J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY’S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 


 
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances.  The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances. 
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians. 
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood.  Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project.  There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3. 
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants.  She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies.  Sting in the tail?
Jan.

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

 
Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 


 
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances.  The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances. 
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians. 
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood.  Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project.  There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3. 
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants.  She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies.  Sting in the tail?
Jan.

In my little mind, I always see her as an Eleanor of Aquitane kind of lady&..loving, but made of stern stuff.

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Jessie Skinner
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:56 PM
To: @yahoogroups com; ajhibbard@...
Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.



Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how
I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;

To: <>;

Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.

Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM




Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons
& then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today,
but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most
strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?

A J

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:




As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York , which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues
that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances. The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests
the testament might have been used to write the ordinances. Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.

As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood.
Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library &
S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual
queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project. There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich
vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3. CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies. Sting
in the tail?
Jan.

Jan wrote:"As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances. The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament might have been used to write the ordinances." Marie replies:Thanks very much for drawing our attention to this; I hear that JLL is currently working on a full-length biography of Cecily. Interesting about the 'Snap!' factor with the books - I had wondered about that. Too much of a coincidence, isn't it? Is JLL therefore suggesting the ordinances were made up after Cecily's dead, using the information in her will? Jan wrote:"As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation....." Marie replies:So far as I know, what JLL considers as Lessy's "dubious reputation" rests solely on the fact that he had been married before becoming a priest, the marriage being annulled because of a precontract (his wife was - at least so it was claimed - already clandestinely married to someone else). I'm not sure that counts as a dubious reputation unless you think that it was a story Lessy and his wife cooked up in order to separate. Jan wrote:"JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project. There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s." Marie replies:Very interesting. JLL was very dismissive of Mike Jones' theory about Edward's bastardy and denied any rift between Cecily and Edward in 1469, including MKJ's suggestion that Cecily was deprived of Fotheringhay against her will. I pointed out in some correspondence (in the Bulletin, perhaps) that JLL had in her MA thesis emphasised the amount of money Cecily had spent on Fotheringhay during the 1460s, namely that glazing, and that this made her voluntary surrender of the castle puzzling. I also pointed out that Cecily does not seem to have visited Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich in order to talk them out of the wedding (the traditional interpretation, then espoused by JLL) as she clearly knew what was afoot but did not inform the King. The next I read from JLL she had modified her view of Cecily's visit to Sandwich to suggest that Cecily approved Clarence's marriage to Isabel but had no idea that they planned to follow it up with rebellion - which is fair enough. I personally remain sceptical about Cecily's voluntary surrender of Fotheringhay, however, because a month passed between that and the grant of Berkhamsted, and the King inserted into that grant a promise that "if she be removed in any way from the same she shall be fully recompensed." While the rest of the royal family set off in June 1469 on a progress to Walsingham, taking in a visit to Fotheringhay, Cecily remained behind. I know of no evidence that she ever visited Fotheringhay again, although it was where she asked to be buried. Surely the King could have paid for the glazing without Cecily surrendering Fotheringhay to him? I accept there is no proof that Cecily was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s, but we have very very few references at all to her whereabouts - JAH found one reference placing her at Clare Castle on a particular date, but one swallow doesn't make a summer. Jan wrote:"She had a quantity of rich vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3. CDOY must have been collecting them for some time." Marie replies:Indeed she must. Jan wrote:"The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies. Sting in the tail?" Marie replies:I hope not but I wouldn't be at all surprised. ---In , <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

This book: Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children. I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death. Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check. Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
 
This book:  Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 
 It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
 I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    
 
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

 
Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 

 
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances.  The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances. 
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians. 
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood.  Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project.  There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3. 
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants.  She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies.  Sting in the tail?
Jan.

FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her. H. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483. But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
This book: Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.
It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death. Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM

 
FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her.  H.  On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
 
I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
 
This book:  Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 
 It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
 I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    
 
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

 
Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 

 
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances.  The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances. 
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians. 
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood.  Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project.  There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3. 
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants.  She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies.  Sting in the tail?
Jan.

Thank you Marion, I will have a look at that.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
phaecilia@... <phaecilia@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 1:04:03 AM

 
This book:  Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.  It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children. I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's
arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.     Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

 
Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 

 
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances.  The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances. 
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians. 
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood.  Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project.  There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3. 
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants.  She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies.  Sting in the tail?
Jan.

Yes. I think he acknowledges that her influence has been much neglected. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM

FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her. H. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483. But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
This book: Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.
It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death. Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

I really do have issues over Jones's view that Edward IV was illegitimate. He interprets Cicely's actions in the light of that belief, so I am not sure how much credence to place on his interpretation of her behaviour. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wriote: Yes. I think he acknowledges that her influence has been much
neglected. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM

FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her. H. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483. But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
This book: Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.
It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death. Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

Oh if only we could DNA test them all............
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 11:13:49 AM

 
I really do have issues over Jones's view that Edward IV was illegitimate.  He interprets Cicely's actions in the light of that belief, so I am not sure how much credence to place on his interpretation of her behaviour. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wriote: Yes. I
think he acknowledges that her influence has been much
neglected. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
 
Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM

 
FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her.  H.  On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
 
I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
 
This book:  Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 
 It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
 I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    
 
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

 
Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 

 
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances.  The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances. 
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians. 
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood.  Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project.  There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3. 
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants.  She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies.  Sting in the tail?
Jan.

