a “loyal servant of Edward IV” we never hear about: James Friis

Apologies in advance for making another very long post. I've been interested for a while in the royal doctors of the Yorkist courts, and I've concluded that contrary to the impression usually given, most of them stuck with Richard. We only ever seem to hear about Argentine or Caerleon, who opposed Richard--but those two were not the only royal doctors, and they also were of relatively short tenure in 1483. Two of the longest-tenured doctors were among those who continued serving Richard, and one of them was James Friis.Friis was a physician originally from the
Netherlands. At some point he came to
England and earned his MD at Cambridge.
He appears to have been a year or so ahead of another Cambridge MD
candidate, whom I have gone on at length about before: William Hobbys. Friis entered Edward IV's service very early
in the reign, with a grant of 40 pounds a year on November 21, 1461. A few months later, February 1461/62, Friis,
Hobbys, Edward IV, and 9-year-old Richard Duke of Gloucester were named
founders of the newly incorporated London Barbers' Company.

From then on, it seems that Friis and Hobbys served Edward
IV continuously. They were with him before and after Henry VI's
readeption. They were with him in the
1475 French campaign. An article in the
Ricardian Register posited that they may also have been at his deathbed in 1483.

Edward IV rewarded Friis often and well. Besides grants of money, he made Friis one
of the poor knights in the king's college, St. George's Chapel in
Windsor. In 1473 he gave Friis the
medieval equivalent of naturalized citizenship (a letter of denization). In 1481/82 he granted Friis lodgings within
Westminster Palace. And on one occasion, in 1477,
Edward IV appears to have had three Lancastrian men sign over to Friis the
deeds of some London properties after they had been attainted. One of those three attainted men was named
Edward Ellesemere--remember that name.

By every fair estimate, Friis could be described as a loyal
servant of Edward IV. He had given good
service for over two decades, and had been well rewarded for it. So, did he do what we are always told loyal
servants of Edward IV did--that is, refuse to accept the precontract, refuse to
accept Richard as king, tell everyone Richard murdered his nephews, run off to
support Buckingham or Woodville or Tudor, or work to bring Richard down from
within, then emerge after Bosworth to enjoy a career of fat prosperity under
Tudor?

Nope.

Friis (and Hobbys) accepted Richard as king. We know this from grants Richard made to him
1484. And we know that Friis ended up
paying for it--almost literally--after Bosworth.

It did not necessarily follow that dynastic change meant
sacking the old king's doctors: earlier in his reign Edward IV had continued
employing doctors of Henry VI (such as William Hattecliffe). Yet Friis and Hobbys were retired from
service after Bosworth. Besides losing
his day job, Hobbys was also replaced as warden of Bedlam (to which Edward IV
had appointed him) by Margaret Beaufort's chaplain. Friis was deprived of property granted to him
by Edward IV: his holdings in Westminster Palace were transferred to Anthony
Kene (whom Richard had attainted after the October 1483 rebellion, and who
fought for Tudor at Bosworth) and his London holdings were taken from him when
Tudor granted a petition fromremember this name?--Edward Ellesemere.

The seldom-told story of Friis has some interesting
parallels to better-known personages in the saga. You know how Richard is so often pilloried
over his dealings with the Countess of Oxford, that she was said to have transferred
her property to Richard under duress?
The same claim was made by Ellesemere in his petition against
Friis.

And at least Richard's death spared him from having to
witness much of the character assassination against himself. Friis, though, lived to hear himself sneeringly
described by Ellesmere as an alien who calls himself a knight despite the
fact that by acts of Edward IV he was no longer the first and really was the
second. Jonathan Hughes, in his mostly
unreadable book Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV, also
claims that Friis was accused of exerting a sinister influence on the king
[Edward IV]. Hughes doesn't give a context for this accusation, but I just bet
it came from Ellesemere's camp or at least from the time of Ellesemere's
petition.

Moreover, between 1485 to 1488, the Tudor-sanctioned
deprivation of much of his property may have reduced Friis to poverty just like
Elizabeth Woodville. He was granted a
corrody which Wikipedia (I know, I know) describes as a lifetime allowance
of food and clothing, and often shelter and care, granted by an abbey,
monastery, or other religious house & they were routinely awarded to the
servants and staff of royalty.
Interestingly, Friis received his corrody from the Priory of Holy Trinity
in Aldgate, which Hobbys had a very close association with (and was buried
there). I can't help speculating that
Hobbys may have had a hand in arranging the corrody for the relief of
his impoverished old buddy.

Interestingly, Friis and Hobbys died within months of each
other in 1488. I don't know where Friis
was buried, but given the corrody from Holy Trinity it would be appropriate if
he rested there--perhaps somewhere near Hobbys' tombstone with its inscription proclaiming
defiant loyalty to "the most illustrious kings Edward the Fourth and Richard the Third."

