Lightbulb goes on

Hi All

I haven't posted in a long while but have been following the various
threads avidly. There are two reasons for piping up today, first is
my take on the Anne and Elizabeth dress debate. I always took that
little snippet about dresses to be a reference to Elizabeth being
dressed by her ambitious family as an alternative/successor to Anne.
After all if Elizabeth did turn up in a dress as grand as the
Queen's surely her mother and sisters would have *had* to have known
about it? The whole incident has the same tang about it that Bess
Grey wandering around in the woods in her most becoming gown and
just *happening* to run into the King does. I'd chalk it down to a
smart, catty little bit of stagemanagement.

The second reason for piping up is I had the idea of linking Richard
III to bookcrossing.

For those of you who haven't of bookcrossing it is simply the idea
of going to www.bookcrossing.com, registering a book, writing the
unique number generated on the books flyleaf and leaving it
somewhere in public so a stranger can find it, register the fact
that they caught it and then release it again. The whole thing is
free and as anonymous as you want it to be.

I was thinking that we could set up a new membership - under the
name The Ricardians or The Richard III Society - everyone could
share the password and then set about releasing pro-Richard books at
appropriate sites every now and then (Middleham, the Tower etc). Of
course we could use the member page to link to this group as well as
the main Society page and other Pro-Richard resources.

And wouldn't it be stealing the Anti-Richard heathens thunder to
start a publicity campaign under their so-very-arrogant-I-love-that-
liar-More-noses?

;-)

Please say you'll join me!


Nia

I think that is a fantastic idea, Nia! Count me in!

mistress_daemon_wolf <mistress_daemon_wolf@...> wrote:Hi All

I haven't posted in a long while but have been following the various
threads avidly. There are two reasons for piping up today, first is
my take on the Anne and Elizabeth dress debate. I always took that
little snippet about dresses to be a reference to Elizabeth being
dressed by her ambitious family as an alternative/successor to Anne.
After all if Elizabeth did turn up in a dress as grand as the
Queen's surely her mother and sisters would have *had* to have known
about it? The whole incident has the same tang about it that Bess
Grey wandering around in the woods in her most becoming gown and
just *happening* to run into the King does. I'd chalk it down to a
smart, catty little bit of stagemanagement.

The second reason for piping up is I had the idea of linking Richard
III to bookcrossing.

For those of you who haven't of bookcrossing it is simply the idea
of going to www.bookcrossing.com, registering a book, writing the
unique number generated on the books flyleaf and leaving it
somewhere in public so a stranger can find it, register the fact
that they caught it and then release it again. The whole thing is
free and as anonymous as you want it to be.

I was thinking that we could set up a new membership - under the
name The Ricardians or The Richard III Society - everyone could
share the password and then set about releasing pro-Richard books at
appropriate sites every now and then (Middleham, the Tower etc). Of
course we could use the member page to link to this group as well as
the main Society page and other Pro-Richard resources.

And wouldn't it be stealing the Anti-Richard heathens thunder to
start a publicity campaign under their so-very-arrogant-I-love-that-
liar-More-noses?

;-)

Please say you'll join me!


Nia



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what youýre looking for faster.

--- In , "mistress_daemon_wolf"
<mistress_daemon_wolf@y...> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I haven't posted in a long while but have been following the
various
> threads avidly. There are two reasons for piping up today, first is
> my take on the Anne and Elizabeth dress debate. I always took that
> little snippet about dresses to be a reference to Elizabeth being
> dressed by her ambitious family as an alternative/successor to
Anne.
> After all if Elizabeth did turn up in a dress as grand as the
> Queen's surely her mother and sisters would have *had* to have
known
> about it? The whole incident has the same tang about it that Bess
> Grey wandering around in the woods in her most becoming gown and
> just *happening* to run into the King does. I'd chalk it down to a
> smart, catty little bit of stagemanagement.

Just to remind ourselves of exactly what Croyland had to say:
". . . the fact ought not to be concealed that, during this feast of
the Nativity, far too much attention was given to dancing and gaiety,
and vain changes of apparel presented to Queen Anne and Lady
Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late king, being of similar
colour and shape; a thing that caused the people to murmur and the
nobles and prelates greatly to wonder thereat; while it was said by
many that the King was bent, either on the anticipated death of the
Queen taking place, or else, by means of divorce, for which he
supposed he had sufficient grounds, on contracting a marriage with
the said Elizabeth. For it appeared that in no other way could his
kingly power be established, or the hopes of his rival be put an end
to."

The traditional interpretation was that the gowns were of similar
colour and shape, but the latest translation has the women of similar
complexion and shape. It makes a huge difference, of course; the one
would have Elizabeth dressed like the Queen, the other would merely
have her presented with loads of dress changes, perhaps not as many
as the Queen. It is even possible that the two women merely swapped
clothes. I haven't even seen the Latin so I couldn't comment.
It seems to me that IF Elizabeth did wear gowns of similar colour and
shape to Anne's there are three parties who could have been
responsible.
1) Richard
2) Anne
3) the Woodvilles
Without even looking at personalities, as that can be very
subjective, the following observations could be made:-
1) Richard certainly had opportunity, but I think motive was lacking.
For him to have dressed Elizabeth like the Queen would have been
politically inept to say the least. Certainly, if a man were planning
to poison his queen he would have to allay suspicion by keeping
secret the fact that he had his eye on his niece until after said
queen was dead. Had he planned to divorce her in order to marry said
niece, I suppose he just might have tested the waters first, but I
would have thought he would have done so rather more discreetly.
2)Anne. Anne also had opportunity; if she liked Elizabeth and felt
sorry for her, or if they really did fit the same clothes perfectly,
then mmotive would exist too. In fact, if this was a clothes swap
because the two ladies were the same clothes size and suited the same
colours, then Anne must have been behind it. If the clothes were
simply of similar colour and shape, then it might well be that Anne
had ordered a lower-grade version of her own dress for Elizabeth,
something like the Tudor arrangement Marion mentioned. Indeed, I
wonder whether we can trust Croyland that only Elizabeth was dressed
like this, and not other attendants.
3) The Woodvilles certainly had motive to dress Elizabeth identically
to the queen (ie not just similar colour and design but identically
grandly). But I'm not sure about opportunity. They would have had to
have known what Anne was planning to wear for one thing, and
Elizabeth Woodville would have had to have been able to afford to
have the clothes made on her meagre annuity of 700 marks. That dress
Cecily had made in 1444, for instance, cost hundreds of pounds, and
Croyland's description of the clothes changes as "vain" suggests the
clothes in question were pretty sumptuous. Elizabeth Woodville's
annuity had been set precisely in order to enable her to live
decently but not have enough money to cause mischief.

