Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

Jan here.
J. Wilkinson's book on the king -"From Lord of the North to King of England"- was due out on 15th. January. Has anyone seen anything of it apart from the uninformative entry on Amazon which seems to give no reason for the delay?

It's been delayed many times Jan. I must have had it on order for getting on for two years. I think she digressed to write the Princes in the Tower book. At this rate Thoms Penn will beat her. H
From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 10:49
Subject: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

Jan here.
J. Wilkinson's book on the king -"From Lord of the North to King of England"- was due out on 15th. January. Has anyone seen anything of it apart from the uninformative entry on Amazon which seems to give no reason for the delay?

Jan says thank you!



On 28 Jan 2015, at 12:36, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

It's been delayed many times Jan. I must have had it on order for getting on for two years. I think she digressed to write the Princes in the Tower book. At this rate Thoms Penn will beat her. H
From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <>
To: "@yahoo groups.com" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 10:49
Subject: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

Jan here.
J. Wilkinson's book on the king -"From Lord of the North to King of England"- was due out on 15th. January. Has anyone seen anything of it apart from the uninformative entry on Amazon which seems to give no reason for the delay?

If it's anything like her first book on Richard I don't care if it never comes out! Sorry H.
Paul

On 28/01/2015 12:36, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
It's been delayed many times Jan. I must have had it on order for getting on for two years. I think she digressed to write the Princes in the Tower book. At this rate Thoms Penn will beat her. H  
From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <>
To: "@yahoogroups .com" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 10:49
Subject: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

  Jan here.
J. Wilkinson's book on the king -"From Lord of the North to King of England"- was due out on 15th. January. Has anyone seen anything of it apart from the uninformative entry on Amazon which seems to give no reason for the delay?

I did wonder whether it was delayed because she was doing some extra work on relevant saints :) H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 12:55
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

If it's anything like her first book on Richard I don't care if it never comes out! Sorry H.
Paul

On 28/01/2015 12:36, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
It's been delayed many times Jan. I must have had it on order for getting on for two years. I think she digressed to write the Princes in the Tower book. At this rate Thoms Penn will beat her. H
From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <>
To: "@yahoogroups .com" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 10:49
Subject: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

Jan here.
J. Wilkinson's book on the king -"From Lord of the North to King of England"- was due out on 15th. January. Has anyone seen anything of it apart from the uninformative entry on Amazon which seems to give no reason for the delay?

I completely agree with you Paul, the world will not miss another little Hicks trying to make money on a dead man's spoils. Mac

I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring, but she is a St Deniol's scholar so that is perhaps to be expected. H
From: "mac.thirty@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 18:22
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

I completely agree with you Paul, the world will not miss another little Hicks trying to make money on a dead man's spoils. Mac

And Phillippa Gregory has a degree in History! 
Proves  a degree does not stop people writing nonsense badly! :-)
Paul

On 28/01/2015 22:19, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring,  but she is a St Deniol's scholar so that is perhaps to be expected. H  
From: "mac.thirty@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 18:22
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

  I completely agree with you Paul, the world will not miss another little Hicks trying to make money on a dead man's spoils. Mac

I don't know what period Philippa Gregory's history degree covered, but she went on to do a PhD in 18th-century literature. And her BA was at Sussex in the seventies, so I wonder about the course content.....

Her wikipedia page had this link:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/feb/03/schools.historyandhistoryofart
She says she now puts a bibliography at the end of each book. But as I haven't read any, I wouldn't know.

She obviously irritates Starkey no end, but neither end of 'my enemy's enemy' seems to work in this case.

Best wishes
Christine

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:<>
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:16:29 +0000
Subject:Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.


