Dr Hobbes and adultery

Now I'm sure Marie probably knows this, but last night whilst I was watching a rather benign programme on medieval marriage (no mention of EIV and EW but lots of HVIII of course) out trotted the information that Dr Hobbes's wife was granted an annulment in 1476 because he'd been spotted regularly visiting the stews of Southwark and frolicking naked at Picqunigy.

So Richard, that highly moral person, allowed this man to be doctor to his dying wife and son, did he?

It never ceases to surprise me how much information about this period emerges from the most unlikely of sources. Hilary

Hilary, please. This is a bit cheap, isn't it?

Incidentally, Hobbes' wife wife was not granted an annulment - you couldn't get an annulment on grounds of adultery. What she got was a divorce 'a mensa et thoro', at bed & board, which was a legal separation. They were, as Helen Castor made perfectly clear, still married to each other and could not therefore marry anyone else.

And who knows, perhaps the divorce had shocked Hobbes into mending his ways.

Marie

Now I'm sure Marie probably knows this, but last night whilst I was watching a rather benign programme on medieval marriage (no mention of EIV and EW but lots of HVIII of course) out trotted the information that Dr Hobbes's wife was granted an annulment in 1476 because he'd been spotted regularly visiting the stews of Southwark and frolicking naked at Picqunigy.

So Richard, that highly moral person, allowed this man to be doctor to his dying wife and son, did he?

It never ceases to surprise me how much information about this period emerges from the most unlikely of sources. Hilary

Sorry, Hilary, I did mean it was a cheap dig about Hobbes, or rather about Richard III.

There were two types of divorce in the Middle Ages. You can find a discussion in old posts as the subject has been very fully discussed on the forum. *Neither* was the same as modern divorce:-

1) The usual sort of "divorce" was an annulment, only granted where there was an impediment that invalidated the marriage (a lawfully-made marriage could not at this period be dissolved for any reason). If you got an annulment, obviously, you could remarry.

2) Divorce a mensa et thoro (at bed and board). This was only a legal separation, most usually granted to women whose husbands were violent. This allowed the couple to stop cohabiting, and forbade the husband to bother his wife. This was not an annulment because there was no question of the marriage having been invalidly entered into or incapable of consummation. The couple were married but separated. This is what William Hobbes' wife was granted.

I can explain Prior Ingleby's case if you give me the details; I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with it. Again, as Helen Castor enumerated, there were other grounds besides the husband's impotence on which one could be granted an annulment: basically either undispensed impediments of consanguinity or affinity, or force. Was Prior a first name here? Obviously, priors of monasteries couldn't be married.

Marie

Marie I was actually paying you a compliment, unless you think my comments about Hobbes are cheap. Helen Castor made them, I didn't. I thought you could marry someone if you got a divorce? Divorce/annulment (it didn't matter in this case and I agree Helen went to great lengths to say you couldn't marry again whatever) Hobbes was still it seems an adulterer and visitor of lewd brothels, at least in 1475. He was I recall sent to Scotland by Edward to attend Richard's troops. BTW how did Prior Ingleby's wife get a divorce/annulment which allowed her to re-marry which she did. She couldn't claim non-consummation as they had a son and heir? And this is a geniune question. nothing cheap or points scoring. H.

On Thursday, 17 October 2013, 19:59, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary, please. This is a bit cheap, isn't it? Incidentally, Hobbes' wife wife was not granted an annulment - you couldn't get an annulment on grounds of adultery. What she got was a divorce 'a mensa et thoro', at bed & board, which was a legal separation. They were, as Helen Castor made perfectly clear, still married to each other and could not therefore marry anyone else. And who knows, perhaps the divorce had shocked Hobbes into mending his ways. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Now I'm sure Marie probably knows this, but last night whilst I was watching a rather benign programme on medieval marriage (no mention of EIV and EW but lots of HVIII of course) out trotted the information that Dr Hobbes's wife was granted an annulment in 1476 because he'd been spotted regularly visiting the stews of Southwark and frolicking naked at Picqunigy. So Richard, that highly moral person, allowed this man to be doctor to his dying wife and son, did he? It never ceases to surprise me how much information about this period emerges from the most unlikely of sources. Hilary

"BTW how did Prior Ingleby's wife get a divorce/annulment which allowed her to re-marry which she did. She couldn't claim non-consummation as they had a son and heir? And this is a geniune question. nothing cheap or points scoring. H. "

I don't know about Prior Ingleby, but as far as I know, the marriage of the Earl of Arundel and Isabel le Despenser was annulled in 1344 though they had children, who were then rendered illegitimate. Arundel's bogus excuse was that he'd been 'forced' to consummate the marriage.