It's because Jones found the 'evidence' in Rouen cathedral files - he is a French history scholar I recall. Don't say I adhere to that but I believe the rest. He's also very good at pointing out that Margaret Beaufort loved fine clothes. And Cis's extravagence is well known. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 11:30, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Oh if only we could DNA test them all............
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 11:13:49 AM

I really do have issues over Jones's view that Edward IV was illegitimate. He interprets Cicely's actions in the light of that belief, so I am not sure how much credence to place on his interpretation of her behaviour. From: Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wriote: Yes. I
think he acknowledges that her influence has been much
neglected. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM

FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her. H. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483. But would be happy to be corrected.
A J
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
This book: Crawford,
Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.
It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death. Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.
Marion ---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all
Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
& C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL
is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
her household ordinances. The books
mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
might have been used to write the ordinances.
Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
during her widowhood. Recently a
manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S
Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
& enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
father's project. There is no proof that
CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
have been obtained after the death of R3.
CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported
most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
seventies. Sting in the tail?
Jan.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room.

OR a fly on the wall during the conversations held with Edward just prior and immediately after he had his brother, poor George, executed. I mean...how would you ever get over that? How did Cecily cope with that, how did she deal with it...and what exactly would she have said to Edward....did she beg...did she curse, bargain..it's hard to believe she accepted it..that George had brought it upon himself....the mind boggles??Eileen
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
> Jess
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY’S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
> Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM
>
>
>  
> FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones.
>  
> And yes, I love her.  H. 
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>  
> I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
> > 
> >This book:  Crawford,
> Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 
> > 
> >It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
> > 
> >I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    
> > 
> >Marion
> >
> >
> >---In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
> >She seemsto have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
> >Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
> >I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
> >How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
> >She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
> >How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
> >An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
> >Jess
> >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> >
> >
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>;
> >
> >To: <>;
> >Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY’S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
> >Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM
> >
> >
> > 
> >Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
> >
> >
> >A J
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
> & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
> >>>It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
> York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
> her in “a seminal article” of 1942.  JLL
> is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
> CAJ A’s conclusion is only relevant to CDOY’s last 10 years.
> >>>CDOY’s reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
> her household ordinances.  The books
> mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
> might have been used to write the ordinances.  Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
> influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
> the Carthusians. 
> >>>As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
> institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
> during her widowhood.  Recently a
> manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott’s library & S
> Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
> ducal couple.
> >>>As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
> including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
> & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
> Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
> father’s project.  There is no proof that
> CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
> own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
> have been obtained after the death of R3.  CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
> >>>CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
> household at Baynard’s Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
> ladyship to her servants.  She supported
> most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
> House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
> testament
> >>>“The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
> well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
> seventies.”  Sting in the tail?
> >>>Jan.
> >
>

Exactly and what about the pressure from Margaret of Burgundy who seems to have adored George? I bet there were times when she wished ROY was there to knock their heads together. On Monday, 11 November 2013, 15:25, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room.

OR a fly on the wall during the conversations held with Edward just prior and immediately after he had his brother, poor George, executed. I mean...how would you ever get over that? How did Cecily cope with that, how did she deal with it...and what exactly would she have said to Edward....did she beg...did she curse, bargain..it's hard to believe she accepted it..that George had brought it upon himself....the mind boggles??Eileen
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
> Jess
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILYâ¬"S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
> Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM
>
>
> Â
> FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones.
> Â
> And yes, I love her. H.Â
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483. Â But would be happy to be corrected.
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
> >Â
> >This book:Â Crawford,
> Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.Â
> >Â
> >It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
> >Â
> >I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.  Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.   Â
> >Â
> >Marion
> >
> >
> >---In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
> >She seemsto have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
> >Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
> >I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
> >How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
> >She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
> >How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
> >An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
> >Jess
> >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> >
> >
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>;
> >
> >To: <>;
> >Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILYâ¬"S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
> >Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Thanks Jan. Â As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Â Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Â Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. Â And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
> >
> >
> >A J
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
> & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
> >>>It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
> York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
> her in â¬Sa seminal article⬠of 1942. JLL
> is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
> CAJ Aâ¬"s conclusion is only relevant to CDOYâ¬"s last 10 years.
> >>>CDOYâ¬"s reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
> her household ordinances. The books
> mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
> might have been used to write the ordinances. Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
> influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
> the Carthusians.Â
> >>>As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
> institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
> during her widowhood. Â Recently a
> manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scottâ¬"s library & S
> Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
> ducal couple.
> >>>As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
> including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
> & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
> Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
> fatherâ¬"s project. There is no proof that
> CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
> own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
> have been obtained after the death of R3. CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
> >>>CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
> household at Baynardâ¬"s Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
> ladyship to her servants. She supported
> most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
> House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
> testament
> >>>â¬SThe devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
> well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
> seventies.â¬Â Sting in the tail?
> >>>Jan.
> >
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly and what about the pressure from Margaret of Burgundy who seems to have adored George?

