Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

J A-H's new book

2013-10-01 17:05:41

justcarol67

I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-01 17:36:40

Stephen Lark

ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book

Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 12:19:00

Durose David

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 12:30:59

Stephen Lark

ÿ The 1427-8 Act banning the remarriage of widowed Queen Consorts passed through Parliament. Any later edict from Henry VI did jnot and had less force. There is much more evidence on this case in the space of six or so pages and many others in the book. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:57 AM Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 13:25:20

David Rayner

In the case of the Hollands I mentioned earlier, the brothers completely abandoned their paternal arms (though these were still used by the senior line of Upholland) in favour of England with a bordure of France, and England with a bordure argent.
I take the point about the Welsh origin of Tudor, but I don't think this effected the arms. It was Henry VI's attempt to bolster his family by promoting the brothers as of royal blood.
From time to time men were granted augmentations to their arms, for example being permitted to add a white or red rose for supporting the appropriate house. But actual kinship with the ruling dynasty allowed all the rules to be broken.
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 11:57
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book
I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 17:18:12

justcarol67

It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol,
I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned.

I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor.

Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts.

The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France.

In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points.

This system is referred to as Cadency.

A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother.

So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III.

In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II.

Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards
David

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM

Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 21:29:23

Durose David

Hi Carol,

I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B.

I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM

Carol

Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 22:06:33

Stephen Lark

ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 04:46:11

maroonnavywhite

To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 09:45:02

SandraMachin

Margaret's menarche is an interesting point. I have always understood that centuries ago a girl's first monthly' was likely to be when she was older than now. How much older I do not know. One of my friends at school in 1960 still had not commenced at sixteen. I am sure forum members know of even older examples. If MB had not commenced at the time of the marriage, I begin to get an uncomfortable picture of Edmund waiting for the first sign and then pouncing. This makes him sound so cruel, callous and calculating, yet if he was those things, surely he would be the last of her husbands next to whom she would wish to be buried. But I understand he was the one she actually chose for her posterity. Why? Simply because he was Henry's father? Or perhaps that he was not the awful brute we believe him to have been, and whatever he did, for whatever reason, he did it as kindly as he could? I'm not making a saint of him by any means, but we must judge him by his time. It was disapproved of to consummate a marriage when the bride was too young, but it wasn't the offence it would be now. Indeed, marrying a child, even without consummation, would be impossible now, within the Christian beliefs of this country. But back then it was very different. And it must be admitted that a girl of twelve is perfectly capable of forming a crush' of monumental proportions, and MB was nothing if not obsessive. Maybe she actually loved him. Love can be experienced at that age. No one would think anything if, as with Richard and Anne (and I know this is a debatable romance anyway) there had been love in childhood that endured into adulthood? If that is acceptable, why should it be any different if only one partner is young? Edmund was twenty-five when they married, twice Margaret's age, but certainly not an old man, even then. Almost exactly a year later he was dead of the plague. With human emotions, nothing is impossible, and in spite of her ordeal giving birth to Henry, maybe she always looked back fondly at Edmund, who was always youthful in her memory. Maybe he was handsome, maybe he was dashing and charming, maybe she was distraught to be without him. Maybe he was ugliness personified, but of pleasing ways. Who knows the truth of it? The effigy on Edmund's tomb is much later than his death, so probably just a figure of a man'. Any man. His son appears to have taken after his mother for looks and temperament, so we cannot know what Edmund was like, visually or in character. Jasper is not necessarily any indication, after all Richard was nothing like his brothers! Edmund was a fighting man, a Lancastrian who was eventually captured by the Yorkists, but being military does not make him a monster. Richard was a fighting man, but we would never dream of saying he was therefore a terrible tyrant in his private life. Therefore, given the standards of his time, I am prepared to give Edmund the benefit of the doubt. He did what he did to secure MB's inheritance, or so we understand, which would have been a compelling enough reason for a lord of the 15th century, but it's the how he did it that would have mattered to his little wife, who had known him since she was only nine. Twelve and a half is not too young to be unaware of why she had been married, i.e. her inheritance, and yes, later on in life she expressed a fear that another child marriage would result in a mother of too young an age, but would she have blamed Edmund? Had he lived, might he have been as distressed as her to see what his actions had done to her? We do not know. She still wanted to be buried with him. I do not believe it was for Henry's sake. In the end, of course, she wasn't buried with Edmund, but I think interring her at Westminster could have been Henry's decision. He was ill himself by then, and may have wished his mother to be close when he followed her into the hereafter, which he did only a few months later. Maybe she changed her mind anyway. I don't actually know the whys and wherefores of her place of burial, but no doubt someone on the forum does. So I reserve judgement on Edmund Tudor, whom MB could have loved until the day she died. BTW, do we know of any condemnatory opinions expressed at the time? What did saintly Henry VI say when he learned his half-brother had fathered a child on a twelve-year-old bride? Sandra =^..^= From: khafara@... Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:46 AM To: Subject: RE: J A-H's new book

Carol

Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 10:07:17

Hilary Jones

To ask a dopey question - you know I sometimes like doing that - do we know whether, apart from Jasper and perhaps John de Vere, those who gathered round HT abroad really did believe he was the 'true king' or were they there because in reality they'd messed things up in England and coming back with him (and a French/Breton army) was their only chance of regaining their English possessions and remaining in one piece?You see, when you look at other 'invaders', before and after they had one of two things; they had a strong military track record - William I, Bolingbroke, Edward IV, William III (though he was invited as well), or they represented a charismatic cause and fitted the romantic hero bill - the '15 and the '45, perhaps Perkin Warbeck.Now even HT's most avid supporters couldn't claim that he had either of these attributes. He had no military experience whatsoever, even Penn says he was not physically or socially particularly attractive and add to that he was the 'victim' of an overbearing mother. Were there people out there so altruistic for the Lancaster cause that they'd really support that? And if they didn't originally support Lancaster, then would they have risked everything to put a child monarch back on the throne? Could it not simply be that these were people with grudges, who rebelled for whatever reason and simply had no-where else to go? H.
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 22:09
Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
Carol
---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 10:25:38

