Excerpts from George Buck

   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

Ah, Karen, but Buck wrote it on April 1st...!
From:
mailto:
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 1:13 PM
To:
Subject: Excerpts from George Buck

I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut
tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

I must admit that I have not heard that Richard was trying to divorce Anne. I believe that there is some story about him sending to Portugal to arrange the marriages before Anne died but whether there is any contemporary evidence to prove this I am not sure. The letter from Elizabeth to John Howard, if it ever existed, has in my opinion been misinterpreted. I think that they knew it was only a matter of time before Anne died and Elizabeth was urgently wanting to be married to Manuel so that if Tudor arrived in England she wouldn't have to marry him.However, that is just my opinion and I could not state it as fact. The thing about Buck is that we do not have any evidence to back up what he says.I don't think for one minute that Richard was a saint but he was a human being and not the evil tyrant portrayed by More and Shakespeare. He did a lot for ordinary people and made their lives a lot easier in some instances and that is what annoyed the the greedy, covetous nobles of that time. There isn't any evidence whatsoever to prove that he killed Edward of Lancaster indeed I believe the Divisie Chronicle? says that he was killed fleeing the Battle of Tewkesbury. If Henry VI was murdered then Edward was probably to blame. There isn't any evidence to prove that he murdered the Princes in the Tower in fact any bits evidence seem to point to them or at least one of them surviving.Mary

====
On Apr 1, 2017 10:22 AM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
 

Ah, Karen, but Buck wrote it on April 1st...!
 
From:
mailto:@ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 1:13 PM
To:
@ yahoogroups.com
Subject: Excerpts from George Buck
 

   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut
tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

Just read in Wiki ( I know) that Buck left his History of R3 unfinished and his nephew extensively altered it and published it as his own work. That rings a bell didn't something similar happen to More's History of R3?Mary

Weird that someone contemplating divorce should shut himself up for three days grief stricken, when the lady he was planning to divorce died. Buck also tells the tale of the love letter Elizabeth is supposed to have written in which she spoke of her love for the king. Teenager hero worshipping perhaps, nothing more. If true.Knowing Richard's religious faith, and the fact he needed to get a papal dispensation to marry his second cousin, it is for me totally ludicrous that he ever once contemplated marrying his brother's bastard. As it is she was about to be palmed off on the son of the Portuguese king as part of the deal in which Richard would marry the Portuguese princess Joanna, something I am certain the dying Queen Anne would have approved of.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 1 avr. 2017 à 14:13, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :
I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

I knew that. Mostly he seems to have paraphrased and shortened it.
On Apr 1, 2017 11:49 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:
 
Just read in Wiki ( I know) that Buck left his History of R3 unfinished and his nephew extensively altered it and published it as his own work. That rings a bell didn't something similar happen to More's History of R3?Mary

Karen
wrote:
 I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in
Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians
but I am brave.1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the
coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in
a procession)2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before
Parliament before he accepts the crown.3. Buck is an apologist of Richard
but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady
Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her
(true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me
Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never
know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide
behind a wall to escape the bombs.
Doug here:
I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would
be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's
speech to Parliament.
As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey
Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about
the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to
marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it
meant were two different things entirely.
We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a
possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a
marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of
Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard
and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The
most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about
Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly
related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not
personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with
some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has
transformed rumor into fact.
As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it
would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early
months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being
discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how
immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.
Doug
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
   Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.
On Apr 1, 2017 12:55 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

 
 
 
Karen
wrote:
   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in
Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians
but I am brave.1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the
coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in
a procession)2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before
Parliament before he accepts the crown.3. Buck is an apologist of Richard
but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady
Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her
(true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me
Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never
know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide
behind a wall to escape the bombs.
Doug here:
I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would
be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's
speech to Parliament.
As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey
Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about
the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to
marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it
meant were two different things entirely.
We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a
possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a
marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of
Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard
and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The
most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about
Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly
related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not
personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with
some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has
transformed rumor into fact.
As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it
would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early
months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being
discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how
immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.
Doug
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Maybe some of the things that draw us to Richard over the centuries, would have had the same effect upon his niece? He was still a young man, good looking, a widower soaked in tragedy, brave, intelligent, and even though they were uncle and niece,
they can't have known each other very well because he spent so much time in the north. Meeting him again after 1483 could well have had a powerful effect upon Elizabeth. Because he might not have seemed like an uncle.
Aha, I hear you say, that pesky novelist is off again, but I don't think it takes a novelist to see a conclusion to be drawn regarding Elizabeth and Richard. That is NOT to say I think he would have been similarly affected by her. I suspect the fact that
she was his brother's daughter would have prevented him from seeing her as anything but a beautiful young niece for whom he had sworn to find a husband. And with all the unhappiness and trouble surrounding him at the time, maybe bonking was the last thing
on his mind!
Or, of course, he was everything Karen reads into Buck's assessment.
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 6:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck

Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.