 

And Phillippa Gregory has a degree in History! 
Proves  a degree does not stop people writing nonsense badly! :-)
Paul

On 28/01/2015 22:19, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring,  but she is a St Deniol's scholar so that is perhaps to be expected. H  
From: "mac.thirty@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 18:22
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

  I completely agree with you Paul, the world will not miss another little Hicks trying to make money on a dead man's spoils. Mac

I thought PG's degree and PH.D are in English Literature? And someone referred to Alison Weir the other day as that marvellous historian. She keeps cropping up. Must have a contract with the BBC. H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015, 13:16
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

And Phillippa Gregory has a degree in History!
Proves a degree does not stop people writing nonsense badly! :-)
Paul



On 28/01/2015 22:19, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring, but she is a St Deniol's scholar so that is perhaps to be expected. H
From: "mac.thirty@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 18:22
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

I completely agree with you Paul, the world will not miss another little Hicks trying to make money on a dead man's spoils. Mac

Starkey struggled with Magna Carta the other evening as he does when he's out of his comfort zone. How you can make a programme about a document and not quote the clauses from it......But more importantly, no mention of Richard's reforms without which a lot of the so-called Law for the common man would not be Law at all. H
From: "lists@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015, 14:07
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.


I don't know what period Philippa Gregory's history degree covered, but she went on to do a PhD in 18th-century literature. And her BA was at Sussex in the seventies, so I wonder about the course content.....

Her wikipedia page had this link:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/feb/03/schools.historyandhistoryofart
She says she now puts a bibliography at the end of each book. But as I haven't read any, I wouldn't know.

She obviously irritates Starkey no end, but neither end of 'my enemy's enemy' seems to work in this case.

Best wishes
Christine



----- Original Message -----
From:
To:<>
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:16:29 +0000
Subject:Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.


And Phillippa Gregory has a degree in History!
Proves a degree does not stop people writing nonsense badly! :-)
Paul

On 28/01/2015 22:19, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring, but she is a St Deniol's scholar so that is perhaps to be expected. H
From: "mac.thirty@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 18:22
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

I completely agree with you Paul, the world will not miss another little Hicks trying to make money on a dead man's spoils. Mac

Hi
Wilkinson's book is scheduled for release 2016 not 2015 according to Amazon.co.uk. Hilary I don't understand your reference to St Deniol's as it is the residential library that belonged to Gladstone. It is a reference library with thousands of resources covering history, science, literature etc. It is more of a secular library. I have visited it quite often for researching. I do find it odd that Wilkinson is employed as the residential scholar as the information on her states she lives in Yorkshire. St Deniol's is in Harwarden in Flintshire so she is not a permanent fixture. I don't know whether she still holds the post.Elaine

Hilary wrote :

"I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring ..."

Carol responds:

I'll side with Mac here. The "saintly padding," though annoying, is hardly the chief fault of the book. I've only read the first chapters, but here's what I dislike about it in a nutshell.

She titles her first chapter "Richard Lives Yet," implying that she takes "Richard Liveth Yet" to mean that he was a sickly child. (More on that later.)
She then quotes Rous's scorpion passage, correctly noting that Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong but ignoring his substitution of the rising sign (which Rous claims was Scorpio) for the birth sign, Libra (not adaptable to his propaganda purposes) and goes on to discuss astrology as if we could really assess Richard's character by seeing his birth chart (sorry, Nico!).

Later, she quotes Gairdner and Sharon Turner on the sickly child idea, admitting that Turner can't remember his source but failing to correct his reference to Richard's "withered arm" (which as we all know came from More with a little help from Vergil). She states that it's not impossible that Richard was a sickly child and that contemporary records indicate some problems with his birth (a misreading of a letter from Cicely to Margaret of Anjou which in fact had nothing to do with the recent birth of her child). She admits that Rous's "two years in his mother's womb" is clearly fanciful, but again refers to the supposedly distressful pregnancy, this time actually quoting the letter. But "labo(u)r" didn't mean to the fifteenth century what it means to us. As I understand it, she was talking about the strain she had recently been under regarding her husband's circumstances. And as someone (it may have been Marie on this forum) pointed out, she would hardly have been talking about her difficult labor to the (then) queen, who was pregnant with Edward of Lancaster.

Wilkinson goes on to expand upon the legends about Richard's birth as if More's repeating parts of Rous validated Rous's testimony (rather than Rous's "testimony" giving More food for his fictional depiction of Richard). From there she discusses legends associated with "natal teeth" (at least admitting that Richard was probably not born with a full set of teeth as implied by Rous and openly stated by Shakespeare), but she goes on to suggest that if he were, he might have had a cleft palate (a suggestion not even his worst enemies have made until this book).