So my feeling is that Anne is the likeliest "culprit", so that the
whole thing is likely to have been quite innocent. In fact, I wonder
if these clothes changes might not have been connected specifically
with the Twelfth Night festivities, the big last night of the
Christmas merrymaking, when revellers traditionally disguised
themselves. I suspect the tittle-tattle about the gowns only started
later, after Anne had died and rumours about poisoning had been
spread.

I wonder if Croyland meant what he wrote - about Richard's need to
make Elizabeth his queen - to be an object lesson also for Henry
VII, who had not, at the time, yet had Elizabeth crowned. If so, he
may have been skewing the facts deliberately to point up her
importance, not just in this passage but in succeeding ones
concerened with Richard's desire to marry his niece.

As a side issue, Croyland is used in evidence of the fact that Anne
Neville didn't take sick until after Christmas (he goes on to talk
about how she sickened after Christmas in the next passage). However,
the above quotation suggests that even during the Christmas
festivities the Queen's death was "anticipated"; if this is not the
case, then it does suggest that people only started gossiping about
the gowns later, after she took sick.
"Anticipate" properly means not just to expect, but to do something
in expectation of an event - eg Richard might have anticipated Anne's
death by making plans to marry Elizabeth - but the sense of the
passage doesn't suggest quite that - rather that Anne was expected to
die and people wondered if Richard was determined to see that she
did. I wonder what the Latin word was. Translations are a necessary
evil.
I'm personally still inclined towards the TB theory with regard to
Anne, though the latest interpretation of Croyland's passage is
against it (she should surely have been thinner than Elizabeth if she
had TB). What do other listers think?

Marie


>
> The second reason for piping up is I had the idea of linking
Richard
> III to bookcrossing.
>
> For those of you who haven't of bookcrossing it is simply the idea
> of going to www.bookcrossing.com, registering a book, writing the
> unique number generated on the books flyleaf and leaving it
> somewhere in public so a stranger can find it, register the fact
> that they caught it and then release it again. The whole thing is
> free and as anonymous as you want it to be.
>
> I was thinking that we could set up a new membership - under the
> name The Ricardians or The Richard III Society - everyone could
> share the password and then set about releasing pro-Richard books
at
> appropriate sites every now and then (Middleham, the Tower etc). Of
> course we could use the member page to link to this group as well
as
> the main Society page and other Pro-Richard resources.
>
> And wouldn't it be stealing the Anti-Richard heathens thunder to
> start a publicity campaign under their so-very-arrogant-I-love-that-
> liar-More-noses?
>
> ;-)
>
> Please say you'll join me!
>
>
> Nia

Nia wrote: I always took that little snippet about
dresses to be a reference to Elizabeth being
dressed by her ambitious family as an
alternative/successor to Anne.

After all if Elizabeth did turn up in a dress as grand
as the Queen's surely her mother and sisters would
have *had* to have known about it? The whole incident
has the same tang about it that Bess
Grey wandering around in the woods in her most
becoming gown and just *happening* to run into the
King does. I'd chalk it down to a smart, catty little
bit of stagemanagement.

***

Maybe it was catty stagemanagement. But how smart was
it?

Was it smart to advertise the fact that they felt
strong enough to insult Anne and Richard? Had Richard
lost so much power that he wouldn't have made the
Woodvilles pay for that somehow? As far as I know,
Richard still had power over wardships, marriages,
property gifts, etc. Richard could have made the
Woodvilles pay in many ways. He could have married
his niece, Elizabeth off to someone of much lower
rank, which would have made her inaccessable to Henry
Tudor. He could have sent his sister-in-law,
Elizabeth to live in a convent, as Henry VII was to
do.

It seems to me they would have realized that, and they
would have been over-confident to take a chance on
offending Richard and Anne that way.

Maybe they thought it was worth taking that chance.
But what would it have gained them beyond the
satisfaction of insulting Richard and Anne?

***

The second reason for piping up is I had the idea of
linking Richard III to bookcrossing.

I was thinking that we could set up a new membership -
under the
name The Ricardians or The Richard III Society -
everyone could
share the password and then set about releasing
pro-Richard books at
appropriate sites every now and then (Middleham, the
Tower etc). Of
course we could use the member page to link to this
group as well as
the main Society page and other Pro-Richard resources.

***

I've released a few books into the wild, and I like
the idea of releasing Ricardian books.

If Bookcrossing objects to a group with a cause
registering, Ricardians can still release Ricardian
books and register them under their individual
accounts.

We can write the URL for the Society website on the
registration labels for the books. Hopefully the
people who find the books will visit the Society
website and follow some links, even if they don't post
to bookcrossing.

