Those democratic Lancastrians!

I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the North* when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:

-- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their
legitimist theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government, and the Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective kingship and self-government, the former could win the North only by gaining the support of the unenfranchised masses. --

This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the common folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.

She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been made so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI, only a few years before Richard's birth.

Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh.

Tamara

Yes, I was rather worried about her in the beginning of the book, but by
the end, felt that on the whole, she treated Richard with respect (perhaps
despite her overall mental map of the lay of the land, she found the
particulars harder to resist).

A J


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:41 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
> Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the
> North* when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:
>
> -- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their
> legitimist theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government,
> and the Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective
> kingship and self-government, the former could win the North only by
> gaining the support of the unenfranchised masses. --
>
> This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the
> common folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.
>
> She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been
> made so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI,
> only a few years before Richard's birth.
>
> Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
> franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>

True. She's too honest not to include the facts, however much she wants to spin them. (And thank you again for including her work!)

Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.

Tmara

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I was rather worried about her in the beginning of the book, but by
> the end, felt that on the whole, she treated Richard with respect (perhaps
> despite her overall mental map of the lay of the land, she found the
> particulars harder to resist).
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:41 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
> > Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the
> > North* when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:
> >
> > -- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their
> > legitimist theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government,
> > and the Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective
> > kingship and self-government, the former could win the North only by
> > gaining the support of the unenfranchised masses. --
> >
> > This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the
> > common folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.
> >
> > She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been
> > made so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI,
> > only a few years before Richard's birth.
> >
> > Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
> > franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh.
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

maroonnavywhite wrote:

"I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the North*
when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:
-- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their legitimist
theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government, and the
Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective kingship
and self-government, the former could win the North only by gaining the
support of the unenfranchised masses. --
This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the common
folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.
She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been made
so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI, only a
few years before Richard's birth.
Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh."

Doug here:
I don't where to start with that paragraph! *Of course* the Yorkists were
"legitimists", that's what their claim to the throne was based on! Did Miss
Reid miss that, while Lancastrians *first* appealed to the "elective" nature
of kingship, once they'd gotten the throne, they immediately switched to a
semi-legitimist claim; ie, they had the throne, the throne was passed from
Henry IV to Henry V, therefore the throne was now "legitimately" theirs?
Even that faux-Lancastrian, Henry Tudor, made no effort to have his right to
the crown submitted to the nobility for their approval. He'd committed
treason, suborned treason and finally won the throne fairly and squarely -
when his uncle by marriage attacked the rightful king from behind!
But, yeah, other than those items the Lancastrians would fit right in at any
Labour Party meeting...
Hadn't known that about the franchise being further restricted, interesting.
Sounds more like a certain party here in the States than any sort of small
"d" democrats.
Doug
(who apologizes for mentioning any modern political groupings)

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.
>
> Tmara


Weds writes:
I'm not sure anyone will understand this, but Tey's comment about Gairdner makes me wish Conan-Doyle had had Sherlock Holmes analyze Richard's actions and lecture Watson once again on dogs that do not bark in the night.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> > Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.
> >
> > Tamara
>
>
> Weds writes:
> I'm not sure anyone will understand this, but Tey's comment about Gairdner makes me wish Conan-Doyle had had Sherlock Holmes analyze Richard's actions and lecture Watson once again on dogs that do not bark in the night.
>

Ah, yes, the Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. As a recovering Holmesian, I know whereof you speak. (And Holmes was a Yorkshireman, as W.S. Baring-Gould demonstrated.)

Funny you mentioning Holmes just now -- I was just thinking of him earlier today, and how he might go about helping Richard if fate had transported him back a few centuries. (Fictional character? Whatever do you mean? ;-) )

Tamara

Hi Weds: Yes, I get it! :)

You might be surprised how many 'Ricardians' are also Sherlockians (US) or Holmesians (UK); I keep coming across them as I work (in person for both groups in Seattle, WA area) and lurk (here and at Welcome Holmes) on the internet.

Here in the Northwest chapters, we 'share' seven members.