Yes exactly again....which just goes to show George couldn't have been all bad...well actually anyone the Woodvilles wanted to get rid of probably were not all bad at all...Eileen
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 15:25, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room.
>
> OR a fly on the wall during the conversations held with Edward just prior and immediately after he had his brother, poor George, executed. I mean...how would you ever get over that? How did Cecily cope with that, how did she deal with it...and what exactly would she have said to Edward....did she beg...did she curse, bargain..it's hard to believe she accepted it..that George had brought it upon himself....the mind boggles??Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@> wrote:
> >
> >  
> > Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?
> > Jess
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>;
> > To: <>;
> > Subject: Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY’S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
> > Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> > FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones.
> >  
> > And yes, I love her.  H. 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> >  
> > I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 
> > >This book:  Crawford,
> > Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 
> > > 
> > >It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.
> > > 
> > >I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    
> > > 
> > >Marion
> > >
> > >
> > >---In , <janjovian@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
> > >She seemsto have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
> > >Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
> > >I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
> > >How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
> > >She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
> > >How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
> > >An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
> > >Jess
> > >Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > >
> > >
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>;
> > >
> > >To: <>;
> > >Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY’S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
> > >Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
> > >
> > >
> > >A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke
> > & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
> > >>>It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
> > York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to
> > her in â€Å"a seminal article†of 1942.  JLL
> > is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that
> > CAJ A’s conclusion is only relevant to CDOY’s last 10 years.
> > >>>CDOY’s reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament &
> > her household ordinances.  The books
> > mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament
> > might have been used to write the ordinances.  Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the
> > influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism &
> > the Carthusians. 
> > >>>As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the
> > institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity
> > during her widowhood.  Recently a
> > manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott’s library & S
> > Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the
> > ducal couple.
> > >>>As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics,
> > including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation,
> > & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered
> > Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his
> > father’s project.  There is no proof that
> > CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her
> > own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all
> > have been obtained after the death of R3.  CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
> > >>>CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a
> > household at Baynard’s Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good
> > ladyship to her servants.  She supported
> > most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the
> > House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her
> > testament
> > >>>â€Å"The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may
> > well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her
> > seventies.â€Â  Sting in the tail?
> > >>>Jan.
> > >
> >
>

AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

Indeed - her husband and her sons put there by God to rule. I think Liz hit the nail on the head some time ago when she likened it to the Kennedys (but with Cis it would have been even stronger). Her faith would tell her that losing her two Richards to this cause was still what God had ordained; which leads us into her implication in the plots surrounding Warbeck. H On Saturday, 9 November 2013, 19:55, Pamela Bain
<pbain@...> wrote:
In my little mind, I always see her as an Eleanor of Aquitane kind of lady&..loving, but made of stern stuff.
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Jessie Skinner
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:56 PM
To: @yahoogroups com; ajhibbard@...
Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how
I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;

To: <>;

Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.

Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM
Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons
& then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today,
but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most
strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
A J
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].
It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of
York , which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues
that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.
CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances. The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests
the testament might have been used to write the ordinances. Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.
As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood.
Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library &
S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple.
As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual
queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project. There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich
vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3. CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.
CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good
ladyship to her servants. She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament
The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies. Sting
in the tail?
Jan.

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

 
It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

Put simply women were barred from the throne by primogeniture unless there was no acceptable male - which happened in the case of Mary Tudor and Elzabeth. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 6:29, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

That's interesting Hilary. What is your source for that? Of course, the English claim to the French crown was through female descent, as of course was the Yorkist claim and Henry Tudor's. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Put simply women were barred from the throne by primogeniture unless there was no acceptable male - which happened in the case of Mary Tudor and Elzabeth. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 6:29, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

My source is that the succession (male or female) went backwards and forwards throughout the 14th century. Edward I changed it in favour of women (so his daughter would come before his brother Edmund Crouchback). In fact of course his eldest son inherited anyway. So Edward III (Edward I's grandson) could claim the French crown through his mother Isabella who was the last surviving child of Philip the Fair (the French refuted this through their Salic Law which said only a male could inherit and her male cousin took the French throne). Edward III in his old age was persuaded to change the English succession back to primogeniture by John of Gaunt because of the possible claim of his elder brother, Lionel of Clarence's daughter, Philippa Mortimer (York's
ancestor). Richard II threatened to reverse it in favour of Edmund Mortimer over Bolingbroke (JOG's son) but we know what happened there. So the York/Lancaster claim could be said to be academic and if indeed Richard II did reverse it it wasn't honoured by Edward IV who failed to make EOY his heir.ROY had a claim (I recall without looking it up) through Philippa Mortmier and Edward III's other son Edmund of Langley. Thereafter (and again please correct me someone) primogeniture remained intact until last year when it was confirmed that the Crown would automatically pass to the eldest legitimate heir of whatever sex. The only occasions it passed to a woman is when there was no male heir - Mary Tudor, Elizabeth, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II (or by invitation in the case of William and Mary). Quite simply a woman on the throne was not judged a good thing - have you seen Helen Castor's
'She-Wolves'? H. PS As you know, MB had no claim whatsoever as the Beauforts were barred from the Cown. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 12:57, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
That's interesting Hilary. What is your source for that? Of course, the English claim to the French crown was through female descent, as of course was the Yorkist claim and Henry Tudor's. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>

Put simply women were barred from the throne by primogeniture unless there was no acceptable male - which happened in the case of Mary Tudor and Elzabeth. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 6:29, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