Cathy

Cathy,thank you for this fascinating, informative post!Eva

Thank you for this post. There's nothing about J Friis in Ross's book on E4.Jan.Sent from my iPad On 13 Aug 2014, at 03:35, cattivoid <[email protected]> wrote:

Apologies in advance for making another very long post. I've been interested for a while in the royal doctors of the Yorkist courts, and I've concluded that contrary to the impression usually given, most of them stuck with Richard. We only ever seem to hear about Argentine or Caerleon, who opposed Richard--but those two were not the only royal doctors, and they also were of relatively short tenure in 1483. Two of the longest-tenured doctors were among those who continued serving Richard, and one of them was James Friis.Friis was a physician originally from the
Netherlands. At some point he came to
England and earned his MD at Cambridge.
He appears to have been a year or so ahead of another Cambridge MD
candidate, whom I have gone on at length about before: William Hobbys. Friis entered Edward IV's service very early
in the reign, with a grant of 40 pounds a year on November 21, 1461. A few months later, February 1461/62, Friis,
Hobbys, Edward IV, and 9-year-old Richard Duke of Gloucester were named
founders of the newly incorporated London Barbers' Company.

From then on, it seems that Friis and Hobbys served Edward
IV continuously. They were with him before and after Henry VI's
readeption. They were with him in the
1475 French campaign. An article in the
Ricardian Register posited that they may also have been at his deathbed in 1483.

Edward IV rewarded Friis often and well. Besides grants of money, he made Friis one
of the poor knights in the king's college, St. George's Chapel in
Windsor. In 1473 he gave Friis the
medieval equivalent of naturalized citizenship (a letter of denization). In 1481/82 he granted Friis lodgings within
Westminster Palace. And on one occasion, in 1477,
Edward IV appears to have had three Lancastrian men sign over to Friis the
deeds of some London properties after they had been attainted. One of those three attainted men was named
Edward Ellesemere--remember that name.

By every fair estimate, Friis could be described as a loyal
servant of Edward IV. He had given good
service for over two decades, and had been well rewarded for it. So, did he do what we are always told loyal
servants of Edward IV did--that is, refuse to accept the precontract, refuse to
accept Richard as king, tell everyone Richard murdered his nephews, run off to
support Buckingham or Woodville or Tudor, or work to bring Richard down from
within, then emerge after Bosworth to enjoy a career of fat prosperity under
Tudor?

Nope.

Friis (and Hobbys) accepted Richard as king. We know this from grants Richard made to him
1484. And we know that Friis ended up
paying for it--almost literally--after Bosworth.

It did not necessarily follow that dynastic change meant
sacking the old king's doctors: earlier in his reign Edward IV had continued
employing doctors of Henry VI (such as William Hattecliffe). Yet Friis and Hobbys were retired from
service after Bosworth. Besides losing
his day job, Hobbys was also replaced as warden of Bedlam (to which Edward IV
had appointed him) by Margaret Beaufort's chaplain. Friis was deprived of property granted to him
by Edward IV: his holdings in Westminster Palace were transferred to Anthony
Kene (whom Richard had attainted after the October 1483 rebellion, and who
fought for Tudor at Bosworth) and his London holdings were taken from him when
Tudor granted a petition fromremember this name?--Edward Ellesemere.

The seldom-told story of Friis has some interesting
parallels to better-known personages in the saga. You know how Richard is so often pilloried
over his dealings with the Countess of Oxford, that she was said to have transferred
her property to Richard under duress?
The same claim was made by Ellesemere in his petition against
Friis.

And at least Richard's death spared him from having to
witness much of the character assassination against himself. Friis, though, lived to hear himself sneeringly
described by Ellesmere as an alien who calls himself a knight despite the
fact that by acts of Edward IV he was no longer the first and really was the
second. Jonathan Hughes, in his mostly
unreadable book Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV, also
claims that Friis was accused of exerting a sinister influence on the king
[Edward IV]. Hughes doesn't give a context for this accusation, but I just bet
it came from Ellesemere's camp or at least from the time of Ellesemere's
petition.

Moreover, between 1485 to 1488, the Tudor-sanctioned
deprivation of much of his property may have reduced Friis to poverty just like
Elizabeth Woodville. He was granted a
corrody which Wikipedia (I know, I know) describes as a lifetime allowance
of food and clothing, and often shelter and care, granted by an abbey,
monastery, or other religious house & they were routinely awarded to the
servants and staff of royalty.
Interestingly, Friis received his corrody from the Priory of Holy Trinity
in Aldgate, which Hobbys had a very close association with (and was buried
there). I can't help speculating that
Hobbys may have had a hand in arranging the corrody for the relief of
his impoverished old buddy.