Karen I don't believe in Saint Richard either, these were times different to ours. But think through the logic. Yes, Richard would know that Anne was dying, but the natural choice of queen for an English king was a foreign bride - someone like Philippa of Hainault who had produced a brace of sons. Edward IV had caused chaos by choosing the wrong English wifeWhy on earth would Richard chose the illegitimate daughter of his brother? Yes, there is the theory that he pretended to favour her to make HT believe she was not an appropriate bride (which is one Philippa Gregory picks up in her novels) but there is nothing to say he intended ever to marry her. In the fifteenth century people married for dynastic reasons, not love. And there is more than a suggestion that in fact Edward never really intended his marriage to EW to be legitimised.As for Elizabeth of York, there is nothing to suggest from her portraits (unlike her mother) or her later gambling habits, that she was anything other than a rather vapid pawn. She certainly lacks the character of either her grandmother, mother, her sister or MB.But you need not go into hiding, we need to challenge everything so that when we are tested we have an answer. H From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> To: Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017, 18:16 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.
On Apr 1, 2017 12:55 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
Karen
wrote:
 I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in
Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians
but I am brave.1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the
coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in
a procession)2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before
Parliament before he accepts the crown.3. Buck is an apologist of Richard
but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady
Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her
(true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me
Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never
know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide
behind a wall to escape the bombs.
Doug here:
I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would
be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's
speech to Parliament.
As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey
Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about
the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to
marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it
meant were two different things entirely.
We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a
possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a
marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of
Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard
and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The
most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about
Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly
related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not
personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with
some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has
transformed rumor into fact.
As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it
would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early
months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being
discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how
immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.
Doug
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Absolutely Sandra. If he looked like we now believe him to have looked then an eighteen year old 'Jane Austen' who had just been rejected herself and who had hardly ever met him could be forgiven for having a crush on him. She was after all daddy's girl. H From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017, 18:52 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
Maybe some of the things that draw us to Richard over the centuries, would have had the same effect upon his niece? He was still a young man, good looking, a widower soaked in tragedy, brave, intelligent, and even though they were uncle and niece,
they can't have known each other very well because he spent so much time in the north. Meeting him again after 1483 could well have had a powerful effect upon Elizabeth. Because he might not have seemed like an uncle.
Aha, I hear you say, that pesky novelist is off again, but I don't think it takes a novelist to see a conclusion to be drawn regarding Elizabeth and Richard. That is NOT to say I think he would have been similarly affected by her. I suspect the fact that
she was his brother's daughter would have prevented him from seeing her as anything but a beautiful young niece for whom he had sworn to find a husband. And with all the unhappiness and trouble surrounding him at the time, maybe bonking was the last thing
on his mind!
Or, of course, he was everything Karen reads into Buck's assessment.
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 6:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.

As soon as it was know that Anne's illness was terminal then feelers/negotiations would have been put in place for a replacement for her. This was not something Richard would have done personally or maybe even wished for. It was cruel necessity and Richard's duty. It would have been done by his council/advisers. It would have been time consuming so the ball needed to get rolling asap. It was imperative that Richard marry as soon as possible after Anne's demise and beget a heir to the throne. Anne herself would have known this.

Yes Mary..Buck died insane..poor man. He never finished his History of Richard lll but his nephew added to it and published it as his own work.

Karen
wrote:
Well
a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the
talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do
that.'
Doug
here:
What
information do you have to support your thesis that Richard was lying
about his plans to marry Elizabeth? Because we do have factual information that
Richard, via his Council, had begun negotiations with the Portuguese King for
marriages between Richard and Joanna and Elizabeth and Manuel.
That
the talk was pretty rampant only means that there was talk and it was
heard by people who wrote down what they'd heard, complained publicly about what
the same or both. It says nothing about whether the rumors were
true.
I
have no idea about what Saint Richard would do but, based on Richard actions
before and after he became king, I think I can safely say one thing he
wouldn't have done is marry his brother's bastard.
If
only because there was nothing in it for him.
Karen
concluded: I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't
know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be
true. Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about
too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her
beauty.
Doug
here:
Whether or not the rumors were utterly false can be proven by the actions
of Richard and his Council in their negotiations with the Portuguese. Why
initiate marriage negotiations, which was what Richard and the Council
did, if there was no intention to follow through with the proposed
marriages? What was to be gained by such tactics? England and Portugal had a
thriving reciprocal trade; why endanger that trade if there was no intention to
carry out the proposed marriages?
When one looks at the situation in England, the same question arises: What
did Richard have to gain from a marriage with his niece? Solidify his support
amongst the Woodvilles and the few Edwardians who remained, quietly, on the
sidelines? Because that's all such a marriage would accomplish. Then there'd be
all the opposition such a marriage would generate; the same sort of opposition
that his brother's marriage to Elizabeth's mother generated. Nor would a
marriage with Elizabeth provide any substantial dowry of money or lands that
might justify such an action on Richard's part.
Because, and this is something many tend to forget, Richard almost
certainly married Anne for her money and lands and the power they would give
him; while Anne likely married Richard mostly to get away from her
brother-in-law, George, Duke of Clarence. Then there's the point that, if Anne
had to marry someone, and sooner or later Edward would find someone to
be her husband, marrying the youngest brother of the King certainly had its'
advantages. I sincerely doubt either Richard or Anne ever expected a marriage
based on a passionate love for their partner, but rather expected a marriage
that would be based on a respect for one's partner that, with time and luck,
would develop over time into, at the least, a deep affection and, possibly,
love.
There's also Richard's choices when he did stray, none of which leads us to
believe that he'd be subject to any spectacular beauty. In fact, he seemed to
prefer women of his own age or older; neither of which applied to Elizabeth.
This is not to say Richard may not have appreciated Elizabeth's physical charms,
but rather that such attributes weren't what he found most attractive in a
partner.
I also find it interesting that all the references to Elizabeth's
outstanding beauty are from opponent's of Richard. It's almost as if it's an
attempt to show that Richard passed up a great catch; while, of course,
condemning him for supposedly considering a marriage with that spectacular
beauty. Odd that, don't you think?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