Pansy

True, but the complicating thing is that annulments were also referred to as divorces.

Marie

Marie I was actually paying you a compliment, unless you think my comments about Hobbes are cheap. Helen Castor made them, I didn't. I thought you could marry someone if you got a divorce? Divorce/annulment (it didn't matter in this case and I agree Helen went to great lengths to say you couldn't marry again whatever) Hobbes was still it seems an adulterer and visitor of lewd brothels, at least in 1475. He was I recall sent to Scotland by Edward to attend Richard's troops. BTW how did Prior Ingleby's wife get a divorce/annulment which allowed her to re-marry which she did. She couldn't claim non-consummation as they had a son and heir? And this is a geniune question. nothing cheap or points scoring. H.

On Thursday, 17 October 2013, 19:59, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary, please. This is a bit cheap, isn't it? Incidentally, Hobbes' wife wife was not granted an annulment - you couldn't get an annulment on grounds of adultery. What she got was a divorce 'a mensa et thoro', at bed & board, which was a legal separation. They were, as Helen Castor made perfectly clear, still married to each other and could not therefore marry anyone else. And who knows, perhaps the divorce had shocked Hobbes into mending his ways. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Now I'm sure Marie probably knows this, but last night whilst I was watching a rather benign programme on medieval marriage (no mention of EIV and EW but lots of HVIII of course) out trotted the information that Dr Hobbes's wife was granted an annulment in 1476 because he'd been spotted regularly visiting the stews of Southwark and frolicking naked at Picqunigy. So Richard, that highly moral person, allowed this man to be doctor to his dying wife and son, did he? It never ceases to surprise me how much information about this period emerges from the most unlikely of sources. Hilary

I don't post very often, but I posted on Dr. Hobbys and his divorce some time back. I have not seen the program in question (am in the US) and don't know what detail it went into, but Hobbys had served not only Richard and Edward IV but also their father, the Duke of York. This was a loyal family servant of at least 30 years' standing (I still can't find when he entered the Duke of York's service, but it does seem to have been before Richard was born), and I think Richard would have valued that whatever he may have thought of Hobbys's private life.

We also know the value Richard placed on learning, and Hobbys was very learned. He was both a surgeon and a physician (apparently very unusual for then, and perhaps even now though I don't know enough about medicine to be sure), and a graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge (also not sure how unusual this is or was, but it's still a lot of schooling).

Marie wrote:

>>And who knows, perhaps the divorce had shocked Hobbes into mending his ways.

That's pretty much the conclusion of Shannon McSheffrey, who wrote about the divorce in great detail in her 2006 book Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). I hope it's legally okay to give these extracts from her text:

<<William's will suggests that he found religion in the last years of his life. Other provisions of his will corroborate this impression. He seems to have had a particular association with Holy Trinity Priory & [snip] & William's former wife, Alice, who was still alive at the time, is mentioned only when he leaves money for the canons of Holy trinity to pray for both his and Alice's souls & [snip] & but this provision suggests goodwill, at least on his part & [snip] & [the part of Hobbys's will where he commends his soul to God] departs significantly from the standard laconic form of the bequest of the soul &

And I'd like to mention again that whatever his failings as a husband, Hobbys stood by Richard to the end and after. He died three years after Bosworth, but even with Tudor on the throne he wanted his tombstone inscribed with his record of service to the Duke of York, Edward IV, and the most illustrious Richard III.

Cathy

Now I'm sure Marie probably knows this, but last night whilst I was watching a rather benign programme on medieval marriage (no mention of EIV and EW but lots of HVIII of course) out trotted the information that Dr Hobbes's wife was granted an annulment in 1476 because he'd been spotted regularly visiting the stews of Southwark and frolicking naked at Picqunigy.

So Richard, that highly moral person, allowed this man to be doctor to his dying wife and son, did he?

It never ceases to surprise me how much information about this period emerges from the most unlikely of sources. Hilary

In other words, Richard would have employed Hobbes in spite of his sexual history because he was so good at what he did. Being a surgeon, is it possible he had also treated Richard's scoliosis in the past?