***

And wouldn't it be stealing the Anti-Richard heathens
thunder to start a publicity campaign under their
so-very-arrogant-I-love-that-liar-More-noses?

***

Well, Richard's detractors are just as free to open a
bookcrossing account and release anti-Richard books.
<G>


I've just done a search for books about Richard III on
bookcrossing.

There were 58 hits for "Richard III," most of which
were for Shakespeare's play. There was one hit for
"The Hours of Richard III," by Anne F. Sutton and
Livia Visser-Fuchs. There were a few hits for "The
Murders of Richard III" by Elizabeth Peters.

There were 63 hits for Josephine Tey's "The Daughter
of Time."

There were 12 hits for Alison Weir's "The Princes in
the Tower."

There were 54 hits for Thomas More's "Utopia," but
none for his "Richard III."

Looks like there's plenty of opportunity for
Ricardians on bookcrossing.

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what youýre looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: ...It seems to me that IF Elizabeth did
wear gowns of similar colour and shape to Anne's there
are three parties who could have been responsible.
1) Richard
2) Anne
3) the Woodvilles

Without even looking at personalities, as that can be
very subjective, the following observations could be
made:-
1) Richard certainly had opportunity, but I think
motive was lacking. For him to have dressed Elizabeth
like the Queen would have been politically inept to
say the least. Certainly, if a man were planning
to poison his queen he would have to allay suspicion
by keeping secret the fact that he had his eye on his
niece until after said queen was dead. Had he planned
to divorce her in order to marry said niece, I suppose
he just might have tested the waters first, but I
would have thought he would have done so rather more
discreetly.

***

I agree. Since Richard was already suspected of
having his nephews killed, he had nothing to gain by
killing her and much to lose.

***

2)Anne. Anne also had opportunity; if she liked
Elizabeth and felt sorry for her, or if they really
did fit the same clothes perfectly, then motive would
exist too. In fact, if this was a clothes swap
because the two ladies were the same clothes size and
suited the same colours, then Anne must have been
behind it. If the clothes were simply of similar
colour and shape, then it might well be that Anne
had ordered a lower-grade version of her own dress for
Elizabeth, something like the Tudor arrangement Marion
mentioned. Indeed, I wonder whether we can trust
Croyland that only Elizabeth was dressed
like this, and not other attendants.

***

I have my doubts about Croyland. The author of
Croyland may have been an insider who knew what was
going on, but he seems too biased to be trustworthy.

***

3) The Woodvilles certainly had motive to dress
Elizabeth identically to the queen (ie not just
similar colour and design but identically
grandly).

***

I'm not so sure about the Woodvilles' motives. They
may have wanted to flaunt their power, but could they
that really afford to? Was Richard really so weakened
by suspicions about his nephews that they could get
away with insulting him and Anne that way?

***

But I'm not sure about opportunity. They would have
had to have known what Anne was planning to wear for
one thing, and Elizabeth Woodville would have had to
have been able to afford to have the clothes made on
her meagre annuity of 700 marks. That dress
Cecily had made in 1444, for instance, cost hundreds
of pounds, and Croyland's description of the clothes
changes as "vain" suggests the clothes in question
were pretty sumptuous. Elizabeth Woodville's
annuity had been set precisely in order to enable her
to live decently but not have enough money to cause
mischief.

***

This is a good point. Would the risk of offending
Richard and Anne be worth the cost of the dresses as
well as the cost of retaliation?

***

So my feeling is that Anne is the likeliest "culprit",
so that the whole thing is likely to have been quite
innocent. In fact, I wonder if these clothes changes
might not have been connected specifically
with the Twelfth Night festivities, the big last night
of the Christmas merrymaking, when revellers
traditionally disguised themselves.

I suspect the tittle-tattle about the gowns only
started later, after Anne had died and rumours about
poisoning had been spread.

***

That makes sense to me. I doubt that the Woodvilles
would have taken a chance on provoking Richard's anger
and possible retaliation at Christmas 1484. They
didn't have enough power to justify overconfidence
then.

This reminds me of the story that Thomas Stanley said
"I have other sons" when Richard threatened to kill
the son Stanley left as hostage. It's an interesting
story. But would Stanley really have taken a chance
like that? Only after the storytellers knew the
outcome of the battle on Aug. 22nd, 1485, IMO.

It seems to me that this story of the matching dresses
was told only after the storytellers knew there was no
danger of retaliation from Richard.

***

I wonder if Croyland meant what he wrote - about
Richard's need to make Elizabeth his queen - to be an
object lesson also for Henry VII, who had not, at the
time, yet had Elizabeth crowned. If so, he
may have been skewing the facts deliberately to point
up her importance, not just in this passage but in
succeeding ones concerened with Richard's desire to
marry his niece.

***

I'm not sure about this. I need more time to think
about it. But it hit me right away that Elizabeth of
York was involved more than once in wearing the same
clothes as a more powerful woman. I'm still not sure
what to make of it. But I've never read or heard of
any other historical person who was noted for wearing
matching outfits this way. Has anyone else?

***

As a side issue, Croyland is used in evidence of the
fact that Anne Neville didn't take sick until after
Christmas (he goes on to talk about how she sickened
after Christmas in the next passage). However,
the above quotation suggests that even during the
Christmas festivities the Queen's death was
"anticipated"; if this is not the case, then it does
suggest that people only started gossiping about
the gowns later, after she took sick.

"Anticipate" properly means not just to expect, but to
do something in expectation of an event - eg Richard
might have anticipated Anne's death by making plans to
marry Elizabeth - but the sense of the passage doesn't
suggest quite that - rather that Anne was expected to
die and people wondered if Richard was determined to
see that she did. I wonder what the Latin word was.
Translations are a necessary evil.