Margie

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> > Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.
> >
> > Tmara
>
> Weds writes:
> I'm not sure anyone will understand this, but Tey's comment about Gairdner makes me wish Conan-Doyle had had Sherlock Holmes analyze Richard's actions and lecture Watson once again on dogs that do not bark in the night.
>
>

Clive Merrison who played Holmes in the BBC radio adaptations of all the
stories is a friend of mine I am proud to say. His radio plays are
wonderful, which I imagine Holmesians would agree?
Paul

On 08/08/2013 05:22, Margie Deck wrote:
> Hi Weds: Yes, I get it! :)
>
> You might be surprised how many 'Ricardians' are also Sherlockians (US) or Holmesians (UK); I keep coming across them as I work (in person for both groups in Seattle, WA area) and lurk (here and at Welcome Holmes) on the internet.
>
> Here in the Northwest chapters, we 'share' seven members.
>
> Margie
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>> Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.
>>>
>>> Tmara
>> Weds writes:
>> I'm not sure anyone will understand this, but Tey's comment about Gairdner makes me wish Conan-Doyle had had Sherlock Holmes analyze Richard's actions and lecture Watson once again on dogs that do not bark in the night.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do not bark to the Ricardian studies?
David


------------------------------
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 05:22 BST Margie Deck wrote:

>Hi Weds: Yes, I get it! :)
>
>You might be surprised how many 'Ricardians' are also Sherlockians (US) or Holmesians (UK); I keep coming across them as I work (in person for both groups in Seattle, WA area) and lurk (here and at Welcome Holmes) on the internet.
>
>Here in the Northwest chapters, we 'share' seven members.
>
>Margie
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> > Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.
>> >
>> > Tmara
>>
>> Weds writes:
>> I'm not sure anyone will understand this, but Tey's comment about Gairdner makes me wish Conan-Doyle had had Sherlock Holmes analyze Richard's actions and lecture Watson once again on dogs that do not bark in the night.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

David Durose wrote:

"As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do not
bark to the Ricardian studies?"

Doug here:
While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the reference
promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
important, if not more so, than what *did*.
For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
*had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those who
prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a negative,
which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
Doug

A very erudite explanation Doug. And so much of Ricardian studies is the exploration of the unexplained. H


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013, 18:25
Subject: Re: Re: Those democratic Lancastrians!



 

David Durose wrote:

"As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do not
bark to the Ricardian studies?"

Doug here:
While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the reference
promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
important, if not more so, than what *did*.
For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
*had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those who
prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a negative,
which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
Doug

Like my grampa leaving Montreal "under a cloud." Did he take investors'
money with him? I think not since it was a time that some proven big
swindlers were followed in great detail by the newspapers. But there was
absolutely no follow up after he disappeared.

But I can't prove he wasn't a crook.

A J


On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do
> not
> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
>
> Doug here:
> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
> reference
> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those
> who
> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
> negative,
> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
> Doug
>
>
>

And here's the actual quotation:

" 'Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To *the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'*
'*The dog did nothing in the night-time.'*
'*That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."*
*The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes* (1893)

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do
> not
> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
>
> Doug here:
> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
> reference
> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those
> who
> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
> negative,
> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
> Doug
>
>
>

Without a doubt!

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> Clive Merrison who played Holmes in the BBC radio adaptations of all the
> stories is a friend of mine I am proud to say. His radio plays are
> wonderful, which I imagine Holmesians would agree?
> Paul
>
> On 08/08/2013 05:22, Margie Deck wrote:
> > Hi Weds: Yes, I get it! :)
> >
> > You might be surprised how many 'Ricardians' are also Sherlockians (US) or Holmesians (UK); I keep coming across them as I work (in person for both groups in Seattle, WA area) and lurk (here and at Welcome Holmes) on the internet.
> >
> > Here in the Northwest chapters, we 'share' seven members.
> >
> > Margie
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >>> Reading Reid reminds me of Tey's description of Gairdner: "Like a frightened child dragging on the hand leading him towards the inevitable." Gairdner resolutely believed the traditional story, yet kept reporting things about Richard that undermined it.
> >>>
> >>> Tmara
> >> Weds writes:
> >> I'm not sure anyone will understand this, but Tey's comment about Gairdner makes me wish Conan-Doyle had had Sherlock Holmes analyze Richard's actions and lecture Watson once again on dogs that do not bark in the night.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

For those unfamiliar with the story, a valuable racing horse is stolen in the night from the barn where the dog sleeps--a dog that had barked and strongly reacted when strangers (police, Holmes, etc.) had entered the barn to investigate the theft. So, if the dog did not bark in the night (which would have awakened stable lads sleeping nearby) then it is safe to "deduce" the horse was taken by someone the dog knew well.