Marie

I don't post very often, but I posted on Dr. Hobbys and his divorce some time back. I have not seen the program in question (am in the US) and don't know what detail it went into, but Hobbys had served not only Richard and Edward IV but also their father, the Duke of York. This was a loyal family servant of at least 30 years' standing (I still can't find when he entered the Duke of York's service, but it does seem to have been before Richard was born), and I think Richard would have valued that whatever he may have thought of Hobbys's private life.

We also know the value Richard placed on learning, and Hobbys was very learned. He was both a surgeon and a physician (apparently very unusual for then, and perhaps even now though I don't know enough about medicine to be sure), and a graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge (also not sure how unusual this is or was, but it's still a lot of schooling).

Marie wrote:

>>And who knows, perhaps the divorce had shocked Hobbes into mending his ways.

That's pretty much the conclusion of Shannon McSheffrey, who wrote about the divorce in great detail in her 2006 book Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). I hope it's legally okay to give these extracts from her text:

<<William's will suggests that he found religion in the last years of his life. Other provisions of his will corroborate this impression. He seems to have had a particular association with Holy Trinity Priory & [snip] & William's former wife, Alice, who was still alive at the time, is mentioned only when he leaves money for the canons of Holy trinity to pray for both his and Alice's souls & [snip] & but this provision suggests goodwill, at least on his part & [snip] & [the part of Hobbys's will where he commends his soul to God] departs significantly from the standard laconic form of the bequest of the soul &

And I'd like to mention again that whatever his failings as a husband, Hobbys stood by Richard to the end and after. He died three years after Bosworth, but even with Tudor on the throne he wanted his tombstone inscribed with his record of service to the Duke of York, Edward IV, and the most illustrious Richard III.

Cathy

Now I'm sure Marie probably knows this, but last night whilst I was watching a rather benign programme on medieval marriage (no mention of EIV and EW but lots of HVIII of course) out trotted the information that Dr Hobbes's wife was granted an annulment in 1476 because he'd been spotted regularly visiting the stews of Southwark and frolicking naked at Picqunigy.

So Richard, that highly moral person, allowed this man to be doctor to his dying wife and son, did he?

It never ceases to surprise me how much information about this period emerges from the most unlikely of sources. Hilary

I'll look into this one - hopefully there is something in the Papal Registers. Papal dispensations were to enable a marriage that fell foul of rules the Church had made up itself, eg absolving the couple from impediments such as consanguinity involving relationships that fell within Church prohibitions but not the divine prohibitions listed in Leviticus in the OT. For the same reason that the Pope could not grant a marriage dispensation to a couple whose relationship was covered by Levitican prohibitions, so he couldn't dissolve a valid marriage either - Jesus Christ had said "Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder", and that was interpreted by theologians as a ban on divorce. It wouldn't, unless I am much mistaken, matter that the man wanted to enter the priesthood - it couldn't be done.

John Ingelby will therefore have got an annulment from his marriage, ie convinced the Church that it had not been valid in the first place, I'm sure of that. So, although his wife might have "effectively" become a widow, her actual status would have been that of a woman who had never been married.

I do know of one other case of a man who left his marriage to become a priest, and that was Richard Lessy, who went on to become papal cubicular, the dean of Cecily Neville's chapel and her executor. He was certainly granted an annulment from his marriage, and if I recall rightly the grounds were that at the time of his marriage his wife was already clandestinely married to another man.

Anyway, I'll have a look and report back.

Marie

There is nothing in the papal registers, and I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The solution may be that these are two separate John Inglebys from the same family as according to Castelli's website the Sir John Ingelby who was married to Margery Strangeways died in 1457. He has him buried in Hertford, though, which I guess actually refers to the Bishop.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/INGLEBY.htm

This would certainly explain Margery's status as "widow".

Marie

There is nothing in the papal registers, and I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The solution may be that these are two separate John Inglebys from the same family as according to Castelli's website the Sir John Ingelby who was married to Margery Strangeways died in 1457. He has him buried in Hertford, though, which I guess actually refers to the Bishop.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/INGLEBY.htm

This would certainly explain Margery's status as "widow".

Marie

Does the inheritance of the Ingleby estates reveal anything?

Was Margery referred to as a widow in documents dating from between 1457 and her marriage to Welles?

What was the nature of the trouble JI had being made Bishop of Landaff?

Does Bishop Ingelby's will reveal anything? (assuming he left one).

Is there any evidence (IPMs, writs of diem clausit extremum, will, etc) of Sir John Ingleby's death in or around 1457? Of course, unless he was thought to be a tenant in chief there would have been no IPM or writ of dce.