I would not dispute that males came first amongst siblings, (that is why EoY was 'outranked' by her brothers, but the Mortimer claim was valid - descent via a woman was acceptable to the English, otherwise Edward III could not have claimed the crown of France. That's what always makes me smile about the Lancastrians - they ignored the Mortimer claim, yet fought in France for the French crown on precisely the same grounds as the DoY claimed the English crown.I thought RII designated the Mortimer lline as his heirs.I know that the Beaufort claim was spurious, yet Henry Tudor's 'Lancastrian' claim which was widely trumpeted came from his mother and once he was de facto king, it was accepted generally. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
My source is that the succession (male or female) went backwards and forwards throughout the 14th century. Edward I changed it in favour of women (so his daughter would come before his brother Edmund Crouchback). In fact of course his eldest son inherited anyway. So Edward III (Edward I's grandson) could claim the French crown through his mother Isabella who was the last surviving child of Philip the Fair (the French refuted this through their Salic Law which said only a male could inherit and her male cousin took the French throne). Edward III in his old age was persuaded to change the English succession back to primogeniture by John of Gaunt because of the possible claim of his elder brother, Lionel of Clarence's daughter,
Philippa Mortimer (York's
ancestor). Richard II threatened to reverse it in favour of Edmund Mortimer over Bolingbroke (JOG's son) but we know what happened there. So the York/Lancaster claim could be said to be academic and if indeed Richard II did reverse it it wasn't honoured by Edward IV who failed to make EOY his heir.ROY had a claim (I recall without looking it up) through Philippa Mortmier and Edward III's other son Edmund of Langley. Thereafter (and again please correct me someone) primogeniture remained intact until last year when it was confirmed that the Crown would automatically pass to the eldest legitimate heir of whatever sex. The only occasions it passed to a woman is when there was no male heir - Mary Tudor, Elizabeth, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II (or by invitation in the case of William and Mary). Quite simply a woman on the throne was not judged a good thing - have you seen Helen Castor's
'She-Wolves'? H. PS As you know, MB had no claim whatsoever as the Beauforts were barred from the Cown. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 12:57, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
That's interesting Hilary. What is your source for that? Of course, the English claim to the French crown was through female descent, as of course was the Yorkist claim and Henry Tudor's. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>

Put simply women were barred from the throne by primogeniture unless there was no acceptable male - which happened in the case of Mary Tudor and Elzabeth. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 6:29, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

It might be acceptable to the English but it wasn't acceptable to the French! And Edward III didn't change it back to primogenture until later and after he did so the Mortimer claim was invalid. We don't actually know whether Richard II reversed it but one could argue that Bolingbroke's usurpation annulled it anyway. Read the other Mortimer - Ian on all this. But yes Henry V revived the old Edward III French claim - but it suited him to - didn't mean he applied it to England. Double standards - of course!! It could be argued that, when faced with it, descent to a woman was not acceptable to the English until they really had their backs against a wall. Helen Castor draws our attention to Matilda, who was in every sense the legitimate heir bur driven
out. Quite simply, women were not ordained to rule. H On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 13:58, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
I would not dispute that males came first amongst siblings, (that is why EoY was 'outranked' by her brothers, but the Mortimer claim was valid - descent via a woman was acceptable to the English, otherwise Edward III could not have claimed the crown of France. That's what always makes me smile about the Lancastrians - they ignored the Mortimer claim, yet fought in France for the French crown on precisely the same grounds as the DoY claimed the English crown.I thought RII designated the Mortimer lline as his heirs.I know that the Beaufort claim was spurious, yet Henry Tudor's 'Lancastrian' claim which was widely trumpeted came from his mother and once he was de facto king, it was accepted generally. From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
My source is that the succession (male or female) went backwards and forwards throughout the 14th century. Edward I changed it in favour of women (so his daughter would come before his brother Edmund Crouchback). In fact of course his eldest son inherited anyway. So Edward III (Edward I's grandson) could claim the French crown through his mother Isabella who was the last surviving child of Philip the Fair (the French refuted this through their Salic Law which said only a male could inherit and her male cousin took the French throne). Edward III in his old age was persuaded to change the English succession back to primogeniture by John of Gaunt because of the possible claim of his elder brother, Lionel of Clarence's daughter,
Philippa Mortimer (York's
ancestor). Richard II threatened to reverse it in favour of Edmund Mortimer over Bolingbroke (JOG's son) but we know what happened there. So the York/Lancaster claim could be said to be academic and if indeed Richard II did reverse it it wasn't honoured by Edward IV who failed to make EOY his heir.ROY had a claim (I recall without looking it up) through Philippa Mortmier and Edward III's other son Edmund of Langley. Thereafter (and again please correct me someone) primogeniture remained intact until last year when it was confirmed that the Crown would automatically pass to the eldest legitimate heir of whatever sex. The only occasions it passed to a woman is when there was no male heir - Mary Tudor, Elizabeth, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II (or by invitation in the case of William and Mary). Quite simply a woman on the throne was not judged a good thing - have you seen Helen Castor's
'She-Wolves'? H. PS As you know, MB had no claim whatsoever as the Beauforts were barred from the Cown. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 12:57, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
That's interesting Hilary. What is your source for that? Of course, the English claim to the French crown was through female descent, as of course was the Yorkist claim and Henry Tudor's. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>

Put simply women were barred from the throne by primogeniture unless there was no acceptable male - which happened in the case of Mary Tudor and Elzabeth. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 6:29, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

Marie wrote:It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.MarieCarol responds:But dynastic concerns don't necessarily preclude maternal concerns and vice versa. Also, Margaret would have been in as much danger among sailors and other men abroad as she would have been at home with her mother. It may well have been her preference to stay at home as well. Just thoughts, of course. It's impossible to determine the unexpressed thoughts of another person even in our own time. But I'll concede that Cecily was a dynast (or whatever the correct word is for someone concerned with preserving his or her own bloodline as rulers). So, of course, was Margaret of Anjou--and even Margaret Beaufort, if you count her blood as Lancastrian.I've often wondered where Margaret (of York) was when the Lancastrians attacked Ludlow. Cecily and the little boys are always mentioned as being there (evidently taken in captivity and then placed with Cecily's Lancastrian sister Anne, Duchess of Buckingham), but Margaret is never mentioned until Cecily left all her children to be with her husband and "the Earl of March came every day to see them" (Margaret, George, and Richard).Carol ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

