JAH and Clarence

Just a thought about all the Nevilles being tall. Both my nieces are about 5 ft like their paternal grandmother their brother is about 6 ft 2in like my mother's brothers. Their father was about 5ft 11in and my father was about 5 ft 10in. I suppose we all inherit different genes from our family. I don't think that we can be absolutely certain about Clarence's height without his skeleton. Mary

Have I missed a discussion of John Ashdown-Hill's biography of Clarence?
And someone went to see John talk about it recently. Did we get a report
back on this?
I'm finding the book very interesting, and certainly well written and
much more readable, [ well what isn't?] than Hicks thesis for Ross that
he published privately in the 80s which was stodgy and one of the most
difficult books to get through ever!
JAH only gives me a problem with the theory about George's height and
the colouring of the York family. Also he suggests Cis was short too,
which beggars the question where did Edward get his height?
I could also do with some modern rendition of the contemporary documents
as having to switch languages always gives me a headache! Like my Mum
asking me what did you say to him, when I'm speaking Spanish to someone
and she wants to be a part of the conversation:-)
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Are there actually any contemporary statements that George was tall? Or has it always just been assumed that he was closer in looks to Edward than Richard?

Well, the thing is, Richard *wasn't* short - or, rather, he would have been about 5 8" if it weren't for the scoliosis. So what's essentially being said is that George, *uniquely*, was the short one. Of course, he may have been, but I find it more plausible to view him as being of average height (as Richard *would* have been) without compelling evidence to the contrary. Both Richard and Edward had their appearance remarked upon. Can JA-H cite any contemporary or near-contemporary descriptions of George? If not, you have to think he's reaching a bit (and I don't mean like a vertically-challenged Plantagenet trying to recover something from the top shelf).

I think JA-H is an excellent historian who challenges sources and works hard to strip away the myths that have accreted over the centuries. But, just occasionally - like a Kevin Pietersen flamingo-shot - he unfurls something that seemingly comes out of nowhere, e.g. his contention that Richard died *before* Norfolk at Bosworth, which is an unusual hypothesis presented as unremarkable fact.

I've not read the Clarence book, so I can't say whether it's an example of the same, but I would like to know his evidence...

Jonathan


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014, 15:13
Subject: Re: JAH and Clarence

If Clarence was so short (shorter than Richard?) why is Richard the one who is always thought of as the little' brother? Simply because of his gracile' bones etc? If that is the case, I begin to wonder if Clarence was not only short, but of greater bulk. So, in order of age, did we have York brothers who were the tall, the wide and the delicate? I'm afraid I'm finding it very difficult to imagine George of Clarence as that small without there being any reference to it whatsoever. Surely, with Edward being so tall, it would have been remarked if brothers George and Richard were both tiddlers? They would have looked a little comical  well, they would if you have my weird imagination. Long, tall Eddie in the middle, with small supporters' on either side. Would they have had to take two steps for every one of his strides? And as for marching in time... No, I must stop, I'm beginning to be carried away... Sandra =^..^= From: maryfriend@... Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:58 PM To: Subject: Re: JAH and Clarence Just a thought about all the Nevilles being tall. Both my nieces are about 5 ft like their paternal grandmother their brother is about 6 ft 2in like my mother's brothers. Their father was about 5ft 11in and my father was about 5 ft 10in. I suppose we all inherit different genes from our family. I don't think that we can be absolutely certain about Clarence's height without his skeleton. Mary

Hi everyone,

Edward IV could have inherited his height from Edward I. Quite a lot of the Plantagenets were supposed to be fairly tall. George was probably bound and hopefully drugged. It wouldn't have had to be a very large cask to transport and would probably only take one or two men to have held him down. Such a great pity.

Kathryn x

Jan wrote :