As others have more eloquently stated, so often we are reduced, in Ricardian studies, to reasonable deduction in a similar manner.

Margie

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:

> And here's the actual quotation:
>
> " 'Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
> 'To *the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'*
> '*The dog did nothing in the night-time.'*
> '*That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."*
> *The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes* (1893)
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...
>> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> David Durose wrote:
>>
>> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do
>> not
>> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
>>
>> Doug here:
>> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
>> reference
>> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
>> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
>> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
>> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
>> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
>> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
>> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those
>> who
>> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
>> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
>> negative,
>> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
>> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
>> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Significant Silence?

The Archbishop of Canterbury never denounced Richard III for Edward V's and Richard, duke of York's disappearance. Although he's supposed to have talked Elizabeth Woodville into releasing Richard, duke of York into Richard III's custody, the Archbishop never accused Richard III of deception or murder when it might have been profitable or safe to do so.

Seems to me someone in the upper levels of the church hierarchy might have denounced Richard III long before Thomas More's fictions and Virgil's version became widely accepted.

Marion




--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do not
> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
>
> Doug here:
> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the reference
> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those who
> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a negative,
> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
> Doug
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"A very erudite explanation Doug. And so much of Ricardian studies is the
exploration of the unexplained."

Thank you! As I may have mentioned in another post, I've been re-reading
Churchill's "The Second World War" and I think it's rubbing off...
The basic problem with current "accepted" history concerning Richard III is
that so much of that "history" isn't based on facts, but rather on
statements and accusations leveled against Richard by Tudor chroniclers,
pushed by Tudor propagandists and then spread world-wide by probably the
greatest playwright, in Englsh anyway, who ever lived.
This is history?
Doug


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 9 August 2013, 18:25
Subject: Re: Re: Those democratic Lancastrians!





David Durose wrote:

"As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do not
bark to the Ricardian studies?"

Doug here:
While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the reference
promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
important, if not more so, than what *did*.
For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if X
*had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely disproving
any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those who
prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a negative,
which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem to
be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Maria Torres wrote:

"And here's the actual quotation:

'Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To *the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.'*
'*The dog did nothing in the night-time.'*
'*That was the curious incident,' remarked Sherlock Holmes."*
*The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes* (1893)

Thank you for the excerpt. I really enjoyed the short stories, although the
novels seemed to me to drag a bit. Maybe that was because I read the novels
as novels whereas, I believe, they were originally published in
installments?
I'll have to snag one next time I go to the library.
Doug

phaecilia wrote:

"Significant Silence?
The Archbishop of Canterbury never denounced Richard III for Edward V's and
Richard, duke of York's disappearance. Although he's supposed to have
talked Elizabeth Woodville into releasing Richard, duke of York into Richard
III's custody, the Archbishop never accused Richard III of deception or
murder when it might have been profitable or safe to do so.
Seems to me someone in the upper levels of the church hierarchy might have
denounced Richard III long before Thomas More's fictions and Virgil's
version became widely accepted."

Doug here:
That would be Archbishop Bourchier, right? And, if I remember correctly, he
survived several years past Bosworth at least, which would have given him
plenty of time to do his part in dumping everything on Richard. It *is* odd
that he didn't, isn't it?
If only to clear *himself* of any connection with whatever happened to
Edward's sons!
Doug
Does sort of cast doubt on the
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> David Durose wrote:
>>
>> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do
>> not
>> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
>>
>> Doug here:
>> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
>> reference
>> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
>> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
>> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
>> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if
>> X
>> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
>> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely
>> disproving
>> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those
>> who
>> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
>> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
>> negative,
>> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem
>> to
>> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hello Doug,

It was Archbishop Bourchier. He died on March 30, 1486 in Knole Manor, England. My source is:

Ross, C. D. "Thomas Bourgchier." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Biography In Context. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.