But all these questions will help.

Very often numerous sources repeat the same error as they copy each other.

Good luck.

Marie

Hi again Hilary,

Just to let you know, I've had a quick look in the Patent & Fine Rolls & found evidence of the death of John Ingleby, esquire, in 1457, and the existence of a clerical John Ingleby four years before that:-

9 October 1453 - There is mention in the Patent Rolls of a John Ingilby, chaplain, of Yorkshire (CPR 1452-61, p. 126).

28 September 1457 - Writs of diem clausit extremum ('he has closed his last day') issued "after the death of..." various individuals ordering the relevant county escheators to hold inquisitions post mortem into their lands & identify the heir. This list includes and instruction to the escheators of Yorks, Lincs and Essex regarding the lands of John Ingelby, esquire (CFR 1462-61, p. 167).

The wardship of John Ingilby's underaged son and heir, William, was granted to Richard Tunstall (CPR 1452-61, p. 335).

I notice Bishop Ingleby has an entry in the ODNB, if you or someone else can get access.

This is me signing out now for the weekend.

Marie

Does the inheritance of the Ingleby estates reveal anything?

Was Margery referred to as a widow in documents dating from between 1457 and her marriage to Welles?

What was the nature of the trouble JI had being made Bishop of Landaff?

Does Bishop Ingelby's will reveal anything? (assuming he left one).

Is there any evidence (IPMs, writs of diem clausit extremum, will, etc) of Sir John Ingleby's death in or around 1457? Of course, unless he was thought to be a tenant in chief there would have been no IPM or writ of dce.

But all these questions will help.

Very often numerous sources repeat the same error as they copy each other.

Good luck.

Marie

Very often numerous sources repeat the same error as they copy each other.

Carol wrote:

<<BTW, does anyone know whether surgeons were also physicians? Would he have been among the physicians who advised King Richard to avoid Anne's bed after her illness or disorder, whatever it was, manifested itself?>>

No to the first, but yes to the second. I can't swear to it, but everything I have read up to now (Hobbys has been a weird little interest of mine for a while) indicates that medieval surgeons were almost never physicians, or vice versa. Physicians were usually secular clergy, and the church forbade clergy to engage in the act of drawing blood, so they couldn't practice surgery. Hobbys is the only exception I've heard of, and he was able to do it by remaining a layman.

But, Hobbys very likely was one of the physicians called on to treat Anne and who had to advise Richard to stop sleeping with her.

It's a bit muddy to me, but this is what I gather: Hobbys started his career around 1447 as a surgeon. He seems to have accompanied the Duke of York to Ireland in 1449-1450. He went on to earn a Bachelor of Medicine from Oxford in 1459 (would still have been counted as 1458) and an MD from Cambridge in 1462 (would still have been counted as 1461) to qualify as a physician. Edward IV wasted little time giving him a royal appointment--but as a surgeon. Although Hobbys held the credentials to practice as a physician throughout Edward's reign, it seems to have been Richard who finally promoted him to that official position in December 1483. So Hobbys was definitely a royal physician under Richard's direct patronage by the time Anne fell ill.

I also think it very likely that he treated Richard's scoliosis when it began to develop, since he was on hand as Edward's surgeon and well qualified. If that's the case, then Richard may have also felt gratitude to Hobbys for treating it and keeping his mouth shut about it.

Sorry to go on about this & but as I said, Hobbys caught my eye a while ago and hasn't let me go yet. :)

Cathy

Cathy wrote: "No to the first, but yes to the second. I can't swear to it, but everything I have read up to now (Hobbys has been a weird little interest of mine for a while) indicates that medieval surgeons were almost never physicians, or vice versa. Physicians were usually secular clergy, and the church forbade clergy to engage in the act of drawing blood, so they couldn't practice surgery. Hobbys is the only exception I've heard of, and he was able to do it by remaining a layman."

That's odd, because weren't medieval monks in the habit of bleeding each other, usually to the point where they'd lose consciousness, once a month or so? It apparently was a major reason for the chronic anemia of many monks.