Do you reckon Hall muddled Cis with MB who was indeed small? The could both have been referred to as the King's mother. One question I would ask is whether Cis would have had so many children had she been really small - I know some women manage it but the risk would have been considerably higher - look at MB. What this discussion does show is how brave you have to be to write a history book. Stick to what's been said before and it's bland, stick your head above the parapet with something unusual and the rotten tomatoes start flying (yes I know I threw one). Poor JAH, he does a good job and we expect more and more from him. H On Wednesday, 16 April 2014, 15:13, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
If Clarence was so short (shorter than Richard?) why is Richard the one who is always thought of as the little' brother? Simply because of his gracile' bones etc? If that is the case, I begin to wonder if Clarence was not only short, but of greater bulk. So, in order of age, did we have York brothers who were the tall, the wide and the delicate? I'm afraid I'm finding it very difficult to imagine George of Clarence as that small without there being any reference to it whatsoever. Surely, with Edward being so tall, it would have been remarked if brothers George and Richard were both tiddlers? They would have looked a little comical  well, they would if you have my weird imagination. Long, tall Eddie in the middle, with small supporters' on either side. Would they have had to take two steps for every one of his strides? And as for marching in time... No, I must stop, I'm beginning to be carried away... Sandra =^..^= From: maryfriend@... Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:58 PM To: Subject: Re: JAH and Clarence Just a thought about all the Nevilles being tall. Both my nieces are about 5 ft like their paternal grandmother their brother is about 6 ft 2in like my mother's brothers. Their father was about 5ft 11in and my father was about 5 ft 10in. I suppose we all inherit different genes from our family. I don't think that we can be absolutely certain about Clarence's height without his skeleton. Mary

Carol, we agree! Paul, I'm sorry I diverted this to height, I didn't mean to. Vickie, I don't know the answer to your question unless George was considered virtually to have reached adulthood by the time Edward came to power, which is interesting in the context of Edward V?! I have to say the other thing which disappointed me was that JAH failed to explore further the Twynyho and Burdet incidents; there is more on both accounts, I bump into both families in some very unexpected places. Problem is whether you decide to write for a mass market, which probably isn't into it as much as we are, so you give a very readable account which you can put together in a reasonable time, or you set out to do deep research which can take months, years (I speak from the heart) and in doing so you sacrifice income you could have made taking the easier route. No wonder Thomas Penn is taking 3 years to write his book on the brothers York. So JAH I do understand. H. (sorry I'm behind and this is out of order yet again) On Saturday, 19 April 2014, 22:15, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote :
"Do you reckon Hall muddled Cis with MB who was indeed small? The could both have been referred to as the King's mother."

Considering that, as J A-H points out, Hall was born in 1498 and could not possibly have seen Cecily and that he gives Edmund of Rutland's age at death as *twelve," I wouldn't accept anything he says. I'm rather surprised that J A-H would cite him and even more so that he calls George's shortness a "fact" when it's only his own assumption based on very shaky evidence.

Carol

Yes Sandra, that was my understanding too.
I was researching an article on Buckingham a few years ago and found a reference to them going on a wine buying trip together in the west country when Buckingham was 14. I think George was 18 then, so after any training, but Harry was still of training age. Buckingham was however a ward of court, and was kept close to Edward at all times, or rather to Elizabeth Woodville in whose household he lived for a while.
I then lost the source about the wine buying trip and haven't been able to find it since!
Paul



On 22/04/2014 16:33, SandraMachin wrote:
I'm not a scholar, but do wonder if Clarence and Buckingham have become muddled in this knightly training business. I always thought Richard and George went to the Earl of Warwick, but that Harry Stafford did not have any knightly tuition from anyone. I'm prepared to be totally wrong on this. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:19 PM To: Subject: Re: JAH and Clarence Carol, we agree! Paul, I'm sorry I diverted this to height, I didn't mean to. Vickie, I don't know the answer to your question unless George was considered virtually to have reached adulthood by the time Edward came to power, which is interesting in the context of Edward V?! I have to say the other thing which disappointed me was that JAH failed to explore further the Twynyho and Burdet incidents; there is more on both accounts, I bump into both families in some very unexpected places. Problem is whether you decide to write for a mass market, which probably isn't into it as much as we are, so you give a very readable account which you can put together in a reasonable time, or you set out to do deep research which can take months, years (I speak from the heart) and in doing so you sacrifice income you could have made taking the easier route. No wonder Thomas Penn is taking 3 years to write his book on the brothers York. So JAH I do understand. H. (sorry I'm behind and this is out of order yet again) On Saturday, 19 April 2014, 22:15, mailto:justcarol67@... mailto:justcarol67@... wrote:
Hilary wrote :
"Do you reckon Hall muddled Cis with MB who was indeed small? The could both have been referred to as the King's mother."

Considering that, as J A-H points out, Hall was born in 1498 and could not possibly have seen Cecily and that he gives Edmund of Rutland's age at death as *twelve," I wouldn't accept anything he says. I'm rather surprised that J A-H would cite him and even more so that he calls George's shortness a "fact" when it's only his own assumption based on very shaky evidence.