Pamela Furmidge wrote:"If
it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the
crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she
was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly
to her son."Carol responds:Possibly because if she were queen, her husband, Lord Stanley, would have been king by right of his wife! Obviously, she preferred her son, who at least had a touch of Plantagenet blood--and the prospect of marrying Elizabeth of York. In any case, it was always Henry and his supposed interests, not her own, that seems to have occupied her. I guess that what happens when you have a child so young and that child is snatched away from you. I suspect that she hated the Yorkist "usurpers" (who had also made her a widow) from a very young age. I would pity MB from the bottom of my heart if she weren't partially responsible for so much bloodshed.Imagine if there had been no rebellion against Richard, either to restore Edward V or in favor of Tudor. Thousands of lives would have been saved (not to mention the consequences for the country with Richard as king in place of the Tudor).Carol

I'm being lazy and top posting rather than snip Hilary's long post. We could go back even farther to Henry I (son of William the Conqueror), who made his daughter his sole heir after her only brother, William, drowned. That decision resulted in a civil war worse than the Wars of the Roses. Her cousin Stephen, the son of Henry's sister, became king (inheriting through a woman but preventing a woman from ruling directly unless you count her brief stint as the uncrowned "Lady of England"), but ultimately he disinherited his own son in favor of her son, Henry, later Henry II, the first Plantagenet king. So Richard II's appointing his cousin Philippa's son, Edmund Mortimer, as his heir was not without precedent.Had his choice been honored, Richard Duke of York might well have become king by inheritance and the Wars of the Roses averted. (But *he* would have been Richard III and our Richard just the youngest of four Yorkist princes.)Carol ---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:My source is that the succession (male or female) went backwards and forwards throughout the 14th century. Edward I changed it in favour of women (so his daughter would come before his brother Edmund Crouchback). In fact of course his eldest son inherited anyway. So Edward III (Edward I's grandson) could claim the French crown through his mother Isabella who was the last surviving child of Philip the Fair (the French refuted this through their Salic Law which said only a male could inherit and her male cousin took the French throne). Edward III in his old age was persuaded to change the English succession back to primogeniture by John of Gaunt because of the possible claim of his elder brother, Lionel of Clarence's daughter, Philippa Mortimer (York's
ancestor). Richard II threatened to reverse it in favour of Edmund Mortimer over Bolingbroke (JOG's son) but we know what happened there. So the York/Lancaster claim could be said to be academic and if indeed Richard II did reverse it it wasn't honoured by Edward IV who failed to make EOY his heir.ROY had a claim (I recall without looking it up) through Philippa Mortmier and Edward III's other son Edmund of Langley. Thereafter (and again please correct me someone) primogeniture remained intact until last year when it was confirmed that the Crown would automatically pass to the eldest legitimate heir of whatever sex. The only occasions it passed to a woman is when there was no male heir - Mary Tudor, Elizabeth, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II (or by invitation in the case of William and Mary). Quite simply a woman on the throne was not judged a good thing - have you seen Helen Castor's
'She-Wolves'? H. PS As you know, MB had no claim whatsoever as the Beauforts were barred from the Cown. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 12:57, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
That's interesting Hilary. What is your source for that? Of course, the English claim to the French crown was through female descent, as of course was the Yorkist claim and Henry Tudor's. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>

Put simply women were barred from the throne by primogeniture unless there was no acceptable male - which happened in the case of Mary Tudor and Elzabeth. On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 6:29, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son. From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:
How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov 13, 2013 10:05:05 PM

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.Marie ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:AJ wrote:Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances
by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
Carol responds:She sent Richard and George to Burgundy to keep them safe from the
Lancastrians. That in itself indicates that she loved her youngest children and feared for their safety. And there is some evidence that she did not object to
Richard's kingship (no, I'm not prepared to cite or summarize it, sorry!), perhaps preferring her youngest son to her eldest
son's son (which, if true, would support the idea that Edward was indeed illegitimate).The one thing that's certain is that she viewed herself as "queen by
right" and her late husband as the rightful king. Her will suggests that even Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York did not reconcile her to his usurpation.We need to find out more about Cecily. Richard respected and honored her, in any case, dutiful son of Mother Church that he was.Carol

Stephen became king by dashing across
the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as
the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the
alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul



On 14/11/2013 17:25, justcarol67@... wrote:
I'm being lazy and top posting rather than snip Hilary's long
post. We could go back even farther to Henry I (son of William the
Conqueror), who made his daughter his sole heir after her only
brother, William, drowned. That decision resulted in a civil war
worse than the Wars of the Roses. Her cousin Stephen, the son of
Henry's sister, became king (inheriting through a woman but
preventing a woman from ruling directly unless you count her brief
stint as the uncrowned "Lady of England"), but ultimately he
disinherited his own son in favor of her son, Henry, later Henry
II, the first Plantagenet king. So Richard II's appointing his
cousin Philippa's son, Edmund Mortimer, as his heir was not
without precedent.

Had his choice been honored, Richard Duke of York might well have
become king by inheritance and the Wars of the Roses averted. (But
*he* would have been Richard III and our Richard just the youngest
of four Yorkist princes.)