SandraMachin

Not dopey, Hilary, but a great question. I had not thought of it that way, and it raises different perspectives. But whatever their reasons for joining Henry, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the sort of king he would actually turn out to be. He was determined, ruthless and didn't intend to take any sh-1-t from anyone. His fingernails became claws which he sank into the crown, and with which he took many a sideways swipe at those who displeased him. He must have been quite a shock. A lot of them would have rued not staying with Richard. I rue it too. WE all do! But you have to give Henry due credit for keeping his bum on the throne. He was not a likeable chap, but he certainly knew a thing or two about keeping what he'd grabbed so miraculously. The more I think of him, the more amazed I become by the sheer luck that always seemed to be with him, and by the strength of (Mummy's?) character that kept him where he was. =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:07 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book

To ask a dopey question - you know I sometimes like doing that - do we know whether, apart from Jasper and perhaps John de Vere, those who gathered round HT abroad really did believe he was the 'true king' or were they there because in reality they'd messed things up in England and coming back with him (and a French/Breton army) was their only chance of regaining their English possessions and remaining in one piece? You see, when you look at other 'invaders', before and after they had one of two things; they had a strong military track record - William I, Bolingbroke, Edward IV, William III (though he was invited as well), or they represented a charismatic cause and fitted the romantic hero bill - the '15 and the '45, perhaps Perkin Warbeck. Now even HT's most avid supporters couldn't claim that he had either of these attributes. He had no military experience whatsoever, even Penn says he was not physically or socially particularly attractive and add to that he was the 'victim' of an overbearing mother. Were there people out there so altruistic for the Lancaster cause that they'd really support that? And if they didn't originally support Lancaster, then would they have risked everything to put a child monarch back on the throne? Could it not simply be that these were people with grudges, who rebelled for whatever reason and simply had no-where else to go? H. From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 22:09
Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim. Carol
---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 10:26:36

Hilary Jones

Sandra, Jones and Underwood (what would we do without them) on page 95 are good on this. Margaret had by 1447 a landed wealth of over £1000 per annum. Once she produced a living child (however long it lived) the father became legally entitled to enjoy his wife's estates until his death. So although it was usual to wait until the girl was 14, they cite the same circumstances in the case of Bolingbroke and Mary Bohun, who was 13 when her first child was born (dead). So however cruel, it does seem to all have been about that great commodity, land.I agree about the menarche though. Fisher described Margaret as 'small in stature' when she gave birth. I would have thought people of small, and particularly thin stature, would have had a later menarche. Poor Margaret seems to have just been unlucky. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 9:44
Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Margaret's menarche is an interesting point. I have always understood that centuries ago a girl's first monthly' was likely to be when she was older than now. How much older I do not know. One of my friends at school in 1960 still had not commenced at sixteen. I am sure forum members know of even older examples. If MB had not commenced at the time of the marriage, I begin to get an uncomfortable picture of Edmund waiting for the first sign and then pouncing. This makes him sound so cruel, callous and calculating, yet if he was those things, surely he would be the last of her husbands next to whom she would wish to be buried. But I understand he was the one she actually chose for her posterity. Why? Simply because he was Henry's father? Or perhaps that he was not the awful brute we believe him to have been, and whatever he did, for whatever reason, he did it as kindly as he could? I'm not making a saint of him by any means, but we must judge him by his time. It was disapproved of to consummate a marriage when the bride was too young, but it wasn't the offence it would be now. Indeed, marrying a child, even without consummation, would be impossible now, within the Christian beliefs of this country. But back then it was very different. And it must be admitted that a girl of twelve is perfectly capable of forming a crush' of monumental proportions, and MB was nothing if not obsessive. Maybe she actually loved him. Love can be experienced at that age. No one would think anything if, as with Richard and Anne (and I know this is a debatable romance anyway) there had been love in childhood that endured into adulthood? If that is acceptable, why should it be any different if only one partner is young? Edmund was twenty-five when they married, twice Margaret's age, but certainly not an old man, even then. Almost exactly a year later he was dead of the plague. With human emotions, nothing is impossible, and in spite of her ordeal giving birth to Henry, maybe she always looked back fondly at Edmund, who was always youthful in her memory. Maybe he was handsome, maybe he was dashing and charming, maybe she was distraught to be without him. Maybe he was ugliness personified, but of pleasing ways. Who knows the truth of it? The effigy on Edmund's tomb is much later than his death, so probably just a figure of a man'. Any man. His son appears to have taken after his mother for looks and temperament, so we cannot know what Edmund was like, visually or in character. Jasper is not necessarily any indication, after all Richard was nothing like his brothers! Edmund was a fighting man, a Lancastrian who was eventually captured by the Yorkists, but being military does not make him a monster. Richard was a fighting man, but we would never dream of saying he was therefore a terrible tyrant in his private life. Therefore, given the standards of his time, I am prepared to give Edmund the benefit of the doubt. He did what he did to secure MB's inheritance, or so we understand, which would have been a compelling enough reason for a lord of the 15th century, but it's the how he did it that would have mattered to his little wife, who had known him since she was only nine. Twelve and a half is not too young to be unaware of why she had been married, i.e. her inheritance, and yes, later on in life she expressed a fear that another child marriage would result in a mother of too young an age, but would she have blamed Edmund? Had he lived, might he have been as distressed as her to see what his actions had done to her? We do not know. She still wanted to be buried with him. I do not believe it was for Henry's sake. In the end, of course, she wasn't buried with Edmund, but I think interring her at Westminster could have been Henry's decision. He was ill himself by then, and may have wished his mother to be close when he followed her into the hereafter, which he did only a few months later. Maybe she changed her mind anyway. I don't actually know the whys and wherefores of her place of burial, but no doubt someone on the forum does. So I reserve judgement on Edmund Tudor, whom MB could have loved until the day she died. BTW, do we know of any condemnatory opinions expressed at the time? What did saintly Henry VI say when he learned his half-brother had fathered a child on a twelve-year-old bride? Sandra =^..^= From: khafara@... Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:46 AM To: Subject: RE: J A-H's new book To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim. Carol
---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 10:42:42