This is certainly a stupid question, but has there been a study of the Portuguese side of the equation?


> On Apr 2, 2017, at 9:30 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
>
> here:

Yes, by Barrie Williams in the 1982
Ricardian.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 02 April 2017 15:38
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck


This is
certainly a stupid question, but has there been a study of the Portuguese side
of the equation?

> On Apr 2, 2017, at 9:30 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] < >
wrote:
>
> here:

Pamela wrote:
"This is certainly a stupid question, but has there been a study of the
Portuguese side of the equation?"

Doug here:
All the information I've garnered about the proposed marriages comes either
from posts here, by Maria Torres I believe, and from Annette Carson.
The Portuguese marriage is mentioned on pages 259-260 in my paperback
edition of "The Maligned King" and the source is given as a "Barrie
Williams."
Other than that, I don't know of any specific paper/monograph/book about the
Portuguese marriages, sorry.
Doug


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thank you Doug and Stephen.

On Apr 2, 2017, at 9:54 AM, 'Doug Stamate'
destama@... [] <> wrote:



Pamela wrote:
"This is certainly a stupid question, but has there been a study of the
Portuguese side of the equation?"

Doug here:
All the information I've garnered about the proposed marriages comes either
from posts here, by Maria Torres I believe, and from Annette Carson.
The Portuguese marriage is mentioned on pages 259-260 in my paperback
edition of "The Maligned King" and the source is given as a "Barrie
Williams."
Other than that, I don't know of any specific paper/monograph/book about the
Portuguese marriages, sorry.
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth, hungry for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty. Big mistake.
On Apr 1, 2017 3:24 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 
Karen I don't believe in Saint Richard either, these were times different to ours. But think through the logic. Yes, Richard would know that Anne was dying, but the natural choice of queen for an English king was a foreign bride - someone like Philippa of Hainault who had produced a brace of sons. Edward IV had caused chaos by choosing the wrong English wifeWhy on earth would Richard chose the illegitimate daughter of his brother? Yes, there is the theory that he pretended to favour her to make HT believe she was not an appropriate bride (which is one Philippa Gregory picks up in her novels) but there is nothing to say he intended ever to marry her. In the fifteenth century people married for dynastic reasons, not love. And there is more than a suggestion that in fact Edward never really intended his marriage to EW to be legitimised.As for Elizabeth of York, there is nothing to suggest from her portraits (unlike her mother) or her later gambling habits, that she was anything other than a rather vapid pawn. She certainly lacks the character of either her grandmother, mother, her sister or MB.But you need not go into hiding, we need to challenge everything so that when we are tested we have an answer. H From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017, 18:16 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
 
Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
   Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.
On Apr 1, 2017 12:55 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
 
 
 
Karen
wrote:
   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in
Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians
but I am brave.1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the
coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in
a procession)2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before
Parliament before he accepts the crown.3. Buck is an apologist of Richard
but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady
Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her
(true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me
Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never
know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide
behind a wall to escape the bombs.
Doug here:
I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would
be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's
speech to Parliament.
As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey
Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about
the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to
marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it
meant were two different things entirely.
We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a
possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a
marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of
Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard
and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The
most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about
Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly
related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not
personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with
some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has
transformed rumor into fact.
As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it
would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early
months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being
discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how
immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.
Doug
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

We KNOW from Williams' research that
Richard's marriage to Joanna and Elizabeth 's
to Manuel were to be simultaneous and part of the same transaction. Buck has
the wrong end of the stick.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 02 April 2017 16:12
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
III Society Forum] Excerpts from George Buck


You have
misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours
himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial
is the truth. He never intended marriage but
Elizabeth , hungry for a return to her status
might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty.
Big mistake.

On Apr 1, 2017 3:24 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...
[]" <>
wrote:

Karen
I don't believe in Saint Richard either, these were times different to ours.
But think through the logic. Yes, Richard would know that Anne was dying, but
the natural choice of queen for an English king was a foreign bride - someone
like Philippa of Hainault who had produced a brace of sons. Edward IV had
caused chaos by choosing the wrong English wife
Why
on earth would Richard chose the illegitimate daughter of his brother? Yes,
there is the theory that he pretended to favour her to make HT believe she was
not an appropriate bride (which is one Philippa Gregory picks up in her novels)
but there is nothing to say he intended ever to marry her. In the fifteenth
century people married for dynastic reasons, not love. And there is more than a
suggestion that in fact Edward never really intended his marriage to EW to be
legitimised.
As
for Elizabeth of York, there is nothing to suggest from her portraits (unlike
her mother) or her later gambling habits, that she was anything other than a
rather vapid pawn. She certainly lacks the character of either her grandmother,
mother, her sister or MB.
But
you need not go into hiding, we need to challenge everything so that when we
are tested we have an answer. H


From: "Karen O karenoder4@...
[]" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017,
18:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [Richard
III Society Forum] Excerpts from George Buck



Well
a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that
the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would
never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they
were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I
just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her
beauty and its power.