Carol




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Sandra wrote
"George seems to have been the invisible brother on the battlefield"

As much as I know, was George at the battle of Edgecote.
According to JAH he was injured at the battle of Barnett and took part at the battle of Tewkesbury.
He contributed 120 men at arms and 1000 archers to Edwards army for the invasion of France.
But it seems that Edward did not trust him enough to give him an independent command. He did not
have to anyway, as he had Richard and others for that.
Eva

I reckon this tells us a lot about the spin doctor chroniclers again. They record what they want us to know so that it slants our opinion. Never anything good about George and precious little good about Richard. A good example is the sibbling squabble over the Warwick lands. Now anyone looking in the Archives will see that family disputes over land were the norm - brothers bringing cases against brothers, sons against mothers who'd remarried etc, etc. What Richard had done - marry an heiress and expected her lands to be divided between her and her sister, was perfectly normal; life was about acquiring land. For George to argue also has some logic, given the circumstances. And those circumstances had been created by Edward, who once again had thrown the rule book out of the window by treating the Countess as dead. Incidentally by doing this he'd also scuppered any further marriage chances for her - she was over child-bearing age, who would want her except for her lands which she no longer had? And Edward again flaunted the Law by acquiring Buckingham's Bohun lands, the Countess of Oxford's lands (Richard gets the blame for this but it was Edward who wanted them and used the excuse that she might fund her son) and later the Mowbray lands. He'd already of course acquired the Duchy of Lancaster when he became King. This was the behaviour of a noble, not a King. Kings went campaigning abroad to get land, they didn't take it from their own subjects (unless as punishment to give it out again). So to the guy on Facebook who says we all love Edward IV I'll say not me. But he must have had some good spin doctors! H   On Wednesday, 23 April 2014, 20:41, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
  Jan wrote:
I have got the ODNB article on Clarence. It comes with a warning that it's written by Prof Hicks. It isn't informative about GoC's education but does mention that he had a very large establishment by 1466. He did homage on 10 July 1466 & Hicks says this was the termination of his minority. How much his education was disrupted by being sent to Utrecht in 1461 isn't clear. Perhaps the relevant records have not survived & so no conclusions can be drawn.Speculation alert. Perhaps  Gloucester went to train with Warwick's household because he was the one who had missed out on education for knighthood, either because as Wilkinson suggested he was intended for the church before 1461 or because he was 3 years younger. Perhaps E4 thought another fighter was needed after the death of Rutland. Perhaps RoG was a bit pugnacious for a churchman & he & GoC had been squabbling in proper sibling rivalry.

Eva  answers:
In 1466 George was 17. He had been heir presumptive since he was 11 and a half years old. It is plausible that
his minority ended in 1466, but not that his education ended in 1461. Richard was about 17 years old when he had his first independent command. So in my opinion it seems likely, that the education of a royal prince was finished at that age of 16 or 17.
 I don't think Richard missed out on education for knighthood, I guess he was just too young.IMO Military training would have started in earnest when the boys were no longer small children. I am sure there was some kind of military training before, but you cannot let children train with heavy weapons that need the strength of an adolescent at least.
We have of course no description of George's and Richard's upbringing, but we have an entry in Edward IV's
household accounts that tells us what  henxsman had to learn. Among other things: to ride cleanly and surely,
learn to wear their armour, various languages, harping and piping, singing and dancing. You can see for
yourself in Josephine Wilkinson's "The young King to be", page 112.
That nobel children were not thoroughly educated before Henry Tudor ended the Dark Ages and made the coming of Renaissance possible through killing Richard, is for me another Tudor Myth.
I also cannot believe that in Utrecht the boys just did nothing. If I remember correctly, they stayed at a bishop's house and possibly continued their studies there.
Eva

Oh Hillary a very good point…….

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: JAH and Clarence

Yes David. I think one of the problems that some had with Richard was that, unlike Edward, he didn't necessarily act for himself, but for what he thought was right. Now that can fly in the face of the wind as well. It was a selfish society, that was the culture ; there were certain unspoken rules which we find hard today and, in the case of the Haringtons, a lot of history going back almost to the Conquest in which the Stanleys and others had been key players in Lancashire and Cheshire and indeed the Welsh borders. Richard, schooled mainly in Yorkshire , would find it hard to appreciate all that. He would also find it hard to appreciate that Edward's acquisition of the Duchy of Lancaster had made it hard for those who thought they owned lands there and were suddenly beholden to the Crown.