Interestingly, Friis and Hobbys died within months of each
other in 1488. I don't know where Friis
was buried, but given the corrody from Holy Trinity it would be appropriate if
he rested there--perhaps somewhere near Hobbys' tombstone with its inscription proclaiming
defiant loyalty to "the most illustrious kings Edward the Fourth and Richard the Third."

Cathy

Very interesting, Cathy. I echo Jan's thanks. I wish I had some snippets to
add, but know nothing at all about these royal doctors.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: a loyal servant of Edward
IV we never hear about: James Friis

Thank you for this post. There's nothing about J Friis in Ross's book on
E4.
Jan.Sent from my iPad
On 13 Aug 2014, at 03:35, cattivoid <[email protected]>
wrote:
Apologies in advance for
making another very long post. I've been interested for a while in the royal
doctors of the Yorkist courts, and I've concluded that contrary to the
impression usually given, most of them stuck with Richard. We only ever
seem to hear about Argentine or Caerleon, who opposed Richard--but those two
were not the only royal doctors, and they also were of relatively short tenure
in 1483. Two of the longest-tenured doctors were among those who
continued serving Richard, and one of them was James Friis.

Friis was a physician
originally from the Netherlands. At some point he came to
England and earned his MD at Cambridge. He appears to have
been a year or so ahead of another Cambridge MD candidate, whom I have gone on
at length about before: William Hobbys. Friis entered
Edward IV's service very early in the reign, with a grant of 40 pounds a year
on November 21, 1461. A few months later, February 1461/62,
Friis, Hobbys, Edward IV, and 9-year-old Richard Duke of Gloucester were named
founders of the newly incorporated London Barbers' Company.


From then on, it seems
that Friis and Hobbys served Edward IV continuously. They were with him before
and after Henry VI's readeption. They were with him in the
1475 French campaign. An article in the Ricardian Register
posited that they may also have been at his deathbed in 1483.

Edward IV rewarded Friis
often and well. Besides grants of money, he made Friis one
of the poor knights in the king's college, St. George's Chapel in
Windsor. In 1473 he gave Friis the medieval equivalent of
naturalized citizenship (a letter of denization). In
1481/82 he granted Friis lodgings within Westminster Palace.
And on one occasion, in 1477, Edward IV appears to have had three
Lancastrian men sign over to Friis the deeds of some London properties after
they had been attainted. One of those three attainted men
was named Edward Ellesemere--remember that name.

By every fair estimate,
Friis could be described as a loyal servant of Edward IV.
He had given good service for over two decades, and had been well
rewarded for it. So, did he do what we are always told
loyal servants of Edward IV did--that is, refuse to accept the precontract,
refuse to accept Richard as king, tell everyone Richard murdered his nephews,
run off to support Buckingham or Woodville or Tudor, or work to bring Richard
down from within, then emerge after Bosworth to enjoy a career of fat
prosperity under Tudor?

Nope.


Friis (and Hobbys)
accepted Richard as king. We know this from grants Richard
made to him 1484. And we know that Friis ended up paying
for it--almost literally--after Bosworth.

It did not necessarily
follow that dynastic change meant sacking the old king's doctors: earlier in
his reign Edward IV had continued employing doctors of Henry VI (such as
William Hattecliffe). Yet Friis and Hobbys were retired
from service after Bosworth. Besides losing his day job,
Hobbys was also replaced as warden of Bedlam (to which Edward IV had appointed
him) by Margaret Beaufort's chaplain. Friis was deprived of
property granted to him by Edward IV: his holdings in Westminster Palace were
transferred to Anthony Kene (whom Richard had attainted after the October 1483
rebellion, and who fought for Tudor at Bosworth) and his London holdings were
taken from him when Tudor granted a petition fromremember this name?--Edward
Ellesemere.

The seldom-told story of
Friis has some interesting parallels to better-known personages in the
saga. You know how Richard is so often pilloried over his
dealings with the Countess of Oxford, that she was said to have transferred
her property to Richard under duress? The same claim was
made by Ellesemere in his petition against Friis.


And at least Richard's
death spared him from having to witness much of the character assassination
against himself. Friis, though, lived to hear himself
sneeringly described by Ellesmere as an alien who calls himself a knight
despite the fact that by acts of Edward IV he was no longer the first and
really was the second. Jonathan Hughes, in his mostly
unreadable book Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV, also
claims that Friis was accused of exerting a sinister influence on the king
[Edward IV]. Hughes doesn't give a context for this accusation, but I just
bet it came from Ellesemere's camp or at least from the time of Ellesemere's
petition.