On
Apr 1, 2017 12:55 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:







Karen
wrote:

I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in
Ohio . You cannot buy this book. I know this
topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in
London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't
Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he
accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into
divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had
any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in
Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims
Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never
know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide
behind a wall to escape the bombs.
Doug
here:
I
see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would be
interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's speech to
Parliament.
As
for the third point, Annette Carson
(I believe) and Audrey Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone
into some detail about the contents of the letter that supposedly
shows Elizabeth
was going to marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought
it meant were two different things entirely.
We
know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a possible
marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of
Portugal , as well as a marriage
between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of Portugal. No
one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard and
Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The most
likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about
Richard's and
Elizabeth 's
proposed future marri=ages. Possibly related by servants as they went about
their duties, or underlings not personally present at the meetings when the
marriages were discussed, but with some idea of what the meetings. And, of
course, Tudor propaganda since has transformed rumor into fact.
As
for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it would have been
for someone in Elizabeth 's
position, especially during the early months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and
following birth of a child from being discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely
playing to his French audience by showing how immoral the English were, up to
and including they royalty.
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

As I've already mentioned a good half of Buck's book was written by his great nephew after his death.But where does this idea come from that EofY was a 'spectacular beauty'?

Eileen: But where does this idea come from that EofY was a 'spectacular beauty'?
Sandra: Her diary? That's how we know Henry was so handsome.
.

I read where an ambassador said her portrait did not come close to the full extent of her beauty.
On Apr 2, 2017 12:05 PM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
 

 
Eileen: But where does this idea come from that EofY was a 'spectacular beauty'? 
 
Sandra: Her diary? That's how we know Henry was so handsome.
 
.

Well I guess she would have had youth on her side so that would have been helpful.

Yep Sandra we know he was a handsome chap. Consumptive looking with a few blackened teeth..what's not to like?

One small point. If you see EOYs wrtiting she can hardly write her name. How could she have written that letter? And it's not the sort of thing you'd dictate particularly at that time. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Sunday, April 2, 2017, 6:14 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Yep Sandra we know he was a handsome chap. Consumptive looking with a few blackened teeth..what's not to like?

Maybe Mama wrote it for her..I wouldn't put it past her..joking..I really have serious doubts about this letter's existence.

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:27 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

One small point. If you see EOYs wrtiting she can hardly write her name. How could she have written that letter? And it's not the sort of thing you'd dictate particularly at that time. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Sunday, April 2, 2017, 6:14 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@googlemail. com [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Yep Sandra we know he was a handsome chap.  Consumptive looking with a few blackened teeth..what's not to like?

Eileen
wrote:
As
I've already mentioned a good half of Buck's book was written by his great
nephew after his death.
But where does this idea come from that EofY was a 'spectacular
beauty'?
Doug here:
I have the same question. While I doubt her appearance caused shudders of
revulsion, I've never seen anything to support her being a spectacular beauty
 unless, perhaps in novels?
Undoubtedly her appearance was improved by wearing a crown, but that's
often been noted...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen
wrote:
You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was
fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT.
His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth, hungry
for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone
to believe in their beauty. Big mistake.
Doug here:
I'm starting to have serious doubts about Sir George (or, more
likely, his nephew).
Mostly because there wasn't any betrothal between HT and
EoY, only a promise made by HT to marry EoY. An actual betrothal would require
the consent of both parties buttressed by various legal documents, none of
which, as far as I know, ever existed.
And the idea that it was so necessary for Richard to stamp on any
idea of HT marrying EoY that he had to marry her himself is, frankly,
ridiculous. I rather wonder if this isn't yet another example of making past
events fit into what we know happened? It did turn out that EoY was of
great importance to HT, as he'd likely have lost his throne had he not married
her, but that wasn't true in 1485 and wasn't known by those involved. EoY only
really became important after Bosworth when HT not only claimed the
throne by conquest, but made the deaths of EoY's brothers official policy; thus
making her the oldest heir, albeit female, of Edward IV.
And if Richard really was that fearful of HT marrying EoY, all he
needed to do was find her a suitable husband; which wouldn't have been
difficult. After all, marriage to a member of the royal family, even an
illegitimate member, would have been a marital coup for almost any
family.
FWIW, I found the following link that had quite a few copies of
Buck's History for sale:
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=History+Life+Reigne+Richard+Third
Some are used, but some seem to be new and the price/s didn't seem
to be outrageous.
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
One
small point. If you see EOYs wrtiting she can hardly write her name. How could
she have written that letter? And it's not the sort of thing you'd dictate
particularly at that time.
Doug
here:
...she
can hardly write her name.
Might
that explain Buck's likely misinterpretation of her letter to Norfolk? Spelling
was still somewhat, um, fluid at that time, and if one adds to that the writer's
lack of skill in both penmanship and spelling...
Doug
(Who
isn't averse to Eileen's idea that EW may have written the letter for her
daughter. Do we know where EW was; physically, I
mean?)--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen
wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill
says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the
Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was
about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea
that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:Also could the great changing gown controversy
be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another
ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's
Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities
such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and
outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort
of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is Good Old Croyland having his usual dig at Richard....what a total old misery guts and anything to blacken Richard's name. Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless fun. Even then some people cant make their minds up..was Richard's court a den of iniquity with all this, good grief, gown changing stuff going on or was he puritanical..please will they make their minds up.