To me, all this smacks of Desmond Seward ("The Difficult Birth"), though admittedly "Sewer(d)" (as someone recently referred to him in the Ricardian Register), makes Richard's birth appear much more sinister than Wilkinson does. But, to me, she's making a great deal out of nothing. All we really know is his birth date, his birthplace, his mother's age, and the fact that she had previously borne nine of children, four of whom died in infancy or childhood. Unless we count his real birth sign being Libra (the rising sign, for what it's worth, is unknowable), that's all we have. If she were discussing the so-called sources and their effect on the legend (or the credulity of contemporary readers) these digressions might have some value, but in terms of what they tell us about the real Richard as an infant or as prognostications of his future, their value is exactly zero.

My theory is that Wilkinson did a lot of tangential research on such topics as astrology, natal teeth, and saints' lives and could not resist throwing it into her "biography."

The rest of the sample, except for a bit on baptism and naming which is somewhat interesting and relevant, is background on Richard's parents and the WOTR, very illogically organized (Wilkinson organizes by association, the "oh. that reminds me" organization that we frequently encounter in conversations--and in posts in this forum that veer off track, mine among them). She also has an unfortunate tendency to allude to Shakespeare.

Admittedly, I am judging her book by its first chapters, but I am emphatically not impressed. I can't condemn her for having a PhD in literature rather than history (so do I, and so did Paul Murray Kendall, still Richard's best biographer despite being outdated in a few respects), but she should not confuse the two subjects. She's trying to write a biography of the real Richard III, not of Shakespeare's fictional monstrosity, after all.

Carol

Thank you Carol. Don't regret not reading further in the book, it gets even worse with Richard's "ruthless acquisitiveness" making Clarence a naive apparently, not to mention Richard's supposed need to fill the void of a loveless marriage with a mistress by dating his illegitimate children's birth after his marriage in the late spring of 1472, thus having e.g. Katherine therefore getting married at 11 against contemporary canon law when Richard was King if logic and maths are not an opinion... Mac

Firstly, she has a First and Ph.D in History from Newcastle, it's PG who is Eng Lit. So that makes her better qualified to write on history than some who write a lot about Richard. She is indeed scholar-in residence at St Deiniol's - heaven forefend that we should mention Gladstone on here. What did Dizzy say ' it would be unfortunate if Mr Gladstone fell in the Thames, it would be disasterous if someone fished him out'? (sorry probably not the accurate words). Back to Richard. I'm sorry you didn't read more of her first book Carol. I agree someone must have told her to pad it out with detail about fifteenth century life, no bad thing if you're not familiar with the period and the saint thing does become tedious. But the detail about, for example the Courtenay/Hungerford trial is useful and relevant. Yes, Richard was acquisitive as is seen from his cartulary, but so were the majority of upper and middle classes of the fifteenth century and he has the excuse of a very uncertain childhood. The currency of the day was land. She actually defends him in the case of the Countess of Oxford and I would agree with her entirely about his marriage - apart from Edward and EW and later Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (and look how disasterous those were) I have yet to find a medieval 'love' match. Plenty of abductions for land, yes. Historians can't have flights of fancy, which is what Kendall often resorts to - he had a degree in literature. If you find evidence you have to relate it and explain it, which is what she does. Neither does she put two and two together and make six which is sadly what JAH has been doing occasionally recently. Richard is not diminished in my eyes because he's a man not a saint. I doubt we shall agree on this book, mainly I think because of the mistress issue (which I tend to believe) but I would really recommend her book on the Princes. There has been no more concise or accurate analysis of the issue than this (apart from she gets the Stillington thing wrong like everyone else) and there is no way you can say she is in the least hostile towards Richard. It is also devoid of padding unlike the first book. You really do wrong her when you compare her with Seward, or Hicks at his worst. Regards H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015, 21:10
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.




Hilary wrote :

"I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring ..."

Carol responds:

I'll side with Mac here. The "saintly padding," though annoying, is hardly the chief fault of the book. I've only read the first chapters, but here's what I dislike about it in a nutshell.

