Anne. What hurt the most was the comment about their relationship&"and their horrible marriage." Thats pretty brutal and what is truly sad, is that the average reader will go away with this possibly their only exposure to the story of Richard and Anne. CarolD

Hi Carol

Amy Licence has now put the introduction to her Anne Neville biography on her blog. It's under the entries for May.

I won't discuss it because it would mean spoilers but I wasn't particularly impressed. But it's probably better to read it and make up one's own mind.

J

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "katia.james90" wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone read Licence's new biography of Anne Neville? I was wondering whether to give it a try.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I haven't, but I've heard nothing good about it. If you do a site search for "Amy License," you'll find posts related to this "biography."
>
> Or just read her article on "hunchback" Richard and decide for yourself whether you want to read her biography of Anne:
>
> http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-iii-might-i-very-politely.html
>
> I won't be reading it or anything else she's written (other than the article, which says all I need to know about her views).
>
> Carol
>

I'll look at the blog and read the introduction, thanks for the suggestion.

--- In , "j_summerill" <j_summerill@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol
>
> Amy Licence has now put the introduction to her Anne Neville biography on her blog. It's under the entries for May.
>
> I won't discuss it because it would mean spoilers but I wasn't particularly impressed. But it's probably better to read it and make up one's own mind.
>
> J
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > "katia.james90" wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone read Licence's new biography of Anne Neville? I was wondering whether to give it a try.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I haven't, but I've heard nothing good about it. If you do a site search for "Amy License," you'll find posts related to this "biography."
> >
> > Or just read her article on "hunchback" Richard and decide for yourself whether you want to read her biography of Anne:
> >
> > http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-iii-might-i-very-politely.html
> >
> > I won't be reading it or anything else she's written (other than the article, which says all I need to know about her views).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Actually made me quite interested to read it. I'll let you know what I think.

--- In , "katia.james90" <katia.james90@...> wrote:
>
> I'll look at the blog and read the introduction, thanks for the suggestion.
>
> --- In , "j_summerill" <j_summerill@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol
> >
> > Amy Licence has now put the introduction to her Anne Neville biography on her blog. It's under the entries for May.
> >
> > I won't discuss it because it would mean spoilers but I wasn't particularly impressed. But it's probably better to read it and make up one's own mind.
> >
> > J
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "katia.james90" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone read Licence's new biography of Anne Neville? I was wondering whether to give it a try.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I haven't, but I've heard nothing good about it. If you do a site search for "Amy License," you'll find posts related to this "biography."
> > >
> > > Or just read her article on "hunchback" Richard and decide for yourself whether you want to read her biography of Anne:
> > >
> > > http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/02/richard-iii-might-i-very-politely.html
> > >
> > > I won't be reading it or anything else she's written (other than the article, which says all I need to know about her views).
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>