Tamara

Carol wrote:

<<BTW, does anyone know whether surgeons were also physicians? Would he have been among the physicians who advised King Richard to avoid Anne's bed after her illness or disorder, whatever it was, manifested itself?>>

No to the first, but yes to the second. I can't swear to it, but everything I have read up to now (Hobbys has been a weird little interest of mine for a while) indicates that medieval surgeons were almost never physicians, or vice versa. Physicians were usually secular clergy, and the church forbade clergy to engage in the act of drawing blood, so they couldn't practice surgery. Hobbys is the only exception I've heard of, and he was able to do it by remaining a layman.

But, Hobbys very likely was one of the physicians called on to treat Anne and who had to advise Richard to stop sleeping with her.

It's a bit muddy to me, but this is what I gather: Hobbys started his career around 1447 as a surgeon. He seems to have accompanied the Duke of York to Ireland in 1449-1450. He went on to earn a Bachelor of Medicine from Oxford in 1459 (would still have been counted as 1458) and an MD from Cambridge in 1462 (would still have been counted as 1461) to qualify as a physician. Edward IV wasted little time giving him a royal appointment--but as a surgeon. Although Hobbys held the credentials to practice as a physician throughout Edward's reign, it seems to have been Richard who finally promoted him to that official position in December 1483. So Hobbys was definitely a royal physician under Richard's direct patronage by the time Anne fell ill.

I also think it very likely that he treated Richard's scoliosis when it began to develop, since he was on hand as Edward's surgeon and well qualified. If that's the case, then Richard may have also felt gratitude to Hobbys for treating it and keeping his mouth shut about it.

Sorry to go on about this & but as I said, Hobbys caught my eye a while ago and hasn't let me go yet. :)

Cathy

Cathy wrote:

Marie responds,

I'm pretty sure I gave IPMs and writs of dce in full earlier in the post, but if not, IPMs are Inquisitions post mortem, and dce was my own ad hoc abbreviation of diem clausit extremum.

When a tenant-in-chief died the crown issued writs of diem clausit extremum ('he has closed his last day') to the escheators of the counties where they were believed to hold land, ordering them to hold an inquisition post mortem to determine what lands they had held, what they were worth, who was the rightful heir, and how old was said rightful heir.

Marie

Very often numerous sources repeat the same error as they copy each other.

Carol wrote:

<< What sources would you recommend for anyone interested in Hobbys (or Hobbes as some sources spell his name)?>>

There doesn't seem to be any one good source about him, but these are probably the best of what's out there:

His ODNB entry is available for free: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/52673. It gives a good summary of his career, although is vague about how or when he came to be associated with the House of York and mentions nothing about his divorce. (It also annoyingly says Richard seized the throne, arghhh.) For books, there's Richard Beck, The Cutting Edge: Early History of the Surgeons of London (1974), which gives some interesting glimpses of Hobbys and his family through a transcription of his father's will. The most detail is probably provided in the Shannon McSheffrey book I mentioned earlier, which gives some more information on his career, discusses his divorce case in depth, and provides long extracts from his own will (Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London, 2006).

Hope this helps!

Cathy

Carol wrote:

<< And does anyone know of any other Richard followers courageous enough to mention him in their epitaphs?>>

This post from the New South Wales branch of the Richard III Society mentions another former servant of Richard's, Thomas Barowe, who honored Richard's memory well into Tudor times. It wasn't part of an epitaph but a gift to Cambridge University:

http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/2013/06/events-in-history-between-23-june-and-10-july-1499/

Cathy

There's something about the 'Bishop of Winchester's geese' ie prostitutes operating in Southwark in the usually very accurate Kate Sedley. Before anyone pounces I know nothing whatsoever about the Bishop of Winchester! H

There is nothing in the papal registers, and I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The solution may be that these are two separate John Inglebys from the same family as according to Castelli's website the Sir John Ingelby who was married to Margery Strangeways died in 1457. He has him buried in Hertford, though, which I guess actually refers to the Bishop.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/INGLEBY.htm

This would certainly explain Margery's status as "widow".

Marie

Sorry to have been away Marie

http://ingilbyhistory.ripleycastle.co.uk/ingilby_4/Ingleby%20Sir%20Charles%20(1645-1719).pdf

So when he became a monk he could have 'died'. He's there as Prior of Sheen and in the papal registers as Bishop of Llandaff.

But I agree - don't spend any more time. I was intrigued, because as confessor to EW (and probably EIV) who made him a grant at Sheen, he was also 'related' to Stillington and could have passed on a confession from Edward. Checking, it seems that the only circumstances when a priest can divulge a confession is when they are doing so to a higher authority in the Church. So that's how I stumbled on him. Regards

Hilary

There is nothing in the papal registers, and I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The solution may be that these are two separate John Inglebys from the same family as according to Castelli's website the Sir John Ingelby who was married to Margery Strangeways died in 1457. He has him buried in Hertford, though, which I guess actually refers to the Bishop.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/INGLEBY.htm

This would certainly explain Margery's status as "widow".