Hilary Jones

I agree entirely. In fact it could have been his supposed lack of a strong character (we hadn't really had a sly monarch till then had we) that made them think that in the circumstances of a foreign army winning the day, he would be easy to manipulate. What an awful shock they were in for. And as you say, good old clever mummy.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 10:25
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Not dopey, Hilary, but a great question. I had not thought of it that way, and it raises different perspectives. But whatever their reasons for joining Henry, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the sort of king he would actually turn out to be. He was determined, ruthless and didn't intend to take any sh-1-t from anyone. His fingernails became claws which he sank into the crown, and with which he took many a sideways swipe at those who displeased him. He must have been quite a shock. A lot of them would have rued not staying with Richard. I rue it too. WE all do! But you have to give Henry due credit for keeping his bum on the throne. He was not a likeable chap, but he certainly knew a thing or two about keeping what he'd grabbed so miraculously. The more I think of him, the more amazed I become by the sheer luck that always seemed to be with him, and by the strength of (Mummy's?) character that kept him where he was. =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:07 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book To ask a dopey question - you know I sometimes like doing that - do we know whether, apart from Jasper and perhaps John de Vere, those who gathered round HT abroad really did believe he was the 'true king' or were they there because in reality they'd messed things up in England and coming back with him (and a French/Breton army) was their only chance of regaining their English possessions and remaining in one piece? You see, when you look at other 'invaders', before and after they had one of two things; they had a strong military track record - William I, Bolingbroke, Edward IV, William III (though he was invited as well), or they represented a charismatic cause and fitted the romantic hero bill - the '15 and the '45, perhaps Perkin Warbeck. Now even HT's most avid supporters couldn't claim that he had either of these attributes. He had no military experience whatsoever, even Penn says he was not physically or socially particularly attractive and add to that he was the 'victim' of an overbearing mother. Were there people out there so altruistic for the Lancaster cause that they'd really support that? And if they didn't originally support Lancaster, then would they have risked everything to put a child monarch back on the throne? Could it not simply be that these were people with grudges, who rebelled for whatever reason and simply had no-where else to go? H. From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 22:09
Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim. Carol ---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)? Thanks, Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 10:57:42

SandraMachin

Yes, Hilary, my school friend was small and particularly thin, and did not commence menstruation until sixteen. Nor did she wear a bra. My mother was twenty-two, small and thin, and I was a big bouncing baby. My birth in 1944 was not easy for her, especially as the doctor in attendance decided he wished to see a natural birth! No help from anaesthetics. Her wishes were not taken into account. She had a terrible time, in full pain for well over twenty-four hours while the doctor watched and made notes. My opinion of him makes Beelzebub seem like a saint. I hope he comes/came back as a small woman! My mother did not have another baby, but that was as much because of the blue baby' syndrome, the perils of which she and my father were warned about. She certainly did not blame my father for her ordeal, and he was certainly distressed by her sufferings. Luckily, neither of them blamed me! And fortunately, I took after my father, and did not suffer in the same way when my daughter was born. So if that was my small mother's experience at twenty-two, even if Margaret had been fourteen, how much bigger and stronger would she have been than at twelve? Not very, I think. Perhaps no matter what her age, her first child would always have been her only one. But if she did feel something more for Edmund that we have hitherto thought, might it be that as much as anything that made her so determined to further Henry's prospects? =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:26 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book