Moreover, between 1485 to
1488, the Tudor-sanctioned deprivation of much of his property may have
reduced Friis to poverty just like Elizabeth Woodville. He
was granted a corrody which Wikipedia (I know, I know) describes as a
lifetime allowance of food and clothing, and often shelter and care, granted
by an abbey, monastery, or other religious house & they were routinely awarded
to the servants and staff of royalty. Interestingly, Friis
received his corrody from the Priory of Holy Trinity in Aldgate, which Hobbys
had a very close association with (and was buried there). I
can't help speculating that Hobbys may have had a hand in arranging the
corrody for the relief of his impoverished old buddy.


Interestingly, Friis and
Hobbys died within months of each other in 1488. I don't
know where Friis was buried, but given the corrody from Holy Trinity it would
be appropriate if he rested there--perhaps somewhere near Hobbys' tombstone
with its inscription proclaiming defiant loyalty to "the most illustrious
kings Edward the Fourth and Richard the Third."

Cathy

Cathy,Thanks for that post.I think is does show that those people who kept their heads down in the years 1483 to 1485 could come out unscathed. Many people were employed by Edward, Richard and Henry.I don't necessarily think you state it in the post, but it is not logical to infer from the fact that a person did not rebel in 1483 means that they accept the entire Ricadian story of the pre-contract.Also, it does reinforce the risks that the rebels were taking in 1483. As Michael K Jones points out in his book about Bosworth - these men were not rebelling in the expectation of advancement, but were putting their estates and the futures of their families in jeopardy. Kind regardsDavidSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

From:
cattivoid <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis
Sent:
Wed, Aug 13, 2014 2:35:07 AM

 

Apologies in advance for making another very long post. I've been interested for a while in the royal doctors of the Yorkist courts, and I've concluded that contrary to the impression usually given, most of them stuck with Richard.  We only ever seem to hear about Argentine or Caerleon, who opposed Richard--but those two were not the only royal doctors, and they also were of relatively short tenure in 1483.  Two of the longest-tenured doctors were among those who continued serving Richard, and one of them was James Friis.Friis was a physician originally from the
Netherlands.  At some point he came to
England and earned his MD at Cambridge. 
He appears to have been a year or so ahead of another Cambridge MD
candidate, whom I have gone on at length about before: William Hobbys.  Friis entered Edward IV's service very early
in the reign, with a grant of 40 pounds a year on November 21, 1461.  A few months later, February 1461/62, Friis,
Hobbys, Edward IV, and 9-year-old Richard Duke of Gloucester were named
founders of the newly incorporated London Barbers' Company. 
 
From then on, it seems that Friis and Hobbys served Edward
IV continuously. They were with him before and after Henry VI's
readeption.  They were with him in the
1475 French campaign.  An article in the
Ricardian Register posited that they may also have been at his deathbed in 1483.
 
Edward IV rewarded Friis often and well.  Besides grants of money, he made Friis one
of the poor knights in the king's college, St. George's Chapel in
Windsor.  In 1473 he gave Friis the
medieval equivalent of naturalized citizenship (a letter of denization).  In 1481/82 he granted Friis lodgings within
Westminster Palace.  And on one occasion, in 1477,
Edward IV appears to have had three Lancastrian men sign over to Friis the
deeds of some London properties after they had been attainted.  One of those three attainted men was named
Edward Ellesemere--remember that name.
 
By every fair estimate, Friis could be described as a loyal
servant of Edward IV.  He had given good
service for over two decades, and had been well rewarded for it.  So, did he do what we are always told loyal
servants of Edward IV did--that is, refuse to accept the precontract, refuse to
accept Richard as king, tell everyone Richard murdered his nephews, run off to
support Buckingham or Woodville or Tudor, or work to bring Richard down from
within, then emerge after Bosworth to enjoy a career of fat prosperity under
Tudor?
 
Nope. 
 
Friis (and Hobbys) accepted Richard as king.  We know this from grants Richard made to him
1484.  And we know that Friis ended up
paying for it--almost literally--after Bosworth.
 
It did not necessarily follow that dynastic change meant
sacking the old king's doctors: earlier in his reign Edward IV had continued
employing doctors of Henry VI (such as William Hattecliffe).  Yet Friis and Hobbys were retired from
service after Bosworth.  Besides losing
his day job, Hobbys was also replaced as warden of Bedlam (to which Edward IV
had appointed him) by Margaret Beaufort's chaplain.  Friis was deprived of property granted to him
by Edward IV: his holdings in Westminster Palace were transferred to Anthony
Kene (whom Richard had attainted after the October 1483 rebellion, and who
fought for Tudor at Bosworth) and his London holdings were taken from him when
Tudor granted a petition fromremember this name?--Edward Ellesemere.
 
The seldom-told story of Friis has some interesting
parallels to better-known personages in the saga.  You know how Richard is so often pilloried
over his dealings with the Countess of Oxford, that she was said to have transferred
her property to Richard under duress? 
The same claim was made by Ellesemere in his petition against
Friis. 
 