But perhaps that's why he appeals today ; there is an idealism there which we recognise? I once read a book called 'Saints in Politics', it's about Wilberforce. No idealist has an easy ride and those, like Cromwell, who thought they'd succeeded, soon find themselves derided by pragmatists anxious to pull them down. I think Richard must have found it hard to reconcile the culture of his age (which he adherred to, his quest for a foreigh queen confirms that) and that wish to intervene and 'put things right', which probably came from many years playing the deputy. H

On Thursday, 24 April 2014, 11:12, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Hilary,
I agree with your comments entirely about spin doctors and land disputes.

Doesn't this also show that Richard was entirely in the wrong when he intervened in the Harrington dispute over Hornby Castle ? His support for them went counter to the laws of the day.

Kind regards
David

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> ;
To: < > ;
Subject: Re: Re: JAH and Clarence
Sent: Thu, Apr 24, 2014 8:14:13 AM

I reckon this tells us a lot about the spin doctor chroniclers again. They record what they want us to know so that it slants our opinion. Never anything good about George and precious little good about Richard.

A good example is the sibbling squabble over the Warwick lands. Now anyone looking in the Archives will see that family disputes over land were the norm - brothers bringing cases against brothers, sons against mothers who'd remarried etc, etc. What Richard had done - marry an heiress and expected her lands to be divided between her and her sister, was perfectly normal ; life was about acquiring land. For George to argue also has some logic, given the circumstances. And those circumstances had been created by Edward, who once again had thrown the rule book out of the window by treating the Countess as dead. Incidentally by doing this he'd also scuppered any further marriage chances for her - she was over child-bearing age, who would want her except for her lands which she no longer had? And Edward again flaunted the Law by acquiring Buckingham's Bohun lands, the Countess of Oxford's lands (Richard gets the blame for this but it was Edward who wanted them and used the excuse that she might fund her son) and later the Mowbray lands. He'd already of course acquired the Duchy of Lancaster when he became King.

This was the behaviour of a noble, not a King. Kings went campaigning abroad to get land, they didn't take it from their own subjects (unless as punishment to give it out again). So to the guy on Facebook who says we all love Edward IV I'll say not me. But he must have had some good spin doctors! H

On Wednesday, 23 April 2014, 20:41, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:

Jan wrote:

I have got the ODNB article on Clarence. It comes with a warning that it's written by Prof Hicks. It isn't informative about GoC's education but does mention that he had a very large establishment by 1466. He did homage on 10 July 1466 & Hicks says this was the termination of his minority. How much his education was disrupted by being sent to Utrecht in 1461 isn't clear. Perhaps the relevant records have not survived & so no conclusions can be drawn.

Speculation alert. Perhaps Gloucester went to train with Warwick 's household because he was the one who had missed out on education for knighthood, either because as Wilkinson suggested he was intended for the church before 1461 or because he was 3 years younger. Perhaps E4 thought another fighter was needed after the death of Rutland . Perhaps RoG was a bit pugnacious for a churchman & he & GoC had been squabbling in proper sibling rivalry.

Eva answers:
In 1466 George was 17. He had been heir presumptive since he was 11 and a half years old. It is plausible that
his minority ended in 1466, but not that his education ended in 1461. Richard was about 17 years old when he had his first independent command. So in my opinion it seems likely, that the education of a royal prince was finished at that age of 16 or 17.
I don't think Richard missed out on education for knighthood, I guess he was just too young.IMO Military training would have started in earnest when the boys were no longer small children. I am sure there was some kind of military training before, but you cannot let children train with heavy weapons that need the strength of an adolescent at least.
We have of course no description of George 's and Richard's upbringing, but we have an entry in Edward IV's
household accounts that tells us what henxsman had to learn. Among other things: to ride cleanly and surely,
learn to wear their armour, various languages, harping and piping, singing and dancing. You can see for
yourself in Josephine Wilkinson's "The young King to be", page 112.
That nobel children were not thoroughly educated before Henry Tudor ended the Dark Ages and made the coming of Renaissance possible through killing Richard, is for me another Tudor Myth.
I also cannot believe that in Utrecht the boys just did nothing. If I remember correctly, they stayed at a bishop's house and possibly continued their studies there.
Eva

Hi, Hilary and David and Eva,

I hope it's alright to suggest this http://www.history extra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-Richard-iii with regards to Richard's role in the Harrington dispute over Hornby. It might also suggest an addition to the reasons why Clarence and he both wanted Warwick's lands etc to be held/given to Isabel and Anne in their own right.