So it's down to novelists again? Oh dear, I had no idea we were so exceedingly influential that the forum is obliged to make frequent mention of us. Clearly we were at Richard's elbow, advising him on his every move. Of course, Elizabeth's apparent
beauty may have something to to do with the misuse/misinterpretation of the the word fair. Or again, there's her funeral effigy, which certainly suggests she was easy on the eye. Well, some eyes. If she was plain, you can bet your bottom dollar
that at least one of the misogynistic chroniclers would delight in saying so. As to her writing, well, yes, it's dodgy. So was her sister Cicely's, which is right next to hers on a document.
Two royal dumb-clucks who had no education? We may never know, except that I have recently discovered (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_15_d_ii)
that Cicely and her husband, Lord Welles, had a considerable library of books of all kinds, one of which was inscribed with her name. So that one at least was definitely hers. The absence of her name in others (or failure to mention it) doesn't automatically
mean the rest were all her husband's. Yes, she might have simply flipped the pages, or had them read to her. Then again, maybe she read them herself. A wobbly signature doesn't necessarily mean an inability to read or write. Maybe it was the quill that was
unsteady, not the hand that wrote with it.
So please, don't blame novelists for everything. And it isn't fair to condemn 15th-century princesses on the strength of a signature. Trying reading the signature of your average present-day GP! Someone 500 years from now might judge
them to have been only capable of meaningless squiggles.
Doug here:
I have the same question. While I doubt her appearance caused shudders of revulsion, I've never seen anything to support her being a spectacular beauty  unless, perhaps in novels?
Undoubtedly her appearance was improved by wearing a crown, but that's often been noted...

Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously. However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Karen
wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill
says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the
Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was
about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea
that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:Also could the great changing gown controversy
be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another
ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's
Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities
such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and
outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort
of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

15th century ladies (and probably earlier) could certainly read well and own books. I cant remember the source but EoY co-signed a book with Richard. Maybe he gifted it to her. A book owned by Richard the Booke of Gostlye Grace was co-owned with his wife. The signature of R Gloucestre and Anne warrewyk are on the flyleaf although this could possibly be Anne Beauchamp's, his mother in law's signature. We do know that Anne Neville read and shared her books with her mother in law, Cicely. Mary of Burgundy had an impressive library. I should imagine that reading was a way for these ladies to pass the time. Anne Neville is described as 'bookish' in Richard lll's books by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs. Does being able to read assume that you can also write? I dont know. However, and this is purely speculation, did these ladies actually need to write much if ever? We certainly know they sent letters - Anne Beauchamp from sanctuary complaining bitterly about her treatment, Cicely wrote to Margaret of Anjou, MB to her son, unfortunately etc, But were these letters on the whole dictated to medieval versions of secretaries? Its hard to imagine them, bent over, struggling with quills, and inky fingers when someone else can do it far better anyway.More importantly did EoY write this letter to Norfolk as described by Buck or not. Had Buck lost the plot. Did his nephew make it up as he went along? Did the letter actually exist and been misconstrued by Buck? Was it a figment of his imagination? Would EofY been daft enough to put pen to paper or even more dafter get someone else to put pen to paper complaining that the Queen was taking too long to die and could Norfolk please get everyone to get a move on with her proposed nuptials to the King who was everything, everything in the whole wide world to her. Well I dont think so but there you go. Maybe she was indeed daft and shallow..her privy purse accounts dont really show much in the way of book purchases but certainly a lot of gambling debts.

If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously.  However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


 
 