She titles her first chapter "Richard Lives Yet," implying that she takes "Richard Liveth Yet" to mean that he was a sickly child. (More on that later.)
She then quotes Rous's scorpion passage, correctly noting that Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong but ignoring his substitution of the rising sign (which Rous claims was Scorpio) for the birth sign, Libra (not adaptable to his propaganda purposes) and goes on to discuss astrology as if we could really assess Richard's character by seeing his birth chart (sorry, Nico!).

Later, she quotes Gairdner and Sharon Turner on the sickly child idea, admitting that Turner can't remember his source but failing to correct his reference to Richard's "withered arm" (which as we all know came from More with a little help from Vergil). She states that it's not impossible that Richard was a sickly child and that contemporary records indicate some problems with his birth (a misreading of a letter from Cicely to Margaret of Anjou which in fact had nothing to do with the recent birth of her child). She admits that Rous's "two years in his mother's womb" is clearly fanciful, but again refers to the supposedly distressful pregnancy, this time actually quoting the letter. But "labo(u)r" didn't mean to the fifteenth century what it means to us. As I understand it, she was talking about the strain she had recently been under regarding her husband's circumstances. And as someone (it may have been Marie on this forum) pointed out, she would hardly have been talking about her difficult labor to the (then) queen, who was pregnant with Edward of Lancaster.

Wilkinson goes on to expand upon the legends about Richard's birth as if More's repeating parts of Rous validated Rous's testimony (rather than Rous's "testimony" giving More food for his fictional depiction of Richard). From there she discusses legends associated with "natal teeth" (at least admitting that Richard was probably not born with a full set of teeth as implied by Rous and openly stated by Shakespeare), but she goes on to suggest that if he were, he might have had a cleft palate (a suggestion not even his worst enemies have made until this book).

To me, all this smacks of Desmond Seward ("The Difficult Birth"), though admittedly "Sewer(d)" (as someone recently referred to him in the Ricardian Register), makes Richard's birth appear much more sinister than Wilkinson does. But, to me, she's making a great deal out of nothing. All we really know is his birth date, his birthplace, his mother's age, and the fact that she had previously borne nine of children, four of whom died in infancy or childhood. Unless we count his real birth sign being Libra (the rising sign, for what it's worth, is unknowable), that's all we have. If she were discussing the so-called sources and their effect on the legend (or the credulity of contemporary readers) these digressions might have some value, but in terms of what they tell us about the real Richard as an infant or as prognostications of his future, their value is exactly zero.

My theory is that Wilkinson did a lot of tangential research on such topics as astrology, natal teeth, and saints' lives and could not resist throwing it into her "biography."

The rest of the sample, except for a bit on baptism and naming which is somewhat interesting and relevant, is background on Richard's parents and the WOTR, very illogically organized (Wilkinson organizes by association, the "oh. that reminds me" organization that we frequently encounter in conversations--and in posts in this forum that veer off track, mine among them). She also has an unfortunate tendency to allude to Shakespeare.

Admittedly, I am judging her book by its first chapters, but I am emphatically not impressed. I can't condemn her for having a PhD in literature rather than history (so do I, and so did Paul Murray Kendall, still Richard's best biographer despite being outdated in a few respects), but she should not confuse the two subjects. She's trying to write a biography of the real Richard III, not of Shakespeare's fictional monstrosity, after all.

Carol

Totally agree with all you say Carol, though the saints bios get to be so boring after the first dozen....
Paul

On 29/01/2015 21:10, justcarol67@... [] wrote:



Hilary wrote :

"I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring ..."

Carol responds:

I'll side with Mac here. The "saintly padding," though annoying, is hardly the chief fault of the book. I've only read the first chapters, but here's what I dislike about it in a nutshell.

She titles her first chapter "Richard Lives Yet," implying that she takes "Richar d Liveth Yet" to mean that he was a sickly child. (More on that later.)
 She then quotes Rous's scorpion passage, correctly noting that Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong but ignoring his substitution of the rising sign (which Rous claims was Scorpio) for the birth sign, Libra (not adaptable to his propaganda purposes) and goes on to discuss astrology as if we could really assess Richard's character by seeing his birth chart (sorry, Nico!).