I'm personally still inclined towards the TB theory
with regard to Anne, though the latest interpretation
of Croyland's passage is against it (she should surely
have been thinner than Elizabeth if she had TB). What
do other listers think?

***

I need to review what I've read about Anne's sister
Isabel's health. I think it's been suggested that
both Isabel and Anne inherited weak constitutions.
Both died at relatively young ages, but I'm don't
think the causes of their early deaths are known.

But if Anne had died of tuberculosis, wouldn't she
have suffered a period of decline longer than 2 1/2
months? Wouldn't her symptoms have shown up before
Christmas of 1484? My impression of tuberculosis is
that it's a long-lasting disease. But perhaps it ran
its course more quickly in the late 15th century.

It seems to me that Anne would not only have been
thinner than Elizabeth, she would have needed all her
waning energy to keep up with the holiday activities.
She wouldn't have had energy to spare for unnecessary
changes of clothing. But it's also possible that her
waiting women took care of everything, so that Anne
didn't have to exhaust herself.

Can anyone suggest other diseases that fit the limited
descriptions of Anne's symptoms?

TIA!

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what youýre looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Nia wrote: I always took that little snippet about
> dresses to be a reference to Elizabeth being
> dressed by her ambitious family as an
> alternative/successor to Anne.
>
> After all if Elizabeth did turn up in a dress as grand
> as the Queen's surely her mother and sisters would
> have *had* to have known about it? The whole incident
> has the same tang about it that Bess
> Grey wandering around in the woods in her most
> becoming gown and just *happening* to run into the
> King does. I'd chalk it down to a smart, catty little
> bit of stagemanagement.
>
> ***
>
> Maybe it was catty stagemanagement. But how smart was
> it?
>
> Was it smart to advertise the fact that they felt
> strong enough to insult Anne and Richard? Had Richard
> lost so much power that he wouldn't have made the
> Woodvilles pay for that somehow? As far as I know,
> Richard still had power over wardships, marriages,
> property gifts, etc. Richard could have made the
> Woodvilles pay in many ways. He could have married
> his niece, Elizabeth off to someone of much lower
> rank, which would have made her inaccessable to Henry
> Tudor. He could have sent his sister-in-law,
> Elizabeth to live in a convent, as Henry VII was to
> do.
>
> It seems to me they would have realized that, and they
> would have been over-confident to take a chance on
> offending Richard and Anne that way.
>
> Maybe they thought it was worth taking that chance.
> But what would it have gained them beyond the
> satisfaction of insulting Richard and Anne?
>
> ***

I agree, with this, Marion. In fact, once I'd posted I realised I'd
forgotten to make the point that Richard wouldn't have let the
Woodvilles do that to him. The Margaret Beaufort case is completely
different as she could do whatever she wanted.
There is a slight possibility that they could have got away with it
as a joke on Twelfth Night. But I still come back to the prohibitive
cost.

Marie

>
> The second reason for piping up is I had the idea of
> linking Richard III to bookcrossing.
>
> I was thinking that we could set up a new membership -
> under the
> name The Ricardians or The Richard III Society -
> everyone could
> share the password and then set about releasing
> pro-Richard books at
> appropriate sites every now and then (Middleham, the
> Tower etc). Of
> course we could use the member page to link to this
> group as well as
> the main Society page and other Pro-Richard resources.
>
> ***
>
> I've released a few books into the wild, and I like
> the idea of releasing Ricardian books.
>
> If Bookcrossing objects to a group with a cause
> registering, Ricardians can still release Ricardian
> books and register them under their individual
> accounts.
>
> We can write the URL for the Society website on the
> registration labels for the books. Hopefully the
> people who find the books will visit the Society
> website and follow some links, even if they don't post
> to bookcrossing.
>
> ***
>
> And wouldn't it be stealing the Anti-Richard heathens
> thunder to start a publicity campaign under their
> so-very-arrogant-I-love-that-liar-More-noses?
>
> ***
>
> Well, Richard's detractors are just as free to open a
> bookcrossing account and release anti-Richard books.
> <G>
>
>
> I've just done a search for books about Richard III on
> bookcrossing.
>
> There were 58 hits for "Richard III," most of which
> were for Shakespeare's play. There was one hit for
> "The Hours of Richard III," by Anne F. Sutton and
> Livia Visser-Fuchs. There were a few hits for "The
> Murders of Richard III" by Elizabeth Peters.
>
> There were 63 hits for Josephine Tey's "The Daughter
> of Time."
>
> There were 12 hits for Alison Weir's "The Princes in
> the Tower."
>
> There were 54 hits for Thomas More's "Utopia," but
> none for his "Richard III."
>
> Looks like there's plenty of opportunity for
> Ricardians on bookcrossing.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com

At 22:21 09/03/2004, Marian wrote:
>But if Anne had died of tuberculosis, wouldn't she
>have suffered a period of decline longer than 2 1/2
>months? Wouldn't her symptoms have shown up before
>Christmas of 1484? My impression of tuberculosis is
>that it's a long-lasting disease. But perhaps it ran
>its course more quickly in the late 15th century.
>
>It seems to me that Anne would not only have been
>thinner than Elizabeth, she would have needed all her
>waning energy to keep up with the holiday activities.
>She wouldn't have had energy to spare for unnecessary
>changes of clothing. But it's also possible that her
>waiting women took care of everything, so that Anne
>didn't have to exhaust herself.