Sandra, Jones and Underwood (what would we do without them) on page 95 are good on this. Margaret had by 1447 a landed wealth of over £1000 per annum. Once she produced a living child (however long it lived) the father became legally entitled to enjoy his wife's estates until his death. So although it was usual to wait until the girl was 14, they cite the same circumstances in the case of Bolingbroke and Mary Bohun, who was 13 when her first child was born (dead). So however cruel, it does seem to all have been about that great commodity, land. I agree about the menarche though. Fisher described Margaret as 'small in stature' when she gave birth. I would have thought people of small, and particularly thin stature, would have had a later menarche. Poor Margaret seems to have just been unlucky. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 9:44
Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Margaret's menarche is an interesting point. I have always understood that centuries ago a girl's first monthly' was likely to be when she was older than now. How much older I do not know. One of my friends at school in 1960 still had not commenced at sixteen. I am sure forum members know of even older examples. If MB had not commenced at the time of the marriage, I begin to get an uncomfortable picture of Edmund waiting for the first sign and then pouncing. This makes him sound so cruel, callous and calculating, yet if he was those things, surely he would be the last of her husbands next to whom she would wish to be buried. But I understand he was the one she actually chose for her posterity. Why? Simply because he was Henry's father? Or perhaps that he was not the awful brute we believe him to have been, and whatever he did, for whatever reason, he did it as kindly as he could? I'm not making a saint of him by any means, but we must judge him by his time. It was disapproved of to consummate a marriage when the bride was too young, but it wasn't the offence it would be now. Indeed, marrying a child, even without consummation, would be impossible now, within the Christian beliefs of this country. But back then it was very different. And it must be admitted that a girl of twelve is perfectly capable of forming a crush' of monumental proportions, and MB was nothing if not obsessive. Maybe she actually loved him. Love can be experienced at that age. No one would think anything if, as with Richard and Anne (and I know this is a debatable romance anyway) there had been love in childhood that endured into adulthood? If that is acceptable, why should it be any different if only one partner is young? Edmund was twenty-five when they married, twice Margaret's age, but certainly not an old man, even then. Almost exactly a year later he was dead of the plague. With human emotions, nothing is impossible, and in spite of her ordeal giving birth to Henry, maybe she always looked back fondly at Edmund, who was always youthful in her memory. Maybe he was handsome, maybe he was dashing and charming, maybe she was distraught to be without him. Maybe he was ugliness personified, but of pleasing ways. Who knows the truth of it? The effigy on Edmund's tomb is much later than his death, so probably just a figure of a man'. Any man. His son appears to have taken after his mother for looks and temperament, so we cannot know what Edmund was like, visually or in character. Jasper is not necessarily any indication, after all Richard was nothing like his brothers! Edmund was a fighting man, a Lancastrian who was eventually captured by the Yorkists, but being military does not make him a monster. Richard was a fighting man, but we would never dream of saying he was therefore a terrible tyrant in his private life. Therefore, given the standards of his time, I am prepared to give Edmund the benefit of the doubt. He did what he did to secure MB's inheritance, or so we understand, which would have been a compelling enough reason for a lord of the 15th century, but it's the how he did it that would have mattered to his little wife, who had known him since she was only nine. Twelve and a half is not too young to be unaware of why she had been married, i.e. her inheritance, and yes, later on in life she expressed a fear that another child marriage would result in a mother of too young an age, but would she have blamed Edmund? Had he lived, might he have been as distressed as her to see what his actions had done to her? We do not know. She still wanted to be buried with him. I do not believe it was for Henry's sake. In the end, of course, she wasn't buried with Edmund, but I think interring her at Westminster could have been Henry's decision. He was ill himself by then, and may have wished his mother to be close when he followed her into the hereafter, which he did only a few months later. Maybe she changed her mind anyway. I don't actually know the whys and wherefores of her place of burial, but no doubt someone on the forum does. So I reserve judgement on Edmund Tudor, whom MB could have loved until the day she died. BTW, do we know of any condemnatory opinions expressed at the time? What did saintly Henry VI say when he learned his half-brother had fathered a child on a twelve-year-old bride? Sandra =^..^= From: khafara@... Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:46 AM To: Subject: RE: J A-H's new book To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim. Carol
---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 11:02:03

Pamela Furmidge

He also had Richard's example not to follow. Richard was not ruthless to his enemies and appeared to have a particular view of women which seems to have precluded him from treating female traitors with any degree of harshness. Perhaps, Henry, rather like Charles II who was determined not to go on his travels again, determined to use any means possible to hang on to what he had unexpectedly gained.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Not dopey, Hilary, but a great question. I had not thought of it that way, and it raises different perspectives. But whatever their reasons for joining Henry, I'll bet they didn't anticipate the sort of king he would actually turn out to be. He was determined, ruthless and didn't intend to take any sh-1-t from anyone. His fingernails became claws which he sank into the crown, and with which he took many a sideways swipe at those who displeased him. He must have been quite a shock. A lot of them would have rued not staying with Richard. I rue it too. WE all do! But you have to give Henry due credit for keeping his bum on the throne. He was not a likeable chap, but he certainly knew a thing or two about keeping what he'd grabbed so miraculously. The more I think of him, the more amazed I become by the sheer luck that always seemed to be with him, and by the strength of (Mummy's?) character that kept him where he was.
=^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:07 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book To ask a dopey question - you know I sometimes like doing that - do we know whether, apart from Jasper and perhaps John de Vere, those who gathered round HT abroad really did believe he was the 'true king' or were they there because in reality they'd messed things up in England and coming back with him (and a French/Breton army) was their only chance of regaining their English possessions and remaining in one piece? You see, when you look at other 'invaders', before and after they had one of two things; they had a strong military track record - William I, Bolingbroke, Edward IV, William III (though he was invited as well), or they represented a charismatic cause and fitted the romantic hero bill - the '15 and the '45, perhaps Perkin Warbeck. Now even HT's most avid supporters couldn't claim that he had either of these attributes. He had no military experience whatsoever, even Penn says he was not physically or socially particularly attractive and add to that he was the 'victim' of an overbearing mother. Were there people out there so altruistic for the Lancaster cause that they'd really support that? And if they didn't originally support Lancaster, then would they have risked everything to put a child monarch back on the throne? Could it not simply be that these were people with grudges, who rebelled for whatever reason and simply had no-where else to go? H. From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 22:09
Subject: Re: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim. Carol
---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I don't think that Catherine's wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sons' own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 11:55:24

mariewalsh2003

I haven't checked your calculations, but the standard human gestation period is 38 weeks (the 40 "term of pregnancy" employed by ante-natal clinics is calculated from start of the woman's last period, not from conception). Three weeks either side of that is considered within the normal range (ie neither premature nor postmature).

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Carol

Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 11:56:40

Durose David

Hi Tamara,
In response to the point about Catherine and the 'rumours' - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies.

The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort.

After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court.

So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund T's father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply 'during her lifetime'.

Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver.