Later, she quotes Gairdner and Sharon Turner on the sickly child idea, admitting that Turner can't remember his source but failing to correct his reference to Richard's "withered arm" (which as we all know came from More with a little help from Vergil). She states that it's not impossible that Richard was a sickly child and that contemporary records indicate some problems with his birth (a misreading of a letter from Cicely to Margaret of Anjou which in fact had nothing to do with the recent bi rth of her child). She admits that Rous's "two years in his mother's womb" is clearly fanciful, but again refers to the supposedly distressful pregnancy, this time actually quoting the letter. But "labo(u)r" didn't mean to the fifteenth century what it means to us. As I understand it, she was talking about the strain she had recently been under regarding her husband's circumstances. And as someone (it may have been Marie on this forum) pointed out, she would hardly have been talking about her difficult labor to the (then) queen, who was pregnant with Edward of Lancaster.

Wilkinson goes on to expand upon the legends about Richard's birth as if More's repeating parts of Rous validated Rous's testimony (rather than Rous's "testimony" giving More food for his fictional depiction of Richard). From there she discusses legends associated with "natal teeth" (at least admitting that Richard was probably not born wi th a full set of teeth as implied by Rous and openly stated by Shakespeare), but she goes on to suggest that if he were, he might have had a cleft palate (a suggestion not even his worst enemies have made until this book).

To me, all this smacks of Desmond Seward ("The Difficult Birth"), though admittedly "Sewer(d)" (as someone recently referred to him in the Ricardian Register), makes Richard's birth appear much more sinister than Wilkinson does. But, to me, she's making a great deal out of nothing. All we really know is his birth date, his birthplace, his mother's age, and the fact that she had previously borne nine of children, four of whom died in infancy or childhood. Unless we count his real birth sign being Libra (the rising sign, for what it's worth, is unknowable), that's all we have. If she were discussing the so-called sources and their effect on the legend (or the credulity of contemporary readers) these digressions might ha ve some value, but in terms of what they tell us about the real Richard as an infant or as prognostications of his future, their value is exactly zero.

My theory is that Wilkinson did a lot of tangential research on such topics as astrology, natal teeth, and saints' lives and could not resist throwing it into her "biography."

The rest of the sample, except for a bit on baptism and naming which is somewhat interesting and relevant, is background on Richard's parents and the WOTR, very illogically organized (Wilkinson organizes by association, the "oh. that reminds me" organization that we frequently encounter in conversations--and in posts in this forum that veer off track, mine among them). She also has an unfortunate tendency to allude to Shakespeare.

Admittedly, I am judging her book by its first chapters, but I am emphatically not impressed. I can't condemn her for having a PhD in literature rather than history (so do I, and so did Paul Murray Kendall, still Richard's best biographer despite being outdated in a few respects), but she should not confuse the two subjects. She's trying to write a biography of the real Richard III, not of Shakespeare's fictional monstrosity, after all.

Carol

Hilary wrote...'I have yet to find a medieval love match...'
IVe recently read Yorkist Lord, John Howard duke of Norfolk by Anne Crawford who writes that the second marriage of Norfolk and Margaret Chedworth was likely a love match..'In view of the fact that only 4 months elapsed between the death of Margaret's husband and Howard's marriage suggests this may have been personal preferences. Added to the fact of list of valuable gifts Howard 'showered' upon his new bride..including many items of jewellery, furs, gowns including 'two rings of gold set with good diamonds the which the Queen gave my master' 'a collar set with 34 roses and suns set on a course of black silk with a hangar of gold garnished with a sapphire' and countless more..(lucky girl...I've always loved JH...I like him even more now...
Yes..there were plenty of arranged marriages but that is not to say they were not successful and loving in time. These people left indications of the love they felt for their spouses in their will and epitaphs...examplesWilliams Herbert requesting in his will to be buried next to his wife Margaret nee Woodville..'in or near as maybe the same where my dear and best beloved wife resteth buried'..John Lord Tiptoft description of his wife Elizabeth as 'her whom I loved best'. A lovely example from the middles classes..the brass of Robert Hatfield 1409 and his wife showing them holding hands and and inscribed with the words they had been 'right fully in love'..and many more examples.
this is not to say I believe,personally, that ANne and Richard's marriage had been a love match..but I do believe there are indications that it was successful and highly likely that it grew into love. On the other hand I have not come across anything that seriously indicates to me Richard had mistress after his marriage. I think we should let it lie there as there is enough mud hurled at Richard without adding to it unnecessarily.
Eileen