To be honest, from what I've heard, TB can vary, just like cancer. The only
TB people I know are those who survived it in their teens in the 1940s and
1950s, but from what I've read about it, it's entirely possible that it
kicked in at the last minute and could kill someone off quickly. Similarly,
from family experience, I've seen cancers that killed people within three
weeks of diagnosis, which was pretty much from the second visit to a doctor
in a very short period of time about something that felt relatively minor
affecting that person.

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 22:21 09/03/2004, Marian wrote:
> >But if Anne had died of tuberculosis, wouldn't she
> >have suffered a period of decline longer than 2 1/2
> >months? Wouldn't her symptoms have shown up before
> >Christmas of 1484? My impression of tuberculosis is
> >that it's a long-lasting disease. But perhaps it ran
> >its course more quickly in the late 15th century.
> >
> >It seems to me that Anne would not only have been
> >thinner than Elizabeth, she would have needed all her
> >waning energy to keep up with the holiday activities.
> >She wouldn't have had energy to spare for unnecessary
> >changes of clothing. But it's also possible that her
> >waiting women took care of everything, so that Anne
> >didn't have to exhaust herself.
>
> To be honest, from what I've heard, TB can vary, just like cancer.
The only
> TB people I know are those who survived it in their teens in the
1940s and
> 1950s, but from what I've read about it, it's entirely possible
that it
> kicked in at the last minute and could kill someone off quickly.
Similarly,
> from family experience, I've seen cancers that killed people within
three
> weeks of diagnosis, which was pretty much from the second visit to
a doctor
> in a very short period of time about something that felt relatively
minor
> affecting that person.
>
> Jenny

Yes, I'm not a doctor, but from what I've gleaned I should say we
have to distinguish, as with cancer, between the long chronic phase
of the disease and a much shorter terminal phase.
The incubation period could be years long, and he disease could take
several years to kill, but a person mightn't be deblitated for very
long.
Infertility would result at some point, quite probaly some years
before death, which fits Anne.
To take an example from my family, an aunt of my mother's who died
before she was born:-
1. Summer 1906 returns with family from America back home to Ireland
because of ill health.
2. Another child born within next few months. Then no more children
although mother still of childbearing age.
3. 1911 census (April) Still able to look after children on her own -
husband is away working.
4. 1912 TB diagnosis made by doctor.
5. 18 March 1913, died. Death cert states: "Phthisis pulmonaris 1
year. Asthenia 1 month. Certified".
Asthenia is medical term for debilitating weakness - ie it would
appear she took to her bed for the last time only a month before she
died. Even on the morning of her death, apparently, she was able to
fix a ribbon in her daughter's hair.
All of which firs well with Anne's case. My only concerns are:
1. Whether she was still plump enough in December 1484 to swap
dresses with Elizabeth of York
2. How long she might have taken to conceive Edward. It seems she was
definitely married before February 1474, and Rous says Edward was
only 7+ at the time of his investiture (ie born late 1475-August
1476). If she had problems conceiving before Edward's birth then she
may just have been sub-fertile rather than ill.
Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , Jennifer Delaney
> <clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> > At 22:21 09/03/2004, Marian wrote:

> > >
> > >It seems to me that Anne would not only have been
> > >thinner than Elizabeth, she would have needed all her
> > >waning energy to keep up with the holiday activities.
> > >She wouldn't have had energy to spare for unnecessary
> > >changes of clothing. But it's also possible that her
> > >waiting women took care of everything, so that Anne
> > >didn't have to exhaust herself.
> >
(Marie wrote) My only concerns are:
> 1. Whether she was still plump enough in December 1484 to swap
> dresses with Elizabeth of York
> 2. How long she might have taken to conceive Edward. It seems she
was
> definitely married before February 1474, and Rous says Edward was
> only 7+ at the time of his investiture (ie born late 1475-August
> 1476). If she had problems conceiving before Edward's birth then
she
> may just have been sub-fertile rather than ill.


Another possibility...perhaps Elizabeth of York was not particularly
plump, herself. She'd had a rough past couple of years, and she was
in her teens, a notoriously emotional age. She could have been quite
thin from the stress of it all...she had gone from being a princess
(if the term was used then...I think I read that the king's daughters
first were called princesses in Tudor times) to being a bastard due
to the Titulus Regius, since if Edward's sons were illegitimate, so
were his daughters. And if she actually wrote that letter professing
a crush on Richard, she may have been a high-strung romantic lass as
well. She would have been on a frightening roller-coaster ride as
far as her status goes, and things like that can lead even to
anorexia these days. I doubt she was actually that thin, since we
don't find any mention that she was abnormally thin - then Richard
might have been accused of starving her -- but she may not have been
plump and rosy-cheeked herself.

An that bent, perhaps her possibly having a dress identical to
Anne's, or of Anne exchanging dresses with her, was an act of
kindness and compassion towards Elizabeth, ot maybe it was meant to
raise her status a bit. She was now a bastard, perhaps additionally
the daughter of a bastard who had occupied the throne strictly by
coup, not by Plantagenet heredity...what kind of marriage prospects
would she have? (As a matter of fact, did Richard make any overtures
towards finding her a match?)