He had about 6 months, not several years. But if he really was reluctant to crown Richard III, as this article claims, it seems reasonable that he would have denounced Richard soon after Tudor took over.

Few authors say anything about Bourchier's silence. It seems to me his silence is good evidence that Richard III didn't have Edward IV's sons killed. I wish more Ricardians would make that point in his favor.

Marion


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> phaecilia wrote:
>
> "Significant Silence?
> The Archbishop of Canterbury never denounced Richard III for Edward V's and
> Richard, duke of York's disappearance. Although he's supposed to have
> talked Elizabeth Woodville into releasing Richard, duke of York into Richard
> III's custody, the Archbishop never accused Richard III of deception or
> murder when it might have been profitable or safe to do so.
> Seems to me someone in the upper levels of the church hierarchy might have
> denounced Richard III long before Thomas More's fictions and Virgil's
> version became widely accepted."
>
> Doug here:
> That would be Archbishop Bourchier, right? And, if I remember correctly, he
> survived several years past Bosworth at least, which would have given him
> plenty of time to do his part in dumping everything on Richard. It *is* odd
> that he didn't, isn't it?
> If only to clear *himself* of any connection with whatever happened to
> Edward's sons!
> Doug
> Does sort of cast doubt on the
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> David Durose wrote:
> >>
> >> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do
> >> not
> >> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
> >>
> >> Doug here:
> >> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
> >> reference
> >> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
> >> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
> >> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
> >> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if
> >> X
> >> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
> >> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely
> >> disproving
> >> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those
> >> who
> >> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
> >> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
> >> negative,
> >> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem
> >> to
> >> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
> >> Doug
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I've got all behind with reading my posts but the original author (was it Reid?) who talked about democratic Lancastrians was talking, I'm sorry to say, rubbish.
Democracy is, in the words of a famous American President 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'. Apart from ancient Greece the concept didn't arise again until the nineteenth century so absolute monarchy and democracy can never be bedfellows. Even constitutional monarchy (ie the monarch 'ruling' with the permission of the people) in the UK from William and Mary onwards, wasn't democracy. One could argue that that wasn't achieved anywhere until women got the vote.
So when did the Lancastrians encourage the folk to go to the polls?    Hilary


________________________________
From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013, 23:48
Subject: Re: Those democratic Lancastrians!

 

Hello Doug,

It was Archbishop Bourchier. He died on March 30, 1486 in Knole Manor, England. My source is:

Ross, C. D. "Thomas Bourgchier." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Biography In Context. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.

He had about 6 months, not several years. But if he really was reluctant to crown Richard III, as this article claims, it seems reasonable that he would have denounced Richard soon after Tudor took over.

Few authors say anything about Bourchier's silence. It seems to me his silence is good evidence that Richard III didn't have Edward IV's sons killed. I wish more Ricardians would make that point in his favor.

Marion

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> phaecilia wrote:
>
> "Significant Silence?
> The Archbishop of Canterbury never denounced Richard III for Edward V's and
> Richard, duke of York's disappearance. Although he's supposed to have
> talked Elizabeth Woodville into releasing Richard, duke of York into Richard
> III's custody, the Archbishop never accused Richard III of deception or
> murder when it might have been profitable or safe to do so.
> Seems to me someone in the upper levels of the church hierarchy might have
> denounced Richard III long before Thomas More's fictions and Virgil's
> version became widely accepted."
>
> Doug here:
> That would be Archbishop Bourchier, right? And, if I remember correctly, he
> survived several years past Bosworth at least, which would have given him
> plenty of time to do his part in dumping everything on Richard. It *is* odd
> that he didn't, isn't it?
> If only to clear *himself* of any connection with whatever happened to
> Edward's sons!
> Doug
> Does sort of cast doubt on the
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> David Durose wrote:
> >>
> >> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that do
> >> not
> >> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
> >>
> >> Doug here:
> >> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
> >> reference
> >> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just as
> >> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
> >> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no direct
> >> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However, if
> >> X
> >> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions. The
> >> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely
> >> disproving
> >> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to those
> >> who
> >> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is near-blasphemy.
> >> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
> >> negative,
> >> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does seem
> >> to
> >> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as "historians"...
> >> Doug
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

phaecilia wrote:

"Hello Doug,
It was Archbishop Bourchier. He died on March 30, 1486 in Knole Manor,
England. My source is:
Ross, C. D. "Thomas Bourgchier." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit: Gale,
2003. Biography In Context. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.
He had about 6 months, not several years. But if he really was reluctant to
crown Richard III, as this article claims, it seems reasonable that he would
have denounced Richard soon after Tudor took over.
Few authors say anything about Bourchier's silence. It seems to me his
silence is good evidence that Richard III didn't have Edward IV's sons
killed. I wish more Ricardians would make that point in his favor."

Doug here:
Thanks for the citation. I was thinking Bourchier died in the early 1490s,
now I have to find out who I've confused him with!
But yes, Bourchier still had plenty of time to 'come clean" to Tudor about
how Richard had deceived him, how was *he* to know what Richard was up to?,
etc.
Then there's the matter of honor, both his personal honor and as Archbishop
of Canterbury. Bourchier had guaranteed the safety of Richard of Shrewsbury;
the only way for him to remove any stain from *not* protecting Richard of
Shrewsbury from the "eeeevil plottings of that monster Richard"* would have
been a full and complete account of what the Archbishop had done to carry
out his promise.
While we can't positively state the Archbishop *didn't* do just that; it's
most unusual that, considering Tudor's need for any support he could
get.there's, there's no record of the Archbishop of Canterbury denouncing
Richard for anything!
All we have is - silence.
Doug
(*can one copyright snark?)

To be fair to Reid (who, in the end, I thought did wind up being pretty
fair to Richard) she did not use the word "democratic." That was a phrase
used in the original post,

I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the
North* when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:

-- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their
legitimist theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government,
and the Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective
kingship and self-government, the former could win the North only by
gaining the support of the unenfranchised masses. --

This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the
common folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.

She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been
made so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI,
only a few years before Richard's birth.

Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh.

Tamara

A J


On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've got all behind with reading my posts but the original author (was it
> Reid?) who talked about democratic Lancastrians was talking, I'm sorry to
> say, rubbish.
> Democracy is, in the words of a famous American President 'government of
> the people, by the people, for the people'. Apart from ancient Greece the
> concept didn't arise again until the nineteenth century so absolute
> monarchy and democracy can never be bedfellows. Even constitutional
> monarchy (ie the monarch 'ruling' with the permission of the people) in the
> UK from William and Mary onwards, wasn't democracy. One could argue that
> that wasn't achieved anywhere until women got the vote.
> So when did the Lancastrians encourage the folk to go to the polls?
> Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013, 23:48
> Subject: Re: Those democratic Lancastrians!
>
>
>
>
> Hello Doug,
>
> It was Archbishop Bourchier. He died on March 30, 1486 in Knole Manor,
> England. My source is:
>
> Ross, C. D. "Thomas Bourgchier." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit: Gale,
> 2003. Biography In Context. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.
>
> He had about 6 months, not several years. But if he really was reluctant
> to crown Richard III, as this article claims, it seems reasonable that he
> would have denounced Richard soon after Tudor took over.
>
> Few authors say anything about Bourchier's silence. It seems to me his
> silence is good evidence that Richard III didn't have Edward IV's sons
> killed. I wish more Ricardians would make that point in his favor.
>
> Marion
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > phaecilia wrote:
> >
> > "Significant Silence?
> > The Archbishop of Canterbury never denounced Richard III for Edward V's
> and
> > Richard, duke of York's disappearance. Although he's supposed to have
> > talked Elizabeth Woodville into releasing Richard, duke of York into
> Richard
> > III's custody, the Archbishop never accused Richard III of deception or
> > murder when it might have been profitable or safe to do so.
> > Seems to me someone in the upper levels of the church hierarchy might
> have
> > denounced Richard III long before Thomas More's fictions and Virgil's
> > version became widely accepted."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > That would be Archbishop Bourchier, right? And, if I remember correctly,
> he
> > survived several years past Bosworth at least, which would have given
> him
> > plenty of time to do his part in dumping everything on Richard. It *is*
> odd
> > that he didn't, isn't it?
> > If only to clear *himself* of any connection with whatever happened to
> > Edward's sons!
> > Doug
> > Does sort of cast doubt on the
> > >
> > > Marion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> Stamate"
> > > <destama@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> David Durose wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "As someone new to the forum, May I ask the significance of dogs that
> do
> > >> not
> > >> bark to the Ricardian studies?"
> > >>
> > >> Doug here:
> > >> While the reference is from a Sherlock Holmes story, the idea the
> > >> reference
> > >> promotes; ie, that sometimes what we know *didn't* happen may be just
> as
> > >> important, if not more so, than what *did*.
> > >> For example, X is said to have done some act; however there is no
> direct
> > >> information to either confirm whether X did, in fact, do so. However,
> if
> > >> X
> > >> *had* done so, there *should* have been some reactions/repercussions.
> The
> > >> lack on any known reactions/repercussions, while not completely
> > >> disproving
> > >> any allegations, does place doubt on them. As you can imagine, to
> those
> > >> who
> > >> prefer their history cut-and-dried, such an attitude is
> near-blasphemy.
> > >> Such methods could (are?) easily be mistaken for trying to prove a
> > >> negative,
> > >> which is an impossibility and recognized as such. Although it does
> seem
> > >> to
> > >> be attempted by some authors of fiction masquerading as
> "historians"...
> > >> Doug
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:

"To be fair to Reid (who, in the end, I thought did wind up being pretty
fair to Richard) she did not use the word "democratic." That was a phrase
used in the original post,

'I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the North*
when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:

-- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their legitimist
theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government, and the
Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective kingship
and self-government, the former could win the North only by gaining the
support of the unenfranchised masses. --

This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the common
folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.
She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been made
so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI, only a
few years before Richard's birth.
Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh."

Doug here:
Sort of a "Democracy ('elective kingship and self-government') for me (the
nobility), but not for thee (everyone else)", then? Well after all, the
ancient Greeks limited who was included in their democracy, so why not the
English aristocracy?

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Doug here:
> Sort of a "Democracy ('elective kingship and self-government') for me (the
> nobility), but not for thee (everyone else)", then?
>

Isn't there another name for that: oligarchy?

Pansy

My point is that it's pretty hard to see the Lancastrians as champions of self-government when their last true king and one who they tried to have declared a saint -martyr was the bloke what took away the right to vote from all those who were yeomen or lower in rank.

Tamara



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> "To be fair to Reid (who, in the end, I thought did wind up being pretty
> fair to Richard) she did not use the word "democratic." That was a phrase
> used in the original post,
>
> 'I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
> Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the North*
> when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:
>
> -- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their legitimist
> theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government, and the
> Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective kingship
> and self-government, the former could win the North only by gaining the
> support of the unenfranchised masses. --
>
> This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the common
> folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.
> She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been made
> so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI, only a
> few years before Richard's birth.
> Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
> franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh."
>
> Doug here:
> Sort of a "Democracy ('elective kingship and self-government') for me (the
> nobility), but not for thee (everyone else)", then? Well after all, the
> ancient Greeks limited who was included in their democracy, so why not the
> English aristocracy?
>

I stick by my first point - you can't have democracy in any form under an absolute monarchy; the two are mutually exclusive. Who rules the people, Parliament (elected or not) or the king? Cromwell fought a war to determine that. And democracy is rule 'by the people'.



________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 2:07
Subject: Re: Those democratic Lancastrians!

 

My point is that it's pretty hard to see the Lancastrians as champions of self-government when their last true king and one who they tried to have declared a saint -martyr was the bloke what took away the right to vote from all those who were yeomen or lower in rank.