Carol
 


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

My source is that the succession (male or female)
went backwards and forwards throughout the 14th century.
Edward I changed it in favour of women (so his daughter
would come before his brother Edmund Crouchback). In
fact of course his eldest son inherited anyway. So
Edward III (Edward I's grandson) could claim the French
crown through his mother Isabella who was the last
surviving child of Philip the Fair (the French refuted
this through their Salic Law which said only a male
could inherit and her male cousin took the French
throne).
Edward III in his old age was persuaded to change
the English succession back to primogeniture by John of
Gaunt because of the possible claim of his elder
brother, Lionel of Clarence's daughter, Philippa
Mortimer (York's ancestor). Richard II threatened to
reverse it in favour of Edmund Mortimer over Bolingbroke
(JOG's son) but we know what happened there. So the
York/Lancaster claim could be said to be academic and if
indeed Richard II did reverse it it wasn't honoured by
Edward IV who failed to make EOY his heir.
ROY had a claim (I recall without looking it up)
through Philippa Mortmier and Edward III's other son
Edmund of Langley. Thereafter (and again please correct
me someone) primogeniture remained intact until last
year when it was confirmed that the Crown would
automatically pass to the eldest legitimate heir of
whatever sex. The only occasions it passed to a woman is
when there was no male heir - Mary Tudor, Elizabeth,
Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II  (or by invitation in the
case of William and Mary). Quite simply a woman on the
throne was not judged a good thing - have you seen Helen
Castor's 'She-Wolves'? H.  
PS As you know, MB had no claim whatsoever as the
Beauforts were barred from the Cown.


On
Thursday, 14 November 2013, 12:57, Pamela Furmidge
<pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
 
That's interesting Hilary.
 What is your source for that?  Of
course, the English claim to the
French crown was through female
descent, as of course was the
Yorkist claim and Henry Tudor's.

From:
Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...>

 
Put simply
women were barred
from the throne by
primogeniture unless
there was no
acceptable male -
which happened in
the case of Mary
Tudor and Elzabeth.
 
 


On
Thursday, 14
November 2013,
6:29, Pamela
Furmidge
<pamela.furmidge@...>
wrote:
 

If it is
accepted that
the Beauforts
had a
'Lancastrian'
claim to the
crown, then it
was vested in
Margaret
Beaufort -
interesting
that she was
not even
considered as
queen, but her
'rights'
transferred
directly to
her son.
From: Jessie Skinner
<janjovian@...> wrote:

 
How much
of this
behaviour as
regards their
sons, in both
Cecily Neville
and Margaret
Beaufort's
cases was
driven by the
lack of
authority and
power which
was accorded
to women at
that period?
They obviously
had great
influence on
affairs of
state but
always had to
work through a
male
representative
to have their
views heard.
This seems to
have led to an
unhealthy
level of
connivance on
their part.
Almost like
puppet masters
pulling
strings.

Jess
Sent from
Yahoo! Mail on
Android

From:
mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>;

To:
<>;

Subject:
RE: RE:
Re: [Richard
III Society
Forum] J L LA
YNESMITH ON CE
CILY'S
REPUTATION FOR
PIETY.
Sent:
Wed, Nov
13, 2013
10:05:05 PM

 
It's
possible to
interpret even
Cecily's
sending George
and Richard to
Burgundy for
safety as
being
dynastically,
rather than
maternally,
inspired.
She also had
Margaret with
her in London,
and you would
think that a
fourteen-year-old
girl would
actually have
been at more
risk of harm
from
Margaret's
soldiers
than her two
younger
brothers.
But as the
youngest
daughter Margaret
was of no
dynastic
importance.
Anyway,
whatever the
reason, she was left in
London with
her mother.
Marie


---In
,
<justcarol67@...>
wrote:

AJ
wrote:

Thanks
Jan.  As I've
learned more
about Richard
& his age,
I have
developed a
jaundiced view
of Cecily that
tends towards
the idea that
she was happy
to send out
her sons &
then perhaps
even her
grandsons in
the pursuit of
the family's
significance
&
prominence.
 Much harder
to judge by
the actions of
those
high-born
folks how much
real affection
they had for
their
children; I
suppose they
had the same
instincts as
we do today,
but reality
was that so
many children
died (half of
Cecily's did)
before
reaching
adulthood that
it doesn't
seem too far a
stretch that
parents needed
to develop
some defenses
against that
prospect.
 Added to that
the necessity
of using them
to make the
most strategic
alliances by
marriage.  And
what real
evidence do we
have that
Cecily felt
warmly towards
any of her
children, most
(or least) of
all Richard?

Carol
responds:

She sent
Richard and
George to
Burgundy to
keep them safe
from the
Lancastrians.
That in itself
indicates that
she loved her
youngest
children and
feared for
their safety.


And there is
some evidence
that she did
not object to
Richard's
kingship (no,
I'm not
prepared to
cite or
summarize it,
sorry!),
perhaps
preferring her
youngest son
to her eldest
son's son
(which, if
true, would
support the
idea that
Edward was
indeed
illegitimate).

The one thing
that's certain
is that she
viewed herself
as "queen by
right" and her
late husband
as the
rightful king.
Her will
suggests that
even Tudor's
marriage to
Elizabeth of
York did not
reconcile her
to his
usurpation.

We need to
find out more
about Cecily.
Richard
respected and
honored her,
in any case,
dutiful son of
Mother Church
that he was.

Carol











--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul wrote:
Stephen became king by dashing across
the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as
the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the
alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
PaulCarol responds:But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.Carol

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>To: Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PMSubject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
Paul wrote:Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

It was the same for the Catholic Kings:  Isabel was queen regnant of Castile; Fernando was king regnant of Aragon.  Isabel was consort in Aragon and had no official authority; Fernando was consort in Castile and had no official authority there.  This told heavily against him after Isabel died in 1504 and Fernando lost all claim to Castile in favor of Juana and her husband, Philip the Handsome.  This led to many of Catherine of Aragon's problems as henry's bride-to-be.  An awful lot of Fernando's very clever maneuvering over the next several years had to do with winning that authority back - which he eventually did, though it was, as I recall, as guardian for the widowed Juana until the coming of age of Charles V.
Maria
ejbronte@... On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
 
A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple.  It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history.  It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.
 