(Interesting pair Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor made, wasn't
it? Tudor rejected Parliament's finding that all Edward IV's
children were illegitimate due to his improper and invalid marriage
to Elizabeth Woodville, but I beieve that Tudor himself was the child
of an improper and invalid marriage, since Margaret Beaufort, at age
12, was too young to consent to marry Edmund Tudor on her own, and
anyway I believe that consent of the Crown would have been required.
And Edmund himself was illegitimate because royal consent certainly
would have been necessary for Henry V's widow to marry her Welsh
attendant,)

Katy

>
> Another possibility...perhaps Elizabeth of York was not
particularly
> plump, herself. She'd had a rough past couple of years, and she
was
> in her teens, a notoriously emotional age. She could have been
quite
> thin from the stress of it all...she had gone from being a
princess
> (if the term was used then...I think I read that the king's
daughters
> first were called princesses in Tudor times) to being a bastard
due
> to the Titulus Regius, since if Edward's sons were illegitimate,
so
> were his daughters. And if she actually wrote that letter
professing
> a crush on Richard, she may have been a high-strung romantic lass
as
> well. She would have been on a frightening roller-coaster ride as
> far as her status goes, and things like that can lead even to
> anorexia these days. I doubt she was actually that thin, since we
> don't find any mention that she was abnormally thin - then Richard
> might have been accused of starving her -- but she may not have
been
> plump and rosy-cheeked herself.
>
> An that bent, perhaps her possibly having a dress identical to
> Anne's, or of Anne exchanging dresses with her, was an act of
> kindness and compassion towards Elizabeth, ot maybe it was meant
to
> raise her status a bit. She was now a bastard, perhaps
additionally
> the daughter of a bastard who had occupied the throne strictly by
> coup, not by Plantagenet heredity...what kind of marriage
prospects
> would she have? (As a matter of fact, did Richard make any
overtures
> towards finding her a match?)
>
> (Interesting pair Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor made, wasn't
> it? Tudor rejected Parliament's finding that all Edward IV's
> children were illegitimate due to his improper and invalid
marriage
> to Elizabeth Woodville, but I beieve that Tudor himself was the
child
> of an improper and invalid marriage, since Margaret Beaufort, at
age
> 12, was too young to consent to marry Edmund Tudor on her own,
and
> anyway I believe that consent of the Crown would have been
required.
> And Edmund himself was illegitimate because royal consent
certainly
> would have been necessary for Henry V's widow to marry her Welsh
> attendant,)
>
> Katy

I think you are right Katy. Being in the abbey itself may have added
to her weight loss, if such really were the case. Short commons? And
Edmund Tudor's birth, as you say, is questionable, or at least his
legitimacy is. Apparently there is no record of a marriage occurring
or of conciliar/royal permission for it.
B

>
> Another possibility...perhaps Elizabeth of York was not
particularly
> plump, herself. She'd had a rough past couple of years, and she
was
> in her teens, a notoriously emotional age. She could have been
quite
> thin from the stress of it all...she had gone from being a princess
> (if the term was used then...I think I read that the king's
daughters
> first were called princesses in Tudor times) to being a bastard due
> to the Titulus Regius, since if Edward's sons were illegitimate, so
> were his daughters. And if she actually wrote that letter
professing
> a crush on Richard, she may have been a high-strung romantic lass
as
> well. She would have been on a frightening roller-coaster ride as
> far as her status goes, and things like that can lead even to
> anorexia these days. I doubt she was actually that thin, since we
> don't find any mention that she was abnormally thin - then Richard
> might have been accused of starving her -- but she may not have
been
> plump and rosy-cheeked herself.

I do have reservations about this. Elizabeth was by all accounts an
attractive young woman, but the evidence suggests that she was not a
thin small-boned type. The Canterbury window, for what it's worth,
shows Edward's daughters as quite robust young ladies very like
female versions of himself, and it seems that Elizabeth got quite
chubby once she started having children. You can see it in her
portrait, and in 1501 the Portuguese ambassador reported home
that "the Queen [of England] was supposed to be with child; her
apothecary told me that a Genoese physician affirmed that she was
pregnant, yet it was not so; she is plump and has large breasts."
So I suspect that in her teens she was a well-covered slim. Most
people who develop anorexia or who lose weight due to stress tend to
maintain that tendency.
So although I still favour the TB solution for Anne (and, yes, of
course, it needn't have been pulmonary TB), I can't really reconcile
myself to Elizabeth of York's being underweight as a solution to the
dress-swapping problem.

Marie


>
> An that bent, perhaps her possibly having a dress identical to
> Anne's, or of Anne exchanging dresses with her, was an act of
> kindness and compassion towards Elizabeth, ot maybe it was meant to
> raise her status a bit. She was now a bastard, perhaps
additionally
> the daughter of a bastard who had occupied the throne strictly by
> coup, not by Plantagenet heredity...what kind of marriage prospects
> would she have? (As a matter of fact, did Richard make any
overtures
> towards finding her a match?)

Not so far as we know (unless you believe he had himself in mind). He
had of course promised to marry all the sisters "to gentlemen born",
but to be fair he'd had other things on his mind for the 18 months
since they came out of sanctuary. He couldn't really afford,
politically, to marry them to anyone too powerful, so gentlemen,
rather than noblemen, is probably what they would have got.
>
> (Interesting pair Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor made, wasn't
> it? Tudor rejected Parliament's finding that all Edward IV's
> children were illegitimate due to his improper and invalid marriage
> to Elizabeth Woodville, but I beieve that Tudor himself was the
child
> of an improper and invalid marriage, since Margaret Beaufort, at
age
> 12, was too young to consent to marry Edmund Tudor on her own, and
> anyway I believe that consent of the Crown would have been
required.
> And Edmund himself was illegitimate because royal consent certainly
> would have been necessary for Henry V's widow to marry her Welsh
> attendant,)

The canonical age of consent for a girl was actually 12 (13 for a
boy), so the marriage was okay. However, there was illegitimacy on
both sides, as the Beauforts were descended from Gaunt's children
born out of wedlock and it seems probable that Katherine de Valois
and Owen Tudor were never married at all, with or without the royal
consent.