Karen
wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill
says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the
Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was
about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea
that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:Also could the great changing gown controversy
be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another
ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's
Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities
such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and
outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort
of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sandra wrote:
So it's down to novelists again? Oh dear, I had no idea we were
so exceedingly influential that the forum is obliged to make frequent mention of
us. Clearly we were at Richard's elbow, advising him on his every move. Of
course, Elizabeth's apparent beauty may have something to to do
with the misuse/misinterpretation of the the word fair. Or again, there's her
funeral effigy, which certainly suggests she was easy on the eye. Well, some
eyes. If she was plain, you can bet your bottom dollar that at least one
of the misogynistic chroniclers would delight in saying so. As to her writing,
well, yes, it's dodgy. So was her sister Cicely's, which is right next to hers
on a document.
Two royal dumb-clucks who had no education? We may never know, except that
I have recently discovered (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_15_d_ii)
that Cicely and her husband, Lord Welles, had a considerable library of books of
all kinds, one of which was inscribed with her name. So that one at least was
definitely hers. The absence of her name in others (or failure to mention it)
doesn't automatically mean the rest were all her husband's. Yes, she might
have simply flipped the pages, or had them read to her. Then again, maybe she
read them herself. A wobbly signature doesn't necessarily mean an inability to
read or write. Maybe it was the quill that was unsteady, not the hand that wrote
with it.
So please, don't blame novelists for everything. And it isn't fair to
condemn 15th-century princesses on the strength of a signature. Trying reading
the signature of your average present-day GP! Someone 500 years from now
might judge them to have been only capable of meaningless
squiggles.
Doug here:
Heavens to Betsy! It's a good thing I only wrote
...perhaps in novels?!
At any rate, thank you for the link and the other information.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is Good Old Croyland having his usual dig
at Richard....what a total old misery guts and anything to blacken
Richard's name. Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless
fun. Even then some people cant make their minds up..was Richard's court a
den of iniquity with all this, good grief, gown changing stuff going on or
was he puritanical..please will they make their minds up.
Doug here:
Maybe they they were puritanical
degenerates? You know, the sort of people who do all kinds of vile, disgusting
things, but don't really enjoy it? (I know, it doesn't make any sense, but then
neither does Croyland half the time!).
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

It's OK, Doug. My cage was rattled, but I didn't actually break loose! So I'm not prowling around the ether, waiting to pounce. [Winking smile]



Doug here:
Heavens to Betsy! It's a good thing I only wrote ...perhaps in novels?!
At any rate, thank you for the link and the other information.
Doug

Hilary
wrote:
Great
ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They
could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they
could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated
woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could
crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen
signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII
about the education of women that it was taken very seriously. However for
the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged
until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean
rebellion.
Doug
here:
Might
whether or not the lady in question performed administerial duties also have a
bearing on her ability to write? Much would depend on how neatly she could write
but, as an administratrix there'd certainly be some documents she would want to
not only compose herself, but also put on paper herself. Things such as letters
to relatives or letters to others of equal, or greater, status? I seem to recall
a phrase, something on the order of given under my own hand included in
letters. Would that be a possible reference to the sender having actually
written the letter itself? Or have I, again, gotten one thing confused with
another?
Hilary
concluded:
So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had
the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a
cleric.
Doug here:
Considering that EoY would, whatever happened to her, likely never be in a
position where she'd actually be required to write more than her name, and
considering that learning to write legibly takes practice and effort, why should
she bother? If she ever wanted to personally write to someone, most likely the
recipient wouldn't care about penmanship or spelling  what would matter is the
person who composed and wrote the letter.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sandra wrote:
"It's OK, Doug. My cage was rattled, but I didn't actually break loose! So I'm
not prowling around the ether, waiting to pounce. [Winking smile]"

Doug here:
Whew!
Although to be fair, I really should have written "...perhaps in novels or
plays." After all, the worst damage has been done by Mr. Shakespeare's...
Doug



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I wouldn't like to suggest that all 15th Century women could write, but Margaret Paston certainly could, and she was a lot lower in rank than a princess.Margaret usually apologises for writing in her own hand - for lack of a clerk. This explains a lot, I think.I, for example, rarely write (as such) nowadays. Consequently my handwriting is absymal - it was never copperplate in the first instance - indeed, practically illegible. Yet I was educated to degree standard.Secondly, writing in the middle ages was a messy business. Done with a quill, and with ink that you had to mix yourself. A lot harder as a mechanical task than wielding a Parker. All too easy to get the ink on your hands, or indeed on your very expensive gown. And there were no dry cleaners back then.So, if you were a medieval lady, you might well be able to write, but you usually wouldn't. You would employ your clerk most of the time. And when you do write, due to lack of practice your handwriting will be shaky at best. You would nevertheless be shocked if anyone suggested you were illiterate, just as I would be if anyone suggested that I am.Brian W.

I have looked up Richard's handwriting. There are examples online. Even with a handwriting analysis. Very gothic. Looks like it was done on a word processor it's so beautiful. On Apr 4, 2017 11:40 AM, "wainwright.brian@... []" <> wrote:
 
I wouldn't like to suggest that all 15th Century women could write, but Margaret Paston certainly could, and she was a lot lower in rank than a princess.Margaret usually apologises for writing in her own hand - for lack of a clerk. This explains a lot, I think.I, for example, rarely write (as such) nowadays. Consequently my handwriting is absymal - it was never copperplate in the first instance - indeed, practically illegible. Yet I was educated to degree standard.Secondly, writing in the middle ages was a messy business. Done with a quill, and with ink that you had to mix yourself. A lot harder as a mechanical task than wielding a Parker.  All too easy to get the ink on your hands, or indeed on your very expensive gown. And there were no dry cleaners back then.So, if you were a medieval lady, you might well be able to write, but you usually wouldn't. You would employ your clerk most of the time. And when you do write, due to lack of practice your handwriting will be shaky at best. You would nevertheless be shocked if anyone suggested you were illiterate, just as I would be if anyone suggested that I am.Brian W.