From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To: Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
 
Paul wrote:Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

William and Mary were joint rulers because William insisted he would not be consort to his wife, who was James II's Protestant heir. At the time, it was the expectation of many that Mary would rule alone, with William as her consort. However, due to both his refusal and Mary's desire to please a husband she loved very much, they were eventually offered the crown jointly, with the provision that William would reign alone if Mary died before him (as indeed she did).William was merely the
grandson of Charles I, through his mother, Mary, Princess of Orange, whereas Mary was the elder daughter of James II and as the 'warming pan' son of James was both Catholic and suspected of being a substituted child, his claims were ignored. From: Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>To: Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PMSubject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
Paul wrote:Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really
ruled since Anne refused certain bills from parliament. The
Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so tended to always
do what they were told.
Paul


On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:
A couple of
other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were
joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but
both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with
consort, to name a couple.  It appears that both rules of
precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history.  It will probably be a
couple of generations before that possibility is faces
again.
 

From: "justcarol67@..."
<justcarol67@...>
To:

Sent:
Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject:
RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON
CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
 
Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel
from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned
as the late king's nephew before anybody could
think about the alternative. It was the greatest
achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II
were descended from William the Conqueror through
a female line, so there was already a precedent
for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.



From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.





Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul


On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.





From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.



Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul



Carol responds:



But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.



Carol



--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I am surprised that you say that Mary loved William very much because it is my understanding that he was gay and had a string of favourites.
I have much more information on this but I am away from home at the moment so don't have access to my files.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 5:31:24 AM

 
William and Mary were joint rulers because William insisted he would not be consort to his wife, who was James II's Protestant heir.  At the time, it was the expectation of many that Mary would rule alone, with William as her consort.  However, due to both his refusal and Mary's desire to please a husband she loved very much, they were eventually offered the crown jointly, with the provision that William would reign alone if Mary died before him (as indeed she did).William was merely the
grandson of Charles I, through his mother, Mary, Princess of Orange, whereas Mary was the elder daughter of James II and as the 'warming pan' son of James was both Catholic and suspected of being a substituted child, his claims were ignored. From: Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
 
A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple.  It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history.  It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.
 

From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>To: Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PMSubject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
 
Paul wrote:Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

He also had an allegedly ugly mistress! From accounts I have read, Mary, who initially didn't want her marriage, fell for William in a big way afterwards. She refused to become sole queen and indeed, was reluctant to take any control, even when William was out of the country at various times. I am currently reading a biography of Queen Anne, which makes very interesting reading about William and Mary and their relationships with Anne. From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
I am surprised that you say that Mary loved William very much because it is my understanding that he was gay and had a string of favourites.
I have much more information on this but I am away from home at the moment so don't have access to my files.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
Sent:
Fri, Nov 15, 2013 5:31:24 AM

William and Mary were joint rulers because William insisted he would not be consort to his wife, who was James II's Protestant heir. At the time, it was the expectation of many that Mary would rule alone, with William as her consort. However, due to both his refusal and Mary's desire to please a husband she loved very much, they were eventually offered the crown jointly, with the provision that William would reign alone if Mary died before him (as indeed she did).William was merely the
grandson of Charles I, through his mother, Mary, Princess of Orange, whereas Mary was the elder daughter of James II and as the 'warming pan' son of James was both Catholic and suspected of being a substituted child, his claims were ignored. From: Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>To: Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PMSubject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
Paul wrote:Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in. HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of the 14th century until last year. On Friday, 15 November 2013, 23:42, Evelyn
Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Matilda was an arrogant lady indeed,
but along with her arrogant husband, who the Norman nobility
loathed, they put themselves out of the running in the eyes of all
but her father long before Stephen's coup.
Paul

On 16/11/2013 17:58, Hilary Jones wrote:
Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother
Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she
acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in.
HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there
was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children).
Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of
the 14th century until last year.


On Friday,
15 November 2013, 23:42, Evelyn Hanson
<lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a
historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a
translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and
Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included
the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia).
Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the
monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From:
[[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L
LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled
since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were
terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember
- William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal
status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort,
to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or
female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will
probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces
again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...>
"justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...>
<justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re:
J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the
Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's
nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest
achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II
were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there
was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]





--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I read somewhere that the Tudors executed 72,000 people and other benefits would have been, no Henry VIII no dissolution of the monestaries. No Charles I no Civil War and no Kaiser Wilhelm no WW1 and therefore no WW2. Yes Henry Tudor you have an awful lot to answer for. ---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:Pamela Furmidge wrote:"If
it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the
crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she
was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly
to her son."Carol responds:Possibly because if she were queen, her husband, Lord Stanley, would have been king by right of his wife! Obviously, she preferred her son, who at least had a touch of Plantagenet blood--and the prospect of marrying Elizabeth of York. In any case, it was always Henry and his supposed interests, not her own, that seems to have occupied her. I guess that what happens when you have a child so young and that child is snatched away from you. I suspect that she hated the Yorkist "usurpers" (who had also made her a widow) from a very young age. I would pity MB from the bottom of my heart if she weren't partially responsible for so much bloodshed.Imagine if there had been no rebellion against Richard, either to restore Edward V or in favor of Tudor. Thousands of lives would have been saved (not to mention the consequences for the country with Richard as king in place of the Tudor).Carol