And at least Richard's death spared him from having to
witness much of the character assassination against himself.  Friis, though, lived to hear himself sneeringly
described by Ellesmere as an alien who calls himself a knight despite the
fact that by acts of Edward IV he was no longer the first and really was the
second.  Jonathan Hughes, in his mostly
unreadable book Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV, also
claims that Friis was accused of exerting a sinister influence on the king
[Edward IV]. Hughes doesn't give a context for this accusation, but I just bet
it came from Ellesemere's camp or at least from the time of Ellesemere's
petition.
 
Moreover, between 1485 to 1488, the Tudor-sanctioned
deprivation of much of his property may have reduced Friis to poverty just like
Elizabeth Woodville.  He was granted a
corrody which Wikipedia (I know, I know) describes as a lifetime allowance
of food and clothing, and often shelter and care, granted by an abbey,
monastery, or other religious house & they were routinely awarded to the
servants and staff of royalty. 
Interestingly, Friis received his corrody from the Priory of Holy Trinity
in Aldgate, which Hobbys had a very close association with (and was buried
there).  I can't help speculating that
Hobbys may have had a hand in arranging the corrody for the relief of
his impoverished old buddy. 
 
Interestingly, Friis and Hobbys died within months of each
other in 1488.  I don't know where Friis
was buried, but given the corrody from Holy Trinity it would be appropriate if
he rested there--perhaps somewhere near Hobbys' tombstone with its inscription proclaiming
defiant loyalty to "the most illustrious kings Edward the Fourth and Richard the Third."
 
Cathy

Seconding everyone else's thanks. I remember hearing about Hobbys, but not Friis. Tamara

David, thanks for your thanks, but with respect I am puzzled by the conclusions
you've drawn from my post.

<< I think is does show that those people who kept their heads
down in the years 1483 to 1485 could come out unscathed.>>

First, Friis and Hobbys kept their heads down from 1485 to their
deaths in 1488--in the sense of not plotting or joining rebellions against
Tudor--yet they can hardly be said to have come out unscathed. Tudor punished them anyway, even if not as
extremely as executing or putting them under attainder. And this punishment began almost immediately
after Bosworth; they never even really had a chance to cause trouble for
him. The negative point you are trying
to make about Richard does, I think, inadvertently reflect worse upon Henry.

In any case, how and why do you characterize Friis and Hobbys as keeping
their heads down during Richard's reign?
These two men do not appear to have been cynical, weak-willed
time-servers who just went with the flow because it was the easiest thing to
do. Remember, they stuck with Edward IV
through Henry VI's readeption--a far more violent dynastic upheaval than 1483. I suggest to you that, based on their
previous record, the loyalty of Friis and Hobbys was to the House of York
rather than simply to whomever they thought would survive to sign their next
paycheck.

<< Many people were employed by Edward, Richard and Henry.>>

Of course they were. And I do
not claim Friis is representative of all of them. But the ones who opposed Richard are the ones
we usually do hear about, giving the misleading impression that somehow *they*
are representative. They're not. There were other men like Friis and Hobbys, and
I think they and their actions are worth noting.

<<I don't necessarily think you state it in the post, but it is
not logical to infer from the fact that a person did not rebel in 1483 means
that they accept the entire Ricadian story of the pre-contract.>>

When I was studying the American Revolution, one of my professors said of
the colonists that a third were for it, a third were against it, and a third
didn't give a crap one way or the other.
Perhaps that was the case in 1483 as well. What I object to is giving prominence to the third
who opposed while either ignoring or attempting to discredit those who
supported.

Of course we don't know the average 1483 Englishman's inner thoughts if
he didn't write them down. But in Hobbys'
case, there is a suggestion in his tombstone inscription that he did *not*
consider Edward V to be a legitimate king.
In this inscription Hobbys proclaims his loyalty to the Duke of York, Edward
IV, and Richard III. No mention of
Edward V. I don't claim this is the only
interpretation, but it is suggestive.

Besides, Friis and Hobbys having 20+ years' tenure with Edward IV knew very
well what the man was like. They were on
the scene during the very similar circumstances of the Woodville marriage. Upon hearing of the Butler marriage, they
would have been better positioned than most to remember that similar Woodville episode,
to make their comparisons, and draw their conclusions. (Argentine and Caerleon, by contrast, were
very late comers to the scene--Argentine in 1478 and Caerleon perhaps as
recently as 1481/82.)

<< As Michael K Jones points out in his book about Bosworth -
these men were not rebelling in the expectation of advancement, but were
putting their estates and the futures of their families in jeopardy.>>

Are you sure that was Michael Jones' book on Bosworth, or do you mean Skidmore's? I have Jones' book but I am unable to find this
point you cite and would appreciate being directed to it. Jones in his book actually does much to debunk
the mythology of Tudor as God's chosen liberator, and one of his main arguments
is that men were prepared to fight, and die for Richard rather than that Richard
was a universally loathed tyrant shunned and abandoned by all.