Kind regards
David
From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 12:04:50

mariewalsh2003

I perhaps shouldn't post this yet, but although there certainly is a lot of evidence for Margaret having been born in May 1443 (ie the majority of the inquisitions post mortem for her father, a reference to her mother's pregnancy at the time in question, and Margaret's age as written by herself into one of her books during her son's reign), there are also contrary indications. A couple of the IPMs stated that she was 4 rather than 2 at the time they were taken (ie born May 1441), and if she were really born in 1443 as now accepted, then she would have been under the minimum age for a child marriage when she married John de la Pole, and under the necessary "nubile years" (ie under 12) when she renounced that marriage. If the earlier birth date from the IPMs is taken then all these oddities resolve themselves, and she would have been the normally accepted age of 14 at the time she consummated her marriage to Edmund Tudor. Fisher's account tells us she had a hard time delivering Henry because she was so small, not because she was so young; she was a tiny woman by all accounts.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Margaret's menarche is an interesting point. I have always understood that centuries ago a girl's first monthly' was likely to be when she was older than now. How much older I do not know. One of my friends at school in 1960 still had not commenced at sixteen. I am sure forum members know of even older examples. If MB had not commenced at the time of the marriage, I begin to get an uncomfortable picture of Edmund waiting for the first sign and then pouncing. This makes him sound so cruel, callous and calculating, yet if he was those things, surely he would be the last of her husbands next to whom she would wish to be buried. But I understand he was the one she actually chose for her posterity. Why? Simply because he was Henry's father? Or perhaps that he was not the awful brute we believe him to have been, and whatever he did, for whatever reason, he did it as kindly as he could? I'm not making a saint of him by any means, but we must judge him by his time. It was disapproved of to consummate a marriage when the bride was too young, but it wasn't the offence it would be now. Indeed, marrying a child, even without consummation, would be impossible now, within the Christian beliefs of this country. But back then it was very different. And it must be admitted that a girl of twelve is perfectly capable of forming a crush' of monumental proportions, and MB was nothing if not obsessive. Maybe she actually loved him. Love can be experienced at that age. No one would think anything if, as with Richard and Anne (and I know this is a debatable romance anyway) there had been love in childhood that endured into adulthood? If that is acceptable, why should it be any different if only one partner is young? Edmund was twenty-five when they married, twice Margaret's age, but certainly not an old man, even then. Almost exactly a year later he was dead of the plague. With human emotions, nothing is impossible, and in spite of her ordeal giving birth to Henry, maybe she always looked back fondly at Edmund, who was always youthful in her memory. Maybe he was handsome, maybe he was dashing and charming, maybe she was distraught to be without him. Maybe he was ugliness personified, but of pleasing ways. Who knows the truth of it? The effigy on Edmund's tomb is much later than his death, so probably just a figure of a man'. Any man. His son appears to have taken after his mother for looks and temperament, so we cannot know what Edmund was like, visually or in character. Jasper is not necessarily any indication, after all Richard was nothing like his brothers! Edmund was a fighting man, a Lancastrian who was eventually captured by the Yorkists, but being military does not make him a monster. Richard was a fighting man, but we would never dream of saying he was therefore a terrible tyrant in his private life. Therefore, given the standards of his time, I am prepared to give Edmund the benefit of the doubt. He did what he did to secure MB's inheritance, or so we understand, which would have been a compelling enough reason for a lord of the 15th century, but it's the how he did it that would have mattered to his little wife, who had known him since she was only nine. Twelve and a half is not too young to be unaware of why she had been married, i.e. her inheritance, and yes, later on in life she expressed a fear that another child marriage would result in a mother of too young an age, but would she have blamed Edmund? Had he lived, might he have been as distressed as her to see what his actions had done to her? We do not know. She still wanted to be buried with him. I do not believe it was for Henry's sake. In the end, of course, she wasn't buried with Edmund, but I think interring her at Westminster could have been Henry's decision. He was ill himself by then, and may have wished his mother to be close when he followed her into the hereafter, which he did only a few months later. Maybe she changed her mind anyway. I don't actually know the whys and wherefores of her place of burial, but no doubt someone on the forum does. So I reserve judgement on Edmund Tudor, whom MB could have loved until the day she died. BTW, do we know of any condemnatory opinions expressed at the time? What did saintly Henry VI say when he learned his half-brother had fathered a child on a twelve-year-old bride? Sandra =^..^= From: khafara@... Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 4:46 AM To: Subject: RE: J A-H's new book

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 15:07:03

Stephen Lark

ÿ "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. " Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book

Hi Tamara,
In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies.

The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort.

After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court.

So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;.

Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver.

Kind regards
David
From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM

Carol

Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 17:53:02

maroonnavywhite

I submit, David, that pinpointing the rumors to the 1430s isn't necessary. During her lifetime should suffice. After all, I believe someone on this list recently tried to explain the fact that the Richard-as-hunchback meme didn't take off until after his death by implying that fear of royal retribution stopped people's mouths. As for J A-H, if this is the only unsupportable thing he's written, that still puts him streets ahead of Polydore Vergil. Tamara

Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-05 12:38:37

Durose David

Stephen,
We seem to have a pattern developing here.

My underatanding is that the date of Edmund's marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425.

The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this.

The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM

"After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. " Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book

From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM

Carol

Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-05 17:29:46

justcarol67

Carol earlier:

"<snip>. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. <snip>"

Carol again:

Aargh. Yahoo is placing squares and other unintelligible symbols all over my post, so there's no telling how it will appear. The word I couldn't think of was, of course, "circumstantial."

Carol

Re: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-05 17:51:58

justcarol67

David wrote:

Hi Carol,

I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B.

I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically.

Kind regards
David
Carol responds:

Hi, David. I didn't mean to imply that you had suggested Jasper as next in line. That was my thought, perhaps not clearly expressed. Essentially, I agree with you that the Tudor arms probably don't reflect some secret descent from Edmund Beaufort. I'm no expert on heraldry and have not read J AH's new book. I simply think that the traditional Tudor descent is the correct one and that the Beaufort descent (which Henry did not use in his shaky claim to the throne, comes solely from his mother. I'm not so sure about the marriage to Owen Tudor being valid. There is, so far as I know, no evidence that it ever took place other than Henry VI's recognition of his half-brothers.

But we agree on the essential point, which is that the coats of arms don't necessarily indicate that Edmund Beaufort was Edmund Tudor's father. (Didn't he and Jasper have a brother named Owen who became a monk? That iin itself suggests a marriage (or marriagelike relationship) to Owen Tudor. I'm not concerned at this point with the validity of the marriage, only with the paternity of Edmund Tudor.