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

Firstly, she has a First and Ph.D in History from Newcastle, it's PG who is Eng Lit. So that makes her better qualified to write on history than some who write a lot about Richard. She is indeed scholar-in residence at St Deiniol's - heaven forefend that we should mention Gladstone on here. What did Dizzy say ' it would be unfortunate if Mr Gladstone fell in the Thames, it would be disasterous if someone fished him out'? (sorry probably not the accurate words). Back to Richard. I'm sorry you didn't read more of her first book Carol. I agree someone must have told her to pad it out with detail about fifteenth century life, no bad thing if you're not familiar with the period and the saint thing does become tedious. But the detail about, for example the Courtenay/Hungerford trial is useful and relevant. Yes, Richard was acquisitive as is seen from his cartulary, but so were the majority of upper and middle classes of the fifteenth century and he has the excuse of a very uncertain childhood. The currency of the day was land. She actually defends him in the case of the Countess of Oxford and I would agree with her entirely about his marriage - apart from Edward and EW and later Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (and look how disasterous those were) I have yet to find a medieval 'love' match. Plenty of abductions for land, yes. Historians can't have flights of fancy, which is what Kendall often resorts to - he had a degree in literature. If you find evidence you have to relate it and explain it, which is what she does. Neither does she put two and two together and make six which is sadly what JAH has been doing occasionally recently. Richard is not diminished in my eyes because he's a man not a saint. I doubt we shall agree on this book, mainly I think because of the mistress issue (which I tend to believe) but I would really recommend her book on the Princes. There has been no more concise or accurate analysis of the issue than this (apart from she gets the Stillington thing wrong like everyone else) and there is no way you can say she is in the least hostile towards Richard. It is also devoid of padding unlike the first book. You really do wrong her when you compare her with Seward, or Hicks at his worst. Regards H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015, 21:10
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.




Hilary wrote :

"I think you wrong her Mac, she is a sponsored Ricardian scholar and very far from Hicks. Indeed, as some others on here have said, her book on the princes is as eloquent as any on that subject. Her book on the young Richard does have a fair bit of saintly padding, which was to what I was referring ..."

Carol responds:

I'll side with Mac here. The "saintly padding," though annoying, is hardly the chief fault of the book. I've only read the first chapters, but here's what I dislike about it in a nutshell.

She titles her first chapter "Richard Lives Yet," implying that she takes "Richard Liveth Yet" to mean that he was a sickly child. (More on that later.)
She then quotes Rous's scorpion passage, correctly noting that Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong but ignoring his substitution of the rising sign (which Rous claims was Scorpio) for the birth sign, Libra (not adaptable to his propaganda purposes) and goes on to discuss astrology as if we could really assess Richard's character by seeing his birth chart (sorry, Nico!).

Later, she quotes Gairdner and Sharon Turner on the sickly child idea, admitting that Turner can't remember his source but failing to correct his reference to Richard's "withered arm" (which as we all know came from More with a little help from Vergil). She states that it's not impossible that Richard was a sickly child and that contemporary records indicate some problems with his birth (a misreading of a letter from Cicely to Margaret of Anjou which in fact had nothing to do with the recent birth of her child). She admits that Rous's "two years in his mother's womb" is clearly fanciful, but again refers to the supposedly distressful pregnancy, this time actually quoting the letter. But "labo(u)r" didn't mean to the fifteenth century what it means to us. As I understand it, she was talking about the strain she had recently been under regarding her husband's circumstances. And as someone (it may have been Marie on this forum) pointed out, she would hardly have been talking about her difficult labor to the (then) queen, who was pregnant with Edward of Lancaster.