Marie

Marie wrote: He couldn't really afford,
politically, to marry them to anyone too powerful, so
gentlemen, rather than noblemen, is probably what they
would have got.

***

In Elizabeth's case, I've asked myself why Richard
didn't *make* time to arrange a marriage which would
prevent Henry Tudor from marrying her.

In Dec. 1484, Henry had taken a public oath to marry
Elizabeth. Richard must have heard about it.

It seems to me that Richard had more to gain than to
lose by arranging a marriage for Elizabeth once news
of Henry's oath reached England.

What stopped Richard from arranging a preventive
marriage between Elizabeth and a gentleman?

Did the Woodvilles have enough power to prevent it?

Is it possible that the Woodvilles spread the rumor
about Richard's desire to marry Elizabeth so that he
couldn't arrange a marriage between Elizabeth and some
gentleman, without causing himself embarrassment?

Would embarrassment be a strong enough motive,
considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free for
Henry to take?

Was arranging a marriage for Elizabeth so
time-consuming that Richard couldn't have managed it,
considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free?

Does anyone have any ideas about this?

TIA!

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: He couldn't really afford,
> politically, to marry them to anyone too powerful, so
> gentlemen, rather than noblemen, is probably what they
> would have got.
>
> ***
>
> In Elizabeth's case, I've asked myself why Richard
> didn't *make* time to arrange a marriage which would
> prevent Henry Tudor from marrying her.
>
> In Dec. 1484, Henry had taken a public oath to marry
> Elizabeth. Richard must have heard about it.
>
> It seems to me that Richard had more to gain than to
> lose by arranging a marriage for Elizabeth once news
> of Henry's oath reached England.
>
> What stopped Richard from arranging a preventive
> marriage between Elizabeth and a gentleman?
>
> Did the Woodvilles have enough power to prevent it?
>
> Is it possible that the Woodvilles spread the rumor
> about Richard's desire to marry Elizabeth so that he
> couldn't arrange a marriage between Elizabeth and some
> gentleman, without causing himself embarrassment?
>
> Would embarrassment be a strong enough motive,
> considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free for
> Henry to take?

I can't see that would have been particularly embarrassing, but
Richard may have beeen too proud to be shown to be upset by the
rumour spreaders. Although that doesn't exactly square with the hall
of the Knights of St John business. It may be that he was having
difficulty finding a husband he was happy with and that Elizabeth and
her mother would also accept. There was, after all, the small matter
of consent. Or perhaps he hoped to persuade her to take religious
vows.
Or maybe he had at one point had other ideas for her. . .
>
> Was arranging a marriage for Elizabeth so
> time-consuming that Richard couldn't have managed it,
> considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free?
>
> Does anyone have any ideas about this?

Although Elizabeth was now of bastard status, it is possible that
Richard and Anne wished to avoid a disparaging marriage for her (as
perhaps suggested by her treatment at court Xmas 1484); this would
have left them with quite a problem.

Is it possible that after Anne's death Richard might have sought a
solution in a double diplomatic alliance, with himself taking a bride
from, say, Spain or Portugal, at the same time packing Elizabeth off
abroad as a bride for more junior member of same royal house? Said
royal house would not be a risk as their link to the English royal
house would be mainly invested in Richard and his descendants. This
would not have been an overnight solution. It could be that richard
couldn't arrange the sort of match he felt appropriate for Elizabeth
in the timescale involved.

Anyone else any more ideas?



Marie



>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: He couldn't really afford,
> politically, to marry them to anyone too powerful, so
> gentlemen, rather than noblemen, is probably what they
> would have got.
>
> ***
>
> In Elizabeth's case, I've asked myself why Richard
> didn't *make* time to arrange a marriage which would
> prevent Henry Tudor from marrying her.
>
> In Dec. 1484, Henry had taken a public oath to marry
> Elizabeth. Richard must have heard about it.
>
> It seems to me that Richard had more to gain than to
> lose by arranging a marriage for Elizabeth once news
> of Henry's oath reached England.
>
> What stopped Richard from arranging a preventive
> marriage between Elizabeth and a gentleman?
>
> Did the Woodvilles have enough power to prevent it?
>
> Is it possible that the Woodvilles spread the rumor
> about Richard's desire to marry Elizabeth so that he
> couldn't arrange a marriage between Elizabeth and some
> gentleman, without causing himself embarrassment?
>
> Would embarrassment be a strong enough motive,
> considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free for
> Henry to take?
>
> Was arranging a marriage for Elizabeth so
> time-consuming that Richard couldn't have managed it,
> considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free?
>
> Does anyone have any ideas about this?

Just another thought. If Elizabeth's brothers - or even one of them -
were still alive, might Richard have felt that Elizabeth wasn't the
issue? Or might he have felt that, even with Elizabeth married ,Tudor
would still have invaded, and that if he won her life would then be
at risk?

Marie
>>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Marie wrote: Is it possible that after Anne's death
Richard might have sought a solution in a double
diplomatic alliance, with himself taking a bride
from, say, Spain or Portugal, at the same time packing
Elizabeth off abroad as a bride for more junior member
of same royal house? Said royal house would not be a
risk as their link to the English royal house would be
mainly invested in Richard and his descendants.

***

Would there be any records of such a proposal in
Spanish or Portuguese archives? If records for
Spanish/English and Portuguese/English interactions
could be found, it would partly compensate for the
loss of English records for Richard's reign.

Is it likely that Tudor reasons for destroying English
records of Richard III's reign (and other Yorkist
documents as well) would cause Spanish or Portuguese
archivists or historians to destroy their own records?