There's no question that Richard III considered Edmund's son, Henry, a "Tydder" and not a Beaufort!

Carol

Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-05 18:36:17

mariewalsh2003

"The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means."

Marie replies:

All tenants in chief (ie those who held land directly from the king) were required to seek royal licence for their marriage. They could get in a lot of trouble if they didn't do so.

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 4:45:52 PM

Nope..checked it out...they are entirely two different entities.....Eileen
--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> How weird. Are Dan Jones and Nigel Jones one and the same person....? But that would be silly wouldn't it?
> Eileen
> I
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't seen a review by Nigel Jones, but Dan Jones wrote a rather damning one in the Sunday Times. Â He basically said similar things - the Jones part is well written and academic, and the Langley part is emotional and non-academic.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.Â So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > Â
> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)Â
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> >
> > Â
> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> >
> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> >
> > BUT.....
> >
> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> >
> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> >
> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> >
> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> >
> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> >
> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.ÃÂ Very disturbing.ÃÂ Of course it
> > suited some like LCC not to question it.
> > > > ÃÂ H.ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 18:00:51

Pamela Furmidge

No, the one I saw was definitely by Dan Jones.
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>

Wasn't it Dan Snow in the Sunday Times? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 4:45:52 PM

Nope..checked it out...they are entirely two different entities.....Eileen
--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> How weird. Are Dan Jones and Nigel Jones one and the same person....? But that would be silly wouldn't it?
> Eileen
> I
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't seen a review by Nigel Jones, but Dan Jones wrote a rather damning one in the Sunday Times. Â He basically said similar things - the Jones part is well written and academic, and the Langley part is emotional and non-academic.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.Â So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > Â
> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)Â
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> >
> > Â
> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> >
> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> >
> > BUT.....
> >
> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> >
> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> >
> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> >
> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> >
> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> >
> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.ÃÂ Very disturbing.ÃÂ Of course it
> > suited some like LCC not to question it.
> > > > ÃÂ H.ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 18:07:58

EILEEN BATES

Dan Snow,,,,isn't he a battlefield expert?

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> No, the one I saw was definitely by Dan Jones.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
>
>
>
>
> Â
> Wasn't it Dan Snow in the Sunday Times?
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 4:45:52 PM
>
>
> Â
>
> Nope..checked it out...they are entirely two different entities.....Eileen
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > How weird. Are Dan Jones and Nigel Jones one and the same person....? But that would be silly wouldn't it?
> > Eileen
> > I
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't seen a review by Nigel Jones, but Dan Jones wrote a rather damning one in the Sunday Times. Ã‚Â He basically said similar things - the Jones part is well written and academic, and the Langley part is emotional and non-academic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã‚Â
> > > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃ‚Â - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃ‚Â a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.Ã‚Â So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > > Ã‚Â
> > > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)Ã‚Â
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > >
> > > Ã‚Â
> > > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> > >
> > > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> > >
> > > BUT.....
> > >
> > > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> > >
> > > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> > >
> > > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> > >
> > > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> > >
> > > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> > >
> > > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Very
> disturbing.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Of course it
> > > suited some like LCC not to question it.
> > > > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â H.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 18:10:54

justcarol67

Pamela wrote:

"I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. JA-H was at the Leicester Conference. <snip>"

Pamela, I think you're right. (Actually, I know you are, having read the other responses.) Suggestion from a former English teacher--on first reference to a person mentioned in another person's post, how about stating the name rather than "he" or "she"? That way, confusing J A-H with Hicks (or Richard with Henry or MB with EW or any other pairs you can think of) will be impossible. We can also specify what, exactly, we agree or disagree with in the previous post (or snip everything except the point being discussed). Those two things should help to prevent misinterpretation of other people's intentions. Just a thought.

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 18:44:50

Jessie Skinner

Yes, he is a battlefield historian and the son of Peter Snow. I had it in my mind it was him, but I have already recycled the newspaper and on line it is behind a paywall.
I stand corrected.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 5:07:54 PM

Dan Snow,,,,isn't he a battlefield expert?

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> No, the one I saw was definitely by Dan Jones.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
>
>
>
>
> Â
> Wasn't it Dan Snow in the Sunday Times?
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 4:45:52 PM
>
>
> Â
>
> Nope..checked it out...they are entirely two different entities.....Eileen
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > How weird. Are Dan Jones and Nigel Jones one and the same person....? But that would be silly wouldn't it?
> > Eileen
> > I
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't seen a review by Nigel Jones, but Dan Jones wrote a rather damning one in the Sunday Times. ÃÂ He basically said similar things - the Jones part is well written and academic, and the Langley part is emotional and non-academic.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> > >
> > > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> > >
> > > BUT.....
> > >
> > > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> > >
> > > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> > >
> > > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> > >
> > > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> > >
> > > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> > >
> > > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very
> disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
> > > suited some like LCC not to question it.
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 19:18:36

EILEEN BATES

I cannot remember whether it was his dad or him made a very good documentary about the Spanish Armada. I was shocked and sad to find out that the sailors who survived the battle especially those who had sustained terrible injuries were not helped at all but were left literally starving. It was Drake who angry about the situation sold his plate and other personal stuff to raise money for them. So much for the great Elizabeth Tudor....all the hoo haa about the one of the greatest victories of the time ... underneath it all was absolutely shameful. Eileen

--- In , Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, he is a battlefield historian and the son of Peter Snow. I had it in my mind it was him, but I have already recycled the newspaper and on line it is behind a paywall.
> I stand corrected.
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 19:38:52

Jessie Skinner

Yes! I saw that it was utterly appalling.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Mon, Oct 7, 2013 6:18:33 PM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 19:58:44

liz williams

Except there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Edward V had a diseased jaw at all. It has been said that he did "merely" because one of the bones in the urn has a diseased jaw bone! So now Jones is using citing that as "proof" - Edward had a diseased jaw because the bone in the urn had one therefore the bone in the urn proves that Edward had a diseased jaw - in effect. Ridiculous.
I haven't articulated this very well but I'm sure you know what I mean.