Cathy

David wrote:Also, it does reinforce the risks that the rebels were taking in 1483.
As Michael K Jones points out in his book about Bosworth - these men
were not rebelling in the expectation of advancement, but were putting
their estates and the futures of their families in jeopardy. Eva thinks:Is that not, what usually happens to persons that rebel.They either win or loose.They always put their estates and the future of their families in jeopardy. It would be interesting to know, how many really had lost their estates before the October rebellion, apart from the ones, that were actively trying to pass over Richard after Edward's death. Richard was after all Constable of England, Admiral of England, Lieutenant General of England, Great Chamberlain of England and Lord Protector. These persons acted against the law to establish their power over the new King and not because there were in danger of loosing their estates.Apart from that, I think Cathy did research two individual persons, the doctors Hobbs and Friis and made no general statements about how many people were for or against Richard's accession to the throne. Eva

Hi Cathy,I read David's post yesterday, but this morning I felt I could not leave it unopposed. Then I saw that you obviously thought the same. And I am glad, you did it! I hope you don't mind that I wrote in my answer to David, that I think you were talking about two persons,and made no general statement about peoples' acceptance of Richard's accession. Correct me if I am wrong!Eva

Bravo Cathy!Sent from my iPad On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:25 PM, cattivoid <[email protected]> wrote:

David, thanks for your thanks, but with respect I am puzzled by the conclusions
you've drawn from my post.

<< I think is does show that those people who kept their heads
down in the years 1483 to 1485 could come out unscathed.>>

First, Friis and Hobbys kept their heads down from 1485 to their
deaths in 1488--in the sense of not plotting or joining rebellions against
Tudor--yet they can hardly be said to have come out unscathed. Tudor punished them anyway, even if not as
extremely as executing or putting them under attainder. And this punishment began almost immediately
after Bosworth; they never even really had a chance to cause trouble for
him. The negative point you are trying
to make about Richard does, I think, inadvertently reflect worse upon Henry.

In any case, how and why do you characterize Friis and Hobbys as keeping
their heads down during Richard's reign?
These two men do not appear to have been cynical, weak-willed
time-servers who just went with the flow because it was the easiest thing to
do. Remember, they stuck with Edward IV
through Henry VI's readeption--a far more violent dynastic upheaval than 1483. I suggest to you that, based on their
previous record, the loyalty of Friis and Hobbys was to the House of York
rather than simply to whomever they thought would survive to sign their next
paycheck.

<< Many people were employed by Edward, Richard and Henry.>>

Of course they were. And I do
not claim Friis is representative of all of them. But the ones who opposed Richard are the ones
we usually do hear about, giving the misleading impression that somehow *they*
are representative. They're not. There were other men like Friis and Hobbys, and
I think they and their actions are worth noting.

<<I don't necessarily think you state it in the post, but it is
not logical to infer from the fact that a person did not rebel in 1483 means
that they accept the entire Ricadian story of the pre-contract.>>

When I was studying the American Revolution, one of my professors said of
the colonists that a third were for it, a third were against it, and a third
didn't give a crap one way or the other.
Perhaps that was the case in 1483 as well. What I object to is giving prominence to the third
who opposed while either ignoring or attempting to discredit those who
supported.

Of course we don't know the average 1483 Englishman's inner thoughts if
he didn't write them down. But in Hobbys'
case, there is a suggestion in his tombstone inscription that he did *not*
consider Edward V to be a legitimate king.
In this inscription Hobbys proclaims his loyalty to the Duke of York, Edward
IV, and Richard III. No mention of
Edward V. I don't claim this is the only
interpretation, but it is suggestive.

Besides, Friis and Hobbys having 20+ years' tenure with Edward IV knew very
well what the man was like. They were on
the scene during the very similar circumstances of the Woodville marriage. Upon hearing of the Butler marriage, they
would have been better positioned than most to remember that similar Woodville episode,
to make their comparisons, and draw their conclusions. (Argentine and Caerleon, by contrast, were
very late comers to the scene--Argentine in 1478 and Caerleon perhaps as
recently as 1481/82.)

<< As Michael K Jones points out in his book about Bosworth -
these men were not rebelling in the expectation of advancement, but were
putting their estates and the futures of their families in jeopardy.>>

Are you sure that was Michael Jones' book on Bosworth, or do you mean Skidmore's? I have Jones' book but I am unable to find this
point you cite and would appreciate being directed to it. Jones in his book actually does much to debunk
the mythology of Tudor as God's chosen liberator, and one of his main arguments
is that men were prepared to fight, and die for Richard rather than that Richard
was a universally loathed tyrant shunned and abandoned by all.