The renaissance was already starting to flourish in Richard II's court prior to Henry IV taking over. The court at Burgundy was very cosmopolitan too. I agree with you Eva regarding princes' education. They would all particularly want to hold their own with that of the French court etc.

Kind regards

Kathryn x

One thing that I find rather ironic is how certain persons are very much into pushing the "Richard was a bad man and a sexist pig because he disinherited his mother-in-law" trope.

What they carefully avoid mentioning is that Richard's mother in law, the child of her father's second marriage, had no twinges of guilt over Daddy's cutting off her three half-sisters from his first marriage and settling nearly the whole of his estate upon her. Certainly we don't hear about her lobbing a manor or two their way.

(Oh, yes: One of those older half-sisters was the mother of Eleanor Talbot. One suspects that had Edward gone to everyone's favorite over-mighty earl and said "By the way, I've married Nelly Boteler, neé Talbot", the earl would have been angry for about maybe thirty seconds, then realized that this might be a way to mollify the breach between the Beauchamp factions.)

Tamara

Hi Eva,

I do agree about the comparisons.

Kathryn x

Strangely enough, the Cairo-dwellers do exactly that – also conveniently ignoring that Edward was King at the time.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of khafara@...
Sent: 26 April 2014 16:08
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: JAH and Clarence

It was Anne's father Richard de Beauchamp (who for some reason my brain keeps wanting to call "Humphrey") that chose to pass over his first three daughters in favor of Anne. Yet Anne doesn't seem to have had any twinges of guilt over this.

And yes, you are quite correct.

To condemn Richard for his handling of his mother-in-law's estates without bothering to notice that she'd got those estates by way of her father's depriving her elder sisters of them, makes me wonder if those would condemn Richard for this have their own agendas.

Tamara

Strangely enough, the Cairo-dwellers do exactly that  also conveniently ignoring that Edward was King at the time.

Tamara wrote:

"To condemn Richard for his handling of his mother-in-law's estates without bothering to notice that she'd got those estates by way of her father's depriving her elder sisters of them, makes me wonder if those would condemn Richard for this have their own agendas."

Carol responds:

Yes, and we know what that agenda is--to show Richard as ambitious and ruthless from a young age. What those historians and biographers tend to forget is that Edward wanted Richard to have those lands. He and Parliament worked together to bring that about. The odd (and to the countess, admittedly unfair despite her own sharp practices) means of doing so may have resulted in Richard's insistence that Warwick (and Montague) not be attainted.

Carol

"Cairo-dwellers" = those well up de Nile ;)

Sandra wrote:

"Why should Richard Beauchamp dole out to the children of his first marriage, the huge Despenser fortune brought to him by his second marriage? Especially when he had a male heir? The three daughter of the first marriage were provided for and had good marriages."

Tamara responds:

The situation of Margaret de Beauchamp, the eldest daughter (and the mother of Eleanor Talbot-Boteler-Plantagenet, by the way), was not as secure as it seems at first glance. Not until she wed John Talbot did she have any sort of security.

Here is how John Ashdown-Hill describes it in Eleanor: The Secret Queen:

Ironic fortune, having apparently dealt Margaret an excellent opening hand of cards, had, nevertheless, negated many of her potential advantages by secretly distributing trumps to her rivals. As his eldest child, Margaret had long expected to be the heiress of her father, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, but finally his second wife, Isabel Despenser, gave him a son. Then, through her mother, Margaret had a clear claim to the honours of Berkeley and Lisle. However, her mother's cousin, James, had laid claim to this inheritance and secured the greater part of it. Finally, Margaret had been favoured with a flourishing family of healthy children, whom she would naturally have wished to see as their father's heirs. Maud Neville, however, had preempted her, producing a senior brood who would keep Margaret's offspring from the Talbot inheritance. Undeterred by these shabby tricks of Fortune's wheel, Margaret fought to make the best of things for her children.


Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (pp. 20-21). The History Press. Kindle Edition.