Liz
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book

I've also received The Kings Grave.

Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...

BUT.....

I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...

Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?

Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".

He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.

Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".

I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.

Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > Â
> > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > Â
> > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > Â
> > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.Â Very disturbing.Â Of course it suited some like LCC not to question it.
> > Â H.Â Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. ÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > >
> > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]

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

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 19:59:55

liz williams

Twins ? Separated at birth? :-) Liz
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:18
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book

How weird. Are Dan Jones and Nigel Jones one and the same person....? But that would be silly wouldn't it?
Eileen
I

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't seen a review by Nigel Jones, but Dan Jones wrote a rather damning one in the Sunday Times. Â He basically said similar things - the Jones part is well written and academic, and the Langley part is emotional and non-academic.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Â
> So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.Â So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> Â
> Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)Â
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>
> Â
> I've also received The Kings Grave.
>
> Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>
> BUT.....
>
> I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>
> Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>
> Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>
> He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
>
> Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>
> I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.ÃÂ Very disturbing.ÃÂ Of course it
> suited some like LCC not to question it.
> > > ÃÂ H.ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To: ymailto="mailto:" href="mailto:">
> > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > >
> > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In href="mailto:">, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]

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

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 20:06:55

Jessie Skinner

Absolutely. Total nonsense.

2013-10-08 00:58:55

mariewalsh2003

2013-10-08 19:20:04

mariewalsh2003

Argentine became physician to Prince Arthur.

Not a great track record of success with his young patients, then.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Oooooops meant to ask does anyone know what become of Dr Argentine? I have a recollection of reading somewhere that a doctor from that time did quite well under HT. Or was this Dr Hobbes....I don't have time at the moment to check up and not certain which book I read it in...Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suppose so Liz and very true he was horribly injured. I guess this is not the right place but there is some question about whether the driver was drunk or not...I would have hoped that at least could have been cleared up. I wonder if some people just think least said the better on some matters. This is why I drew comparisons. Wrong forum though so I will leave it at that...Eileen
>
>
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
> <title></title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <div class="page" title="Page 15">
>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > But Eileen, he was in the car crash and like many people who suffer injuries in that kind of situation, can't remember what happened.
> >
> > The boys' doctor is another matterÂ
> > Â
> > Â
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 17:17
> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> >
> >
> > Yes...and how frustrating and peeving it is that the boys doctor visited them in the Tower almost up until the time they disappeared and yet all thatÂ has come down to us from him is that young Edward was having a strop/moody/morose or whatever.Â I cannot help but compare this to there beingÂ a survivor of the car crash that killed Diana, who has actually told us practically zilch about those last moments in the car?Â Of course this is going off on a tangent but you catch my drift...hopefully.Â Eileen
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit.
> > > Ã‚Â
> > > What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner.Ã‚Â But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
> > > In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking Ã‚Â over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 aboutÃ‚Â what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.Ã‚Â
> > > Ã‚Â
> > > Perhaps it's another non-barking dog?Ã‚Â H.
> > > Ã‚Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >Â
> > > Ã‚Â
> > > Thanks Hilary,Â Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc.,Â Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up.Â I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate.Â But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
> > > > No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
> > > > What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â if they believeÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >Â From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > >
> > > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > >
> > > > I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy.Â But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit?Â Eileen
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >Â From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT.....
> > > > >
> > > > > I read NigelÂ Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon.Â JonesÂ states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones.Â He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw.Â In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penanceÂ because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw.Â If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> > > > >
> > > > > Returning to his reviewÂ 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of MsÂ Langley's .Â The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be".Â "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> > > > >
> > > > > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King.Â Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> > > > >
> > > > > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews.Â I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday.Â But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment,Â the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this.Â Philippa was the client, whichÂ gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangementÂ with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral.Â In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli.Â In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing
> > that so many condoned and did not question this
> > >Â deal.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Very disturbing.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Of course it
> > > >Â suited some like LCC not to
> > > > >Â question it.
> > > > > > >Â ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â H.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > >Â From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >Â From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards otherÂ forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard.Â He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either.Â I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such andÂ I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much.Â Â Â I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book.Â I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something.Â No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you.Â I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some veryÂ unpleasant stuff indeed.Â He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you shouldÂ expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse.Â Eileen Bates
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Â 'ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Â 'ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > >Â From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Â 'ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'Ãƒâ€ 'ÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Â ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > >Â From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > > > >Â To:
> > > > > > > > > > >Â Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > > > >Â Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Â I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Â Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >Â Carol
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > Â Â http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 19:32:48