Hiliary, I thought Stephen did have at least one son - Eustace. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in. HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of the 14th century until last year. On Friday, 15 November
2013, 23:42, Evelyn
Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Eustace died the year before Stephen. There was another son who was passed over by Stephen in favour of Henry II as the 'true heir'. No doubt it was also to do with the Angevin lands acquired by Henry through his father and Stephen's own weak rule? I am really no expert on this period but I would recommend Helen Castor on Matilda and the rejection of her by the English because she did not act in a womanly fashion in the short period she was on the throne. You may be able to find that episode of 'She Wolves' somewhere on the web. Incidentally, she also covers Isabella (who started this discussion) and Margaret of Anjou. H PS It's interesting that Matilda maintained a similar influence over Henry to MB until she died. Eleanor of
Acquitaine didn't get a look in. On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 6:34, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
Hiliary, I thought Stephen did have at least one son - Eustace. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in. HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of the 14th century until last year.
On Friday, 15 November
2013, 23:42, Evelyn
Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

In the Treaty of Winchester of 1153, Stephen established Henry as his successor in exchange for concessions to be provided to his younger son, William, in exchange. His eldest, Eustace, having died - the treaty came about because the armies refused to continue the fight. He had tried to have Eustace named king in his place earlier but the Archbishop refused. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 17, 2013, at 1:34 AM, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
Hiliary, I thought Stephen did have at least one son - Eustace. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in. HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of the 14th century until last year. On Friday, 15 November
2013, 23:42, Evelyn
Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks for the tip - I'll look out for it. Matilda is an interesting woman, I wonder how much of her later behaviour stemmed from her first (childless) marriage as a child to the much older Emperor, followed by her second marriage to a much younger husband. Quite a sea change, I guess. Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: Eustace died the year before Stephen.
There was another son who was passed over by Stephen in favour of Henry II as the 'true heir'. No doubt it was also to do with the Angevin lands acquired by Henry through his father and Stephen's own weak rule? I am really no expert on this period but I would recommend Helen Castor on Matilda and the rejection of her by the English because she did not act in a womanly fashion in the short period she was on the throne. You may be able to find that episode of 'She Wolves' somewhere on the web. Incidentally, she also covers Isabella (who started this discussion) and Margaret of Anjou. H PS It's
interesting that Matilda maintained a similar influence over Henry to MB until she died. Eleanor of
Acquitaine didn't get a look in. On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 6:34, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
Hiliary, I thought Stephen did have at least one son - Eustace. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in. HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of the 14th century until last year.
On Friday, 15 November
2013, 23:42, Evelyn
Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Two sons.
Paul

On 17/11/2013 06:34, Pamela Furmidge wrote:

Hiliary, I thought Stephen did have at least one son -
Eustace.
From: Hilary
Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:


Carol, yes HII was descended through
his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda
herself was not acceptable (she acted too much
like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in.
HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary,
Anne etc there was no-one else close enough
left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture
in this country did not change from the end of
the 14th century until last year.


On Friday, 15 November 2013, 23:42,
Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...>
wrote:
Thanks for the
clarification - I'm not a
historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes
were from a translation of
"The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of
the Subject and Settling the
Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said
this included the monarch
ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use
Wikipedia). Both Princeton and
Yale
universities' translations
talk to what the monarch may
not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From:
[[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15,
2013 7:14 AM
To:

Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] J L LA YNESMITH
ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch
has really ruled since Anne
refused certain
bills from parliament. The
Hanoverians were terrified of
being sent home so
tended to always do what they
were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn
Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty
points to remember - William
and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage
was of equal status, but both
Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone
with consort, to name a
couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence
(male or female) and
expediency had a place at
different times in English
history. It will probably be a
couple of
generations before that
possibility is faces again.

From:
<mailto:justcarol67@...>
"justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...>
<justcarol67@...>
To:

Sent: Thursday, November 14,
2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] J L LA YNESMITH
ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing
across the Channel from
Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the
late king's nephew before
anybody could think
about the alternative. It was
the greatest achievement of
his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he
and Henry II were descended
from William the
Conqueror through a female
line, so there was already a
precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]







--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Henry VIII was responsible for the execution of at least 70,000 people without adding in those by HVII. Edward V1, Mary and Elizabeth. Although Elizabeth is considered somewhat more moderate there were executions and also maimings such as having limbs severed for speaking out. Also, remember the persecution of Catholic recusants and priests. Edmund Campion, for example, executed in 1581.

Bertram Fields in his book, Royal Blood, gives an alternative history if you are interested in pursuing the "what ifs". His version starting with the assassination of Richard, by the Woodvilles before he became king, would have given us an completely different scenario.
Elaine

--- In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that the Tudors executed 72,000 people and other benefits would have been, no Henry VIII no dissolution of the monestaries. No Charles I no Civil War and no Kaiser Wilhelm no WW1 and therefore no WW2. Yes Henry Tudor you have an awful lot to answer for.
>
>
> ---In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
>
> "If it is accepted that the Beauforts had a 'Lancastrian' claim to the crown, then it was vested in Margaret Beaufort - interesting that she was not even considered as queen, but her 'rights' transferred directly to her son."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Possibly because if she were queen, her husband, Lord Stanley, would have been king by right of his wife! Obviously, she preferred her son, who at least had a touch of Plantagenet blood--and the prospect of marrying Elizabeth of York. In any case, it was always Henry and his supposed interests, not her own, that seems to have occupied her. I guess that what happens when you have a child so young and that child is snatched away from you. I suspect that she hated the Yorkist "usurpers" (who had also made her a widow) from a very young age. I would pity MB from the bottom of my heart if she weren't partially responsible for so much bloodshed.
>
> Imagine if there had been no rebellion against Richard, either to restore Edward V or in favor of Tudor. Thousands of lives would have been saved (not to mention the consequences for the country with Richard as king in place of the Tudor).
>
>
> Carol
>