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

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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: [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

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, 15:12
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