EILEEN BATES

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell in The Importance of being Ernest....To lose one Prince may be regarded as unfortunate...to lose two looks like carelessness....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Argentine became physician to Prince Arthur.
> Not a great track record of success with his young patients, then.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <> wrote:
>
> Oooooops meant to ask does anyone know what become of Dr Argentine? I have a recollection of reading somewhere that a doctor from that time did quite well under HT. Or was this Dr Hobbes....I don't have time at the moment to check up and not certain which book I read it in...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I suppose so Liz and very true he was horribly injured. I guess this is not the right place but there is some question about whether the driver was drunk or not...I would have hoped that at least could have been cleared up. I wonder if some people just think least said the better on some matters. This is why I drew comparisons. Wrong forum though so I will leave it at that...Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> > <head>
> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
> > <title></title>
> > </head>
> > <body>
> > <div class="page" title="Page 15">
> >
> > </div>
> > </body>
> > </html>
> > --- In mailto:, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But Eileen, he was in the car crash and like many people who suffer injuries in that kind of situation, can't remember what happened.
> > >
> > > The boys' doctor is another matterÃ‚
> > > Ã‚
> > > Ã‚
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To: mailto:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 17:17
> > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes...and how frustrating and peeving it is that the boys doctor visited them in the Tower almost up until the time they disappeared and yet all thatÃ‚ has come down to us from him is that young Edward was having a strop/moody/morose or whatever.Ã‚ I cannot help but compare this to there beingÃ‚ a survivor of the car crash that killed Diana, who has actually told us practically zilch about those last moments in the car?Ã‚ Of course this is going off on a tangent but you catch my drift...hopefully.Ã‚ Eileen
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit.
> > > > ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner.ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
> > > > In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 aboutÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > Perhaps it's another non-barking dog?ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ H.
> > > > ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >Ã‚
> > > > ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > Thanks Hilary,Ã‚ Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc.,Ã‚ Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up.Ã‚ I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate.Ã‚ But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
> > > > > No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
> > > > > What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ if they believeÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >Ã‚ From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > To: mailto:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > >
> > > > > I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy.Ã‚ But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit?Ã‚ Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >Ã‚ From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BUT.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read NigelÃ‚ Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon.Ã‚ JonesÃ‚ states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones.Ã‚ He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw.Ã‚ In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penanceÃ‚ because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw.Ã‚ If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Returning to his reviewÃ‚ 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of MsÃ‚ Langley's .Ã‚ The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be".Ã‚ "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King.Ã‚ Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews.Ã‚ I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday.Ã‚ But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment,Ã‚ the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this.Ã‚ Philippa was the client, whichÃ‚ gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangementÃ‚ with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral.Ã‚ In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli.Ã‚ In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing
> > > that so many condoned and did not question this
> > > >Ã‚ deal.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ Very disturbing.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ Of course it
> > > > >Ã‚ suited some like LCC not to
> > > > > >Ã‚ question it.
> > > > > > > >Ã‚ ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ H.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >Ã‚ From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Â¦ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > >Ã‚ From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Â¦ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards otherÃ‚ forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard.Ã‚ He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either.Ã‚ I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such andÃ‚ I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much.Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚ I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book.Ã‚ I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something.Ã‚ No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you.Ã‚ I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some veryÃ‚ unpleasant stuff indeed.Ã‚ He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you shouldÃ‚ expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse.Ã‚ Eileen Bates
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Â¦ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Â¦ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã‚Â¦ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ 'ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€Â¦ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ†'ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â€ÂšÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÂ…Ã‚Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÂƒÃ¢Â€ÂšÃƒÂ‚Ã‚
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ To: mailto:
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >Ã‚ Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã‚ Ã‚ http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/ http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
> > >
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 22:43:28

wednesday\_mc

What I cannot get past is if Richard killed the princes, why didn't he display the bodies and put their deaths down to childhood illness or some such? It makes no sense for him to have ordered them killed and not make sure everyone knew they were dead.

All the better if he wasn't in London at the time of their deaths. Just order from Pontefract or York or Nottingham that their little corpses be laid out -- such a tragedy, but God's will and all that.

Did an enemy invade the Tower and get them killed in the attempt, and did their little bodies go plop into the Thames? Is that why the rumor started in the first place, and is that why Richard couldn't say what happened to them, and is it why Elizabeth Woodville never accused him of a thing?

If it was a clean judicial murder, it's just...bizarre... for him not to tie up the loose political ends and have the usual viewing. One thing Richard was not, is stupid.

Another thing I've always wondered...one of the rules of investigating a murder is to ask, "Who profits if this person dies?" Well...who profited if the princes died? Not Richard. I keep circling back to Margaret Beaufort and her son.

Can't prove it, but her actions later in life with the hairshirt and the constant confessing and the penance and the intermittent public weeping makes me wonder what the heck she felt she needed to atone for. She'd gotten everything she prayed for and dreamed of for her darling boy. She was queen of England by arrogance and personal strength if not by title. But she sure didn't act happy or secure about having gained all that power.

Richard didn't make a habit of playing in the dark, so why start by killing a couple of little boys -- one close to his own son in age -- in the dark? There was no need for him to hide the bodies.

~Weds

---In , <> wrote:

I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit. What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it. Perhaps it's another non-barking dog? H.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
> No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>
> Â
>
> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
> > ÃÂ
> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
> >
> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
> >
> > BUT.....
> >
> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
> >
> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
> >
> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
> >
> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
> >
> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
> >
> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
> suited some like LCC not to
> > question it.
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 22:46:53

wednesday\_mc

Eileen wrote:
<snipped> ... I cannot help but compare this to there being a survivor of the car crash that killed Diana, who has actually told us practically zilch about those last moments in the car?

Weds writes:
This is off-topic, but if I recall correctly, the survivor of that particular accident was injured and knocked unconscious? In that case, it's common for short-term memory to be wiped out, so he may not remember the last moments in the car.

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 23:03:47

A J Hibbard

Here's another angle that I have not seen discussed until recently.
There's a certain amount of evidence that Elizabeth Woodville was, in addition to amazingly greedy on behalf of her family, ruthless as well, perhaps even implicated in the poisoning of her own husband. Of 3 men known to have criticized her marriage to Edward, the Earls of Desmond, Warwick, & Duke of Clarence, none of them survived Edward (not to mention the execution of Desmond's two young sons). An article in the Ricardian suggests that Elizabeth wished it to be known that she was responsible, at least for Desmond's death, as a warning. She & her family also nearly succeeded in seizing control of the interim government by whatever means were at their disposal.
So the suggestion is that Richard might have had an interest in ensuring her 2 sons stayed alive as a sort of insurance policy.
A J

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:42 PM, <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Pansy

---In , <> wrote:

ÿ pansydobersby wrote:

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-11 17:44:30

justcarol67

Pansy wrote:

"Oh dear, Doug - same problem as before... empty message, and highlighting the text doesn't help either. Anyone else have the same problem, or is it just me?"

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.