Good points......especially the messiness of fingers, dresses, and quite expensive parchment upon which to write. I wonder if there was arthritis in the more educated populace, as they ate better and lived a tad longer? I can imagine those who performed
the back-breaking day to day activities, had more pain and earlier.
I mourn the loss of penmanship. My aunt was a teacher, and she actually marked up my thank you notes from the time I could write them. I can still write, but not as nicely. And age certainly has taken away my dexterity.

On Apr 4, 2017, at 10:41 AM, wainwright.brian@... [] <> wrote:

I wouldn't like to suggest that all 15th Century women could write, but Margaret Paston certainly could, and she was a lot lower in rank than a princess.

Margaret usually apologises for writing in her own hand - for lack of a clerk. This explains a lot, I think.

I, for example, rarely write (as such) nowadays. Consequently my handwriting is absymal - it was never copperplate in the first instance - indeed, practically illegible. Yet I was educated to degree standard.

Secondly, writing in the middle ages was a messy business. Done with a quill, and with ink that you had to mix yourself. A lot harder as a mechanical task than wielding a Parker. All too easy to get the ink on your hands, or indeed on your
very expensive gown. And there were no dry cleaners back then.

So, if you were a medieval lady, you might well be able to write, but you usually wouldn't. You would employ your clerk most of the time. And when you do write, due to lack of practice your handwriting will be shaky at best. You would nevertheless be shocked
if anyone suggested you were illiterate, just as I would be if anyone suggested that I am.

Brian W.

Eileen
wrote:
15th
century ladies (and probably earlier) could certainly read well and own
books. I cant remember the source but EoY co-signed a book with
Richard. Maybe he gifted it to her. A book owned by Richard the
Booke of Gostlye Grace was co-owned with his wife. The signature of R
Gloucestre and Anne warrewyk are on the flyleaf although this could possibly be
Anne Beauchamp's, his mother in law's signature. We do know
that Anne Neville read and shared her books with her mother in law,
Cicely. Mary of Burgundy had an impressive library. I
should imagine that reading was a way for these ladies to pass the time.
Anne Neville is described as 'bookish' in Richard lll's books by Anne Sutton and
Livia Visser-Fuchs.
Doug
here:
FWIW, I learned to read well before my writing was legible and, mostly,
error-free, so I imagine the same could apply to 15th century ladies. And, just
as with those ladies, I read much more than I write or, what with computers,
type. To be honest, except for posts on the internet, I also would only need to
know how to write my name  and that's in order to sign the checks to pay my
bills! Some things don't seem to change much!
Eileen continued:
Does being able to read assume that you can also write? I dont
know. However, and this is purely speculation, did these ladies actually
need to write much if eve r? We certainly know they sent letters -
Anne Beauchamp from sanctuary complaining bitterly about her treatment, Cicely
wrote to Margaret of Anjou, MB to her son, unfortunately etc, But were
these letters on the whole dictated to medieval versions of secretaries?
Its hard to imagine them, bent over, struggling with quills, and inky fingers
when someone else can do it far better anyway.
Doug here:
I find it interesting that most, if not all, of the women you mentioned
were often likely involved in managing their husbands' property while they were
away, thus giving these ladies a real need to not only know how to write, but
also to actually put pen to paper (parchment?). Lots of things could be
dictated, but letters to husbands, or letters dealing with financial/land
affairs might be viewed as being private and not necessarily something to b
shared with a secretary  however well-trusted!
Eileen concluded:
More importantly did EoY write this letter to Norfolk as described by Buck
or not. Had Buck lost the plot. Did his nephew make it up as he went
along? Did the letter actually exist and been misconstrued by Buck?
Was it a figment of his imagination? Would EofY been daft enough to
put pen to paper or even more dafter get someone else to put pen to paper
complaining that the Queen was taking too long to die and could Norfolk please
get everyone to get a move on with her proposed nuptials to the King who was
everything, everything in the whole wide world to her. Well I dont thi nk
so but there you go. Maybe she was indeed daft and shallow..her privy
purse accounts dont really show much in the way of book purchases but certainly
a lot of gambling debts.
Doug here:
My personal opinion, for what that's worth, is that EoY
did write a letter to Norfolk and that Buck
did see it, or a copy. But there's two things to remember:
while Buck undoubtedly knew about Richard's public disavowal of any intent to
marry EoY; as far as we know, he didn't know about the proposed Portuguese
marriages. Now, if one reads Buck's precis of the letter, and keeping
in mind those proposed marriages, the result, IMO anyway, doesn't support Buck's
conclusion that EoY was angling to marry Richard, but that she was eager for the
proposed marriage take place. With that proposed marriage being the one
between EoY and Manuel of Portugal.
As for EoY's remarks about the queen's lengthy death, and all the while
remembering what we have is Buck's take on what was written, I can think of at
least two possible interpretations. The first is that the knowledge that the
queen was suffering was known to both EoY and Norfolk and left unsaid. In that
context, the remark that queen was taking so long to die would be taken by
Norfolk as a sign of sympathy for Anne's sufferings. The possible second
interpretation is that EoY was simply being a Woodville and looking out for
Number 1.
The fervid (another word I've always wanted to use!) remarks by EoY
concerning Richard are likely no more than polite nothings, as the phrase is.
A 15th century version of sincerely or respectfully, IOW.
Doug
(Who, even though it was fifty years later, still doesn't understand how
those people executed by H8 could stand next to the block and declare their
devotion to the king! Perhaps this was where it started?)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Brian
wrote:
I
wouldn't like to suggest that all 15th
Century women could write, but Margaret Paston certainly could, and she was a
lot lower in rank than a princess.
Margaret usually apologises for writing in her own hand - for lack of a
clerk. This explains a lot, I think.
I, for example, rarely write (as such) nowadays. Consequently my
handwriting is absymal - it was never copperplate in the first instance -
indeed, practically illegible. Yet I was educated to degree standard.
Secondly, writing in the middle ages was a messy business. Done with a
quill, and with ink that you had to mix yourself. A lot harder as a mechanical
task than wielding a Parker. All too easy to get the ink on your hands, or
indeed on your very expensive gown. And
there were no dry cleaners back then.
So, if you were a medieval lady, you mi ght well be able to write, but you
usually wouldn't. You would employ your clerk most of the time. And when you do
write, due to lack of practice your handwriting will be shaky at best. You would
nevertheless be shocked if anyone suggested you were illiterate, just as I would
be if anyone suggested that I am.
Doug here:
Probably the best summary about this topic I've read!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Oh no agreed..certainly not all. Even today we have young people leaving school who cannot read. I did have Margaret Paston in mind too as an example that it was just not the nobility. Luckily the Paston letters have survived as proof and of course the majority havent.