Wilkinson goes on to expand upon the legends about Richard's birth as if More's repeating parts of Rous validated Rous's testimony (rather than Rous's "testimony" giving More food for his fictional depiction of Richard). From there she discusses legends associated with "natal teeth" (at least admitting that Richard was probably not born with a full set of teeth as implied by Rous and openly stated by Shakespeare), but she goes on to suggest that if he were, he might have had a cleft palate (a suggestion not even his worst enemies have made until this book).

To me, all this smacks of Desmond Seward ("The Difficult Birth"), though admittedly "Sewer(d)" (as someone recently referred to him in the Ricardian Register), makes Richard's birth appear much more sinister than Wilkinson does. But, to me, she's making a great deal out of nothing. All we really know is his birth date, his birthplace, his mother's age, and the fact that she had previously borne nine of children, four of whom died in infancy or childhood. Unless we count his real birth sign being Libra (the rising sign, for what it's worth, is unknowable), that's all we have. If she were discussing the so-called sources and their effect on the legend (or the credulity of contemporary readers) these digressions might have some value, but in terms of what they tell us about the real Richard as an infant or as prognostications of his future, their value is exactly zero.

My theory is that Wilkinson did a lot of tangential research on such topics as astrology, natal teeth, and saints' lives and could not resist throwing it into her "biography."

The rest of the sample, except for a bit on baptism and naming which is somewhat interesting and relevant, is background on Richard's parents and the WOTR, very illogically organized (Wilkinson organizes by association, the "oh. that reminds me" organization that we frequently encounter in conversations--and in posts in this forum that veer off track, mine among them). She also has an unfortunate tendency to allude to Shakespeare.

Admittedly, I am judging her book by its first chapters, but I am emphatically not impressed. I can't condemn her for having a PhD in literature rather than history (so do I, and so did Paul Murray Kendall, still Richard's best biographer despite being outdated in a few respects), but she should not confuse the two subjects. She's trying to write a biography of the real Richard III, not of Shakespeare's fictional monstrosity, after all.

Carol

Forgot to say...I did enjoy Wilkinsons' book on the Princes..I have not read the other one as all the talk about saints put me off.. Re Richard's acquisitivness ..well no doubt he was..what's the problem with that? Perfectly normal trait for,the times he lived on and I dare say he was not half as bad as others...didn't he refuse a gift of money from someone...the city of York maybe?...as he wanted to have their love,rather then the cash...it was after all the medieval equivalent of stock and shares plus the fact that sometimes giving away the material wealth of some people stopped them funding rebellion etc., Would this not have been the case with the Countess of Oxford?Eileen

I agree with your other post Eileen; lots of people came to love their spouses very much which says a lot for arranged marriages and, of course, a lot of them had known one another through their families for years, so not quite like a whirlwind romance from a meeting on the bus where you don't know one another's bad points! I'm sure they had a say to find an alternative if families knew they really wouldn't get on. I personally don't find the mistress bit morally wrong because times were different and it was an accepted thing but I know others on here find it hard. Re the Countess of Oxford, what JW says very fairly is that firstly it was Edward asking Richard to do this and secondly, whoever did it it was a sensible measure as she would be tempted to use her monies to help the opposition in the form of her exiled son. What mother could resist? H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 January 2015, 12:55
Subject: Re: Latest from Josephine Wilkinson.

Forgot to say...I did enjoy Wilkinsons' book on the Princes..I have not read the other one as all the talk about saints put me off.. Re Richard's acquisitivness ..well no doubt he was..what's the problem with that? Perfectly normal trait for,the times he lived on and I dare say he was not half as bad as others...didn't he refuse a gift of money from someone...the city of York maybe?...as he wanted to have their love,rather then the cash...it was after all the medieval equivalent of stock and shares plus the fact that sometimes giving away the material wealth of some people stopped them funding rebellion etc., Would this not have been the case with the Countess of Oxford?Eileen