Cathy

And a bravo from me too.......Eileen

Eva wrote:<<"I hope you don't mind that I wrote in my
answer to David, that I think you were talking about two persons,and
made no general statement about peoples' acceptance of Richard's
accession. Correct me if I am wrong!">>Hi Eva, no problem at all! I read your post with interest and appreciation. And you are right; my original post was meant to present Friis as a person who didn't fit the same old story, and who had his own story worth telling. Hmmm, maybe I have a new theory about why Tudor was hostile to Friis. Maybe Friis scoffed at being derided as "an alien" by pointing out that he had lived in England longer than Tudor ever had. :)Cathy

Hi Cathy,Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?Marie

And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Cathy,Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?Marie

sorry it put it in the wrong thread H On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Cathy,Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?Marie

Hey Hilary, that's what happens when you're jumping-up-and-down mad about
something! But I'd rather they said he ate and drank a lot, than claimed the
isotope readings proved beyond all doubt that he murdered his nephews and ate
them too!
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of
Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis

sorry it put it in the wrong thread H

On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12, "Hilary
Jones hjnatdat@... []"
<> wrote:
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html

On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24,
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Cathy,
Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece
of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?
Marie

Crass journalism. Actually the last two-thirds of the article is okay - the problem is the attention grabbing opening. But it really is just tomorrow's fish and chip paper (if H&S still allowed fish and chips to be served in newspaper), and I don't think it's an angle that has any traction. "King ate well" isn't going to fascinate anyone a month down the line. We rarely talk about Edward IV in those terms, and it remains the least interesting thing about Henry VIII, despite the imprimatur of Charles Laughton guzzling poultry and an extant suit of armour large enough to contain the average crowd for a Leicestershire v Derbyshire County Championship match in April...Jonathan From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: ""
<> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12 Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Cathy,Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?Marie

Sandra, life without you would be dull indeed!



From: [mailto:]

Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis


Hey Hilary, that's what happens when you're jumping-up-and-down mad about something! But I'd rather they said he ate and drank a lot, than claimed the isotope readings proved
beyond all doubt that he murdered his nephews and ate them too!

Sandra
=^..^=

From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:13 PM
To:

Subject: Re:
Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis



sorry it put it in the wrong thread H


On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12, "Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:



And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html

On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:



Hi Cathy,
Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?
Marie

True! But we've had George the Short, now Richard the Fat :) :) On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:25, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Hey Hilary, that's what happens when you're jumping-up-and-down mad about
something! But I'd rather they said he ate and drank a lot, than claimed the
isotope readings proved beyond all doubt that he murdered his nephews and ate
them too!
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of
Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis
sorry it put it in the wrong thread H

On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12, "Hilary
Jones hjnatdat@... []"
<> wrote:
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html

On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24,
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Cathy,
Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece
of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?
Marie

But this is the Independent Jonathan - wait till it gets in the Mail on Sunday. He'll be the new Shrek. H On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:27, "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <> wrote:
Crass journalism. Actually the last two-thirds of the article is okay - the problem is the attention grabbing opening. But it really is just tomorrow's fish and chip paper (if H&S still allowed fish and chips to be served in newspaper), and I don't think it's an angle that has any traction. "King ate well" isn't going to fascinate anyone a month down the line. We rarely talk about Edward IV in those terms, and it remains the least interesting thing about Henry VIII, despite the imprimatur of Charles Laughton guzzling poultry and an extant suit of armour large enough to contain the average crowd for a Leicestershire v Derbyshire County Championship match in April...Jonathan From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: ""
<> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12 Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Cathy,Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?Marie

Well this is one they are going to find it hard to pin on Richard..that he was a glutton and therefore obese..I think this is what they are saying as surely these two things are linked...anyway...as I was saying...their going to find it hard because now we have the evidence...I can recall the term 'gracile' was used...Eileen

It's all so daft really, because the one thing we know about Richard is
that he was scrawny. Sorry for such a word, but it fits. He was slender,
delicately made, amazingly strong, and restrained, except when really pushed and
prodded with a sharp stick. Just ask Hastings. I'm glad to think he enjoyed his
meals and a little wine to wash it down. But I think Moderation was his middle
name. Get legless every day? Never. Well, maybe on a Friday night, alone with
Anne, behind closed doors, when anything went, but that would be it.
<g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of
Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis

But this is the Independent Jonathan - wait till it gets in the Mail on
Sunday. He'll be the new Shrek. H

On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:27, "Jonathan
Evans jmcevans98@... []"
<> wrote:
Crass journalism. Actually the last two-thirds of the article
is okay - the problem is the attention grabbing opening. But it really is
just tomorrow's fish and chip paper (if H&S still allowed fish and chips to
be served in newspaper), and I don't think it's an angle that has any
traction. "King ate well" isn't going to fascinate anyone a month down the
line. We rarely talk about Edward IV in those terms, and it remains the
least interesting thing about Henry VIII, despite the imprimatur of Charles
Laughton guzzling poultry and an extant suit of armour large enough to contain
the average crowd for a Leicestershire v Derbyshire County Championship match in
April...