Tamara

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> "To be fair to Reid (who, in the end, I thought did wind up being pretty
> fair to Richard) she did not use the word "democratic." That was a phrase
> used in the original post,
>
> 'I was happily chugging through AJ's detailed transcription of the
> Richard-related bits from Rachel R. Reid's *The King's Council in the North*
> when I hit this passage [p. 56-7]:
>
> -- As there was little in common between the Yorkists with their legitimist
> theory of monarchy and their absolutist tendency in government, and the
> Lancastrian gentry with their aristocratic ideals of an elective kingship
> and self-government, the former could win the North only by gaining the
> support of the unenfranchised masses. --
>
> This is how Miss Reid minimizes all the efforts made on behalf of the common
> folk by the Yorkists - as mere panem-et-circenses bribery.
> She neglects to mention that many of the unenfranchised masses had been made
> so relatively recently, by the last true Lancastrian King, Henry VI, only a
> few years before Richard's birth.
> Yeah, those democratic Lancastrians -- so democratic, they took away the
> franchise from everyone who was a yeoman or below. Feh."
>
> Doug here:
> Sort of a "Democracy ('elective kingship and self-government') for me (the
> nobility), but not for thee (everyone else)", then? Well after all, the
> ancient Greeks limited who was included in their democracy, so why not the
> English aristocracy?
>

pansydobersby wrote:

"Isn't there another name for that: oligarchy?"

Doug here:
I was thinking more about how actions *inside* the group would operate, but
you're right, it's a classic definition of oligarchy!

maroonnavywhite wrote:

"My point is that it's pretty hard to see the Lancastrians as champions of
self-government when their last true king and one who they tried to have
declared a saint -martyr was the bloke what took away the right to vote from
all those who were yeomen or lower in rank."

Doug here:
I think it was more a poor choice of words on Reid's part than anything else
as "self-government" means two quite different things in the 15th and 21st,
or even the 19th or 20th, centuries.
Removing the franchise which, if I understand correctly was based on the
value of the land one held, from someone simply because that person *wasn't*
a noble or a knight does fly in the face of any claims about
"self-government"!

It's also the way that Venice, Ragusa/Dubrovnik and Poland operated at this era - a republic of nobles, in which the right to elect a King /Doge/Rector etc was placed in the hands of small hereditary elite. The Holy Roman Empire too, until the Habsburgs captured the imperial Crown in perpetuity. There was nothing very unusual about this at that time - what would be more unusual would be for anyone to include the "faceless masses" in their democracy.

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 12/8/13, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:



Doug here:

Sort of a "Democracy ('elective kingship and
self-government') for me (the

nobility), but not for thee (everyone else)", then?
Well after all, the

ancient Greeks limited who was included in their democracy,
so why not the

English aristocracy?

Janet Ashton wrote:

"It's also the way that Venice, Ragusa/Dubrovnik and Poland operated at this
era - a republic of nobles, in which the right to elect a King /Doge/Rector
etc was placed in the hands of small hereditary elite. The Holy Roman Empire
too, until the Habsburgs captured the imperial Crown in perpetuity. There
was nothing very unusual about this at that time - what would be more
unusual would be for anyone to include the "faceless masses" in their
democracy."

Perhaps a better description would be "self(ish)-government"?
Doug
(who can hear the groans clear across the "pond"!)

I think Napoleon in his latter years would have seen it a bit like Janet's description. He did after all spend several years 'liberating' Europe from oppressive rulers. And he of course did model himself on the Romans who had a similar system. It's very questionable whether Britain at that time had such an enlightened form of government.
 
I have a soft spot for Napoleon;  as indeed I have for Cromwell. Told you I was mad! 
 

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 16:21
Subject: Re: Re: Those democratic Lancastrians!

 


Janet Ashton wrote:

"It's also the way that Venice, Ragusa/Dubrovnik and Poland operated at this
era - a republic of nobles, in which the right to elect a King /Doge/Rector
etc was placed in the hands of small hereditary elite. The Holy Roman Empire
too, until the Habsburgs captured the imperial Crown in perpetuity. There
was nothing very unusual about this at that time - what would be more
unusual would be for anyone to include the "faceless masses" in their
democracy."

Perhaps a better description would be "self(ish)-government"?
Doug
(who can hear the groans clear across the "pond"!)

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps a better description would be "self(ish)-government"?
> Doug
>


That sounds like our 21st century, actually. Plus ca change...

Pansy