Well I guess that marriages then were similar in some ways as we have today...except that people didn't walk so much..and why would you if it were purely a business arrangement..in that some can last six months some last a lifetime.
re the possibility of Richard having mistresses..it's not that I would hold it against him if he had...oh no...after all if you are in a loveless/unhappy marriage it would be very human to seek love, comfort and solace outside that marriage and I would not blame anyone who went down that path..definitely not. However, as I have pointed out here on numerous occasions while there are indications that Richard's marriage was successful..and therefore the more unlikely that he would take a mistress but no real tangible indication that it was not. I discount the Hooper ring story... I'm also of the opinion that if he had we would know quite clearly...picture, for example, the field day our friend Rous would have had if Richard was doing a wrong 'un against a Neville..as well as old Croyland...I mean if he was upset about people merely exchanging dresses at Crimbo can you imagine the fuss he would have kicked up if Richard had been playing away...
Off on a tanget here..but I've been attempting to post about the bbc production of Wolf Hall..however when I try to start a new topic I then cannot see the message Im typing...Doh...soooooo frustrating! Eileen

Hilary wrote :

Firstly, she has a First and Ph.D in History from Newcastle, it's PG who is Eng Lit. So that makes her better qualified to write on history than some who write a lot about Richard. [snip] I'm sorry you didn't read more of her first book Carol. I agree someone must have told her to pad it out with detail about fifteenth century life, no bad thing if you're not familiar with the period and the saint thing does become tedious. But the detail about, for example the Courtenay/Hungerford trial is useful and relevant. Yes, Richard was acquisitive as is seen from his cartulary, but so were the majority of upper and middle classes of the fifteenth century and he has the excuse of a very uncertain childhood. The currency of the day was land. She actually defends him in the case of the Countess of Oxford and I would agree with her entirely about his marriage - apart from Edward and EW and later Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (and look how disasterous those were) I have yet to find a medieval 'love' match. Plenty of abductions for land, yes. [snip] I doubt we shall agree on this book, mainly I think because of the mistress issue (which I tend to believe) but I would really recommend her book on the Princes. There has been no more concise or accurate analysis of the issue than this (apart from she gets the Stillington thing wrong like everyone else) and there is no way you can say she is in the least hostile towards Richard. It is also devoid of padding unlike the first book. You really do wrong her when you compare her with Seward, or Hicks at his worst."

Carol responds:

My apologies for getting her degree wrong. I didn't exactly compare her with Seward; I only said that her first chapter reminded me of his. I'm glad you agree that she's fond of digressions, which I found distracting, and you're quite correct that I will never agree with you on the mistress thing, which would make Richard the hypocrite that Vergil accused him of being.

I did sample the "Princes" book (they weren't "princes," of course, but we all know that). My chief complaint in the sample so far is that she presents the (not always consistent) accounts of Croyland and Mancini as factual without so much as mentioning the problem of accepting biased accounts of persons not present at the events recounted as accurate (in particular the invented dialogue in Mancini). She's far from the only historian who does so, but I would appreciate at least an occasional "according to Mancini" to indicate that the quotations are not necessarily accurate. Her assumption that Richard arrived late at North Hampton has no basis that I know of, and she presents his actions in arresting Rivers et al. as essentially unwarranted.

At least, it does appear that she doesn't assume that the "princes" were murdered. I'll be interested in her theory of what happened to them. But I'm disappointed in her account of Stony Stratford, which, to quote Yogi Berra (a New York Yankees baseball player from the 1950s) is "déjà vu all over again." She's not what I'm looking for in a biographer. I want someone who critically analyzes the sources rather than quoting or paraphrasing their accounts without commentary as to reliability or alternate interpretations of events.(Then, again, she'd probably give us a detailed digression if she attempted such a thing!)

Speaking of flights of fancy, that term perfectly describes Mancini's account of events at Stony Stratford, complete with imaginary dialogue which she treats as factual.

Let's just say that Wilkinson is not my cup of tea and that I disagree with her, so far as I can determine, on a number of points and particularly with her approach. I did find the segment on Edward Prince of Wales's upbringing interesting, though, of course, I'd read much of it before.

Carol

Hilary wrote: "I have yet to find a medieval love match'

Carol responds:

What about Cecily Plantagenet, Edward IV's daughter, and Thomas Kyme?

Carol

Same here; the book information just says that it is not yet published. I don't know what the delay is but maybe it will be forthcoming after the internment.