Could Henry VII have paid them enough to do that?
Seems like that would be a very risky thing to pay
someone to do. Whoever he paid might just take the
money and leave the records alone. Henry VII wouldn't
be able to prove the documents were destroyed.

Would he even have thought of trying to erase
Richard's reign from other countries' archives?

***

It could be that richard couldn't arrange the sort of
match he felt appropriate for Elizabeth in the
timescale involved.

***

That's possible. It took about 2 years for Charles
the Bold and Edward IV to arrange Charles' marriage to
Margaret of York, didn't it?

***

Just another thought. If Elizabeth's brothers - or
even one of them - were still alive, might Richard
have felt that Elizabeth wasn't the issue?

***

If it were possible to prove that Richard felt
Elizabeth wasn't the issue, because he could produce
Edward V and Richard of York alive and well if
necessary, that would settle a lot of arguments.

But I have trouble understanding Elizabeth Woodville's
behavior. Did she agree to leave sanctuary and send
her daughters to Richard's court because she knew her
sons were alive? Or did she believe/know they were
dead and agree to Richard's request because she was
pragmatic? Did she hope to revenge herself on Richard
more easily by leaving sanctuary and allowing her
daughters to go to Richard's court? Who did she see
her own best interests with at the time? What does
Elizabeth Woodville's behavior tell us?

***

Or might he have felt that, even with Elizabeth
married ,Tudor would still have invaded, and that if
he won her life would then be at risk?

***

Are you saying that Henry VIi might have executed
Elizabeth of York because he couldn't marry her and
claim the throne in her right? Would marriage to
Elizabeth of York entitle a gentleman to inherit the
crown?

Would Richard have feared for Elizabeth's life at that
time? We know that the Tudors earned a reputation for
executing women, but I remember reading somewhere that
women weren't executed before the Tudors took over.

Is that correct? I can't remember reading or hearing
anything about execution of women except for heresy or
witchcraft.

I remember reading in Hughes' "Arthurian Myths and
Alchemy" that Elizabeth of York's grandmother
Jacquetta of Luxemburg was suspected of witchcraft.

I've also asked about the risks of putting her
impatience for Queen Anne to die in writing (if
Elizabeth of York did such a thing, which I doubt).
It seems to me that such a statement could easily lead
to an accusation of witchcraft. In that case, why
wasn't Elizabeth of York accused of killing Anne
instead of Richard?

But how likely is it that Henry VII would have tried
to execute Elizabeth of York for witchcraft if she'd
been married? How would that benefit him? Would it
have prevented the gentleman she was married to from
claiming the crown in her right?

Considering the Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warwick
stories, it may be more likely than I think.

Marion













__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

> > ***
> >
> > In Elizabeth's case, I've asked myself why Richard
> > didn't *make* time to arrange a marriage which would
> > prevent Henry Tudor from marrying her.
> >
> > In Dec. 1484, Henry had taken a public oath to marry
> > Elizabeth. Richard must have heard about it.
> >
> > It seems to me that Richard had more to gain than to
> > lose by arranging a marriage for Elizabeth once news
> > of Henry's oath reached England.
> >
> > What stopped Richard from arranging a preventive
> > marriage between Elizabeth and a gentleman?
> >
> > Did the Woodvilles have enough power to prevent it?
> >
> > Is it possible that the Woodvilles spread the rumor
> > about Richard's desire to marry Elizabeth so that he
> > couldn't arrange a marriage between Elizabeth and some
> > gentleman, without causing himself embarrassment?
> >
> > Would embarrassment be a strong enough motive,
> > considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free for
> > Henry to take?
> >
> > Was arranging a marriage for Elizabeth so
> > time-consuming that Richard couldn't have managed it,
> > considering the risks of leaving Elizabeth free?
> >
> > Does anyone have any ideas about this?


That's interesting and something that has long bothered me. Two
obvious solutions are 1. Richard did want her for himself, which I
suppose most of us will reject, and 2. He was having problems
finding the right one. I am not sure Woodville status was enough to
prevent a match they didn't like at this stage, but if Richard were
fond of Elizabeth in an avuncular way, and if she herself were to
plead with him - maybe she could turn on the tears or something -
that she didn't want to marry (possibly holding torch for Richard?
Jury still out on that i think!) then maybe he would have relented.
Just a thought. Of course if Richard were the monster he is
portrayed as then he would have surely married her off to whoever he
could get down the aisle with no thought for her. If he was tough
enough to threaten Stanely's son's life he was certainly tough
enough to do this, if it suited him and no better option were
offered. That he did not suggests to me that he is not such a
toughie - after all, Stanley didn't get the chop - and someone
offered him reason not to. Elizabeth herself? Perhaps she had heard
what Henry Tudor was like and, like me, thought it a fate worse than
death!

>
> Just another thought. If Elizabeth's brothers - or even one of
them -
> were still alive, might Richard have felt that Elizabeth wasn't
the
> issue? Or might he have felt that, even with Elizabeth
married ,Tudor
> would still have invaded, and that if he won her life would then
be
> at risk?
>
> Marie
> >>
> >


I am not convinced Tudor would have had the guts to invade without
the support the potential marriage to Elizabeth would bring. I
suspect that some, at least, of the ex-Yorkists with him at Bosworth
were there because of the marriage plan.

As for Marie's idea about a joint foreign marriage alliance I think
it has a lot of merit. As a scheme it has a lot to recommend it.
However, is there any sliver of evidence among, say the Spanish or
Portuguese records to suggest that anything of the kind was ever
considered? There is certainly evidence for Richard's own match, but
if there is absolutely no accompanying evidence for the 2nd match
then we may, sadly, have to scotch it. Do we know how exhaustively
those records have been explored?
B

> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html