Marie

No, Hilar, what I actually meant is these look like two different individuals. If the IPMs themselves survive they will tell you on what date John Ingleby Esquire died, or if the estate was changing hands for some other reason.

The estate evidently passed to his eldest son, so if he had got an annulment of his marriage he would seem to have done so without bastardising his children. Despite what these secondary sources say, a confusion between two separate John Inglebys seems the most obvious answer.

Marie

Sorry to have been away Marie

http://ingilbyhistory.ripleycastle.co.uk/ingilby_4/Ingleby%20Sir%20Charles%20(1645-1719).pdf

So when he became a monk he could have 'died'. He's there as Prior of Sheen and in the papal registers as Bishop of Llandaff.

But I agree - don't spend any more time. I was intrigued, because as confessor to EW (and probably EIV) who made him a grant at Sheen, he was also 'related' to Stillington and could have passed on a confession from Edward. Checking, it seems that the only circumstances when a priest can divulge a confession is when they are doing so to a higher authority in the Church. So that's how I stumbled on him. Regards

Hilary

There is nothing in the papal registers, and I'm not going to spend much more time on this. The solution may be that these are two separate John Inglebys from the same family as according to Castelli's website the Sir John Ingelby who was married to Margery Strangeways died in 1457. He has him buried in Hertford, though, which I guess actually refers to the Bishop.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/INGLEBY.htm

This would certainly explain Margery's status as "widow".

Marie

Cathy wrote:

"There doesn't seem to be any one good source about him [Hobbes], but these are probably the best of what's out there:

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. I had the same reaction to "seized the throne" in the DNB article. It's one of the many statements about Richard that have been repeated so often that people take them for truisms (which require no supporting evidence and are not debatable). I noticed that the author, Carole Rawcliffe (with whose credentials I'm not familiar) states that Hobbes's epitaph calls attention to his service to Richard Duke of York and his two sons without noting the courageous reference to Richard (along with the others) as "most illustrious." Also, she refers to the younger Richard as "Richard of Gloucester," minus "Duke," That's fine on a second reference but, in my view, negligent and misleading on a first. After all, John of Gaunt wasn't Duke of Gaunt and Edward of Lancaster wasn't Prince of Lancaster. Those names refer to their respective birthplaces. I suppose that would make Richard "Richard of Fotheringhay" or maybe "Richard of Northamptonshire," but, of course, no one ever calls him by those names. (Maybe that would be his name in footnotes if he'd never been made a duke or king, or he'd simply have been "Richard Plantagenet, youngest son of the Duke of York."

Anyway, sorry to run on. I'll try to check out those sources at some point when life, eyesight, and finances give me leisure to spend all day reading!

I don't suppose there's sufficient material for a biography of Hobbes, but a book on the lives of Richard III's best-known followers and retainers would be useful, especially given that some of them (not Hobbes, that I know of) have been defamed along with the king they supported, the chief exceptions being the Duke of Norfolk (whose son's loyalty Henry Tudor wanted) and "gentle Brackenbury." Such a book might even sell in the current market

BTW, I just figured out how to fix font glitches (the little square "Show more icon, along with "Tt" and "Tr." What those abbreviations mean, I don't know, but we can also use italics, underscores, boldface, and, oh joy, even emoticons now. We'll see how this post shows up after I hit Send! I see that the emoticon has spoiled the spacing, but that's Yahoo's idea of progress and improvement.

Carol, deleting a superfluous "re"

This post from the New South Wales branch of the Richard III Society mentions another former servant of Richard's, Thomas Barowe, who honored Richard's memory well into Tudor times. It wasn't part of an epitaph but a gift to Cambridge University:

http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/2013/06/events-in-history-between-23-june-and-10-july-1499/

Carol responds:

Thanks, Cathy. It looks as if

Richard III and East Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men edited by Livia Visser-Fuchs should be next on my reading list if I can afford it. Her books don't run cheap.

(Can't fix the font size on the title despite the icons. Bless us and splash us, what is wrong with Yahoo and why has it italicized this line?

Carol (Sorry--no more emoticons, but what in the name of sanity are these people trying to do?)