Jonathan
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...
[]" <>To:
""
<> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James
Friis
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html

On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24,
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Cathy,
Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece
of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?
Marie

ooooooops I meant to add this did not come over in the programme I.e. the gluttony thingy..but in the newspapers. And I was very pleased to note that a lot of the Mail on line comments to their article were very knowledgeable I.e. about the strength of wine/beer not being as high as it is today and the amounts consumed. After watching the programme and reading the replies on line to this rather silly DM article I can say I'm feeling relieved...I think finally a corner has been turned...that there is a general change in the air with the general publics perception of King Richard...no longer concentrating on he was a hunchback and usurper and done his little nephews in as he swam his way through gallons of blood and gore to the throne...now people know how he died, gallantly and also liked his wine...hey ho...an alright kind of guy...Eileen

It does seem absurd to go from thin and delicate to a boozer and glutton! But, I think, progress is being made.

On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "eileenbates147@... []" <> wrote:

Well this is one they are going to find it hard to pin on Richard..that he was a glutton and therefore obese..I think this is what they are saying as surely these two things are linked...anyway...as I was saying...their going to find it hard because now
we have the evidence...I can recall the term 'gracile' was used...Eileen

This is interesting in that we had an engineer working with us for several years. He was short and probably was on steroids because he had huge arms and neck. He has pancreatic cancer, and we were all thinking about him. One of your young surveyors pointed
out that he was about the same size, but very slender. He works out in the field, carrying survey equipment and doing really hard physical work. He is very strong, but has a ropey musculature, like I remember my great grandfather, who was a farmer. This is
how I see Richard. Strong, athletic, trained, and able to ride, fight, and all covered by heavy armor. I just cannot see him being the least bit fat. And, I agree that the food and wine might have been copious, but just because it is in front of you, does
not mean you Hoover it up. Clearly he was a thinker, and had to keep a clear he'd to play the kind of chess games swirling around the times.

On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:53 AM, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:


It's all so daft really, because the one thing we know about Richard is that he was scrawny. Sorry for such a word, but it fits. He was slender, delicately made, amazingly strong, and restrained, except when really pushed and prodded with a sharp stick.
Just ask Hastings. I'm glad to think he enjoyed his meals and a little wine to wash it down. But I think Moderation was his middle name. Get legless every day? Never. Well, maybe on a Friday night, alone with Anne, behind closed doors, when anything went,
but that would be it. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis

But this is the Independent Jonathan - wait till it gets in the Mail on Sunday. He'll be the new Shrek. H


On Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:27, "Jonathan Evans
jmcevans98@... []" <> wrote:


Crass journalism. Actually the last two-thirds of the article is okay - the problem is the attention grabbing opening. But it really is just tomorrow's fish and chip paper (if H&S still allowed fish and chips to be served in newspaper), and I don't
think it's an angle that has any traction. "King ate well" isn't going to fascinate anyone a month down the line. We rarely talk about Edward IV in those terms, and it remains the least interesting thing about Henry VIII, despite the imprimatur of Charles
Laughton guzzling poultry and an extant suit of armour large enough to contain the average crowd for a Leicestershire v Derbyshire County Championship match in April...

Jonathan
From: "Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>

Sent: Monday, 18 August 2014, 15:12
Subject: Re: Re: a loyal servant of Edward IV we never hear about: James Friis
And this is why I'm not happy. Note the 'orgy'. Off we go again. H
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/swan-egret-heron-revealed--the-richard-iii-diet-9673772.html


On Sunday, 17 August 2014, 22:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Hi Cathy,
Sorry, I'm slow catching up. Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?
Marie

Marie
wrote: <<Thank you very much for this fascinating piece of research. Are you
planning to publish your work on the royal doctors?>>


Thanks, Marie! And I remain grateful for your investigation into
the ODNB's claim about Argentine's continued service with Richard (where it turned out that the article's
author apparently misinterpreted a secondary source).

I hadn't thought of publishing any of this, not really having the credentials
for it or much idea of how to go about it. There are also some gaps I'd
like to fill but am limited in the primary sources I can access. One example being that I can't find a record of who was Richard's apothecary. John Clerk was Edward IV's
apothecary; like Friis and Hobbys, he entered Edward's service in 1461/62
and was still alive in 1483. I think it very likely he continued with
Richard but can't definitely say so at this time. If he did, though,
Richard still would have needed to appoint a new apothecary because Clerk died
in March 1484. But I haven't found a record for that either ...

Cathy

Cathy, you should send it to Joan Szechtman at the Ricardian Register. My guess is she'd publish it in a heartbeat if you tidied it up a touch.Tamara