The majority didn't survive.Yes, sad, as the one complaining about "the extra work we had to do, and in bloody secret" when King Richard sent his "bastard nephews" to Burgundy from the Tower!"And because of those bloody Stanleys interfering we never got paid!"Paul:-)Envoyé de mon iPadLe 4 avr. 2017 à 19:38, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
Oh no agreed..certainly not all. Even today we have young people leaving school who cannot read. I did have Margaret Paston in mind too as an example that it was just not the nobility. Luckily the Paston letters have survived as proof and of course the majority havent.

Who was that Paul?

I think in the Tristan romance she writes her name beneath his. They put it in the middle so you wouldn't tear the page out. I guess he'd read it two or three times.On Apr 3, 2017 9:37 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote: If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously.  However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 


 
 
Karen
wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill
says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the
Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was
about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea
that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:Also could the great changing gown controversy
be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another
ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's
Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities
such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and
outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort
of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

As the document has disappeared I can't say! :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 4 avr. 2017 à 21:38, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
Who was that Paul?

Right..Of course some things are so vital to keep secret they never get written down in the first place. But you never know....one of these days...

Remember nobody knew about Titulus Regius until a copy Henry VII's agents hadn't managed to destroy turned up in someone's attic early in the 17th century. It was also only recently when the dispensation for the marriage of Richard and Anne came to light.Who knows what lurks amongst somebody's papers? And how Id love to be able to dive into the Vatican archives!Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 5 Apr 2017, at 11:29, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:Right..Of course some things are so vital to keep secret they never get written down in the first place. But you never know....one of these days...

Mancini wasn't discovered until the 1930s...

Firstly to say I'm sorry that I wrote such a brief thing about ladies and writing. I was away and writing anything lengthy on an IPhone is a pig.What I was trying to say is that there is handwriting and writing. To actually put pen to velum in the Middle Ages was a laborious, messy (if you weren't good at it) and expensive undertaking. If you went wrong you couldn't just screw it up, throw it in the bin and start again. So it was much more sensible to get an expert to do it (cleric, attorney, scrivener) and then put your name to it, hence folk could sign their name but not do much else. We know Richard was well-schooled because of the annotations in his books, but even letters to his mother were dictated and then signed by him - given that as King he probably hadn't got much time anyway. The epitome of this of course is Napoleon would could dictate six letters simultaneously ! Until we get to Henry VIII I haven't seen a full letter in what we know is definitely the handwriting of an individual. (Re the Paston letters, Paston was a lawyer which was useful. Do we know Margaret wrote her own or was it amanuensis again?).I'm not saying that upper class women were uneducated, quite the opposite in a lot of cases, and they did of course 'write' to people. EW at Westminster would no doubt have had access to plenty of people who could pen her letters but if the EOY letter did exist it doesn't seem to me the sort of letter that she would dictate to someone, more likely that, as Eileen joked, someone wrote it for her. I don't buy the reference to Manuel bit, it's way too girlish and why mention the Queen dying which is rather tasteless whichever way you look at it. EOY also later signs her household accounts, but she never annotates them like the men. I don't have her as one of our scholarly queens.I am tending more and more towards the opinion that it was written by someone (if it was written at all) to make mischief in the hope it would cause more trouble for Richard's reputation, either before of after his death. H From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> To: Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 4:48 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
I think in the Tristan romance she writes her name beneath his. They put it in the middle so you wouldn't tear the page out. I guess he'd read it two or three times.On Apr 3, 2017 9:37 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote: If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously. However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
Karen
wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill
says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the
Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was
about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea
that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:Also could the great changing gown controversy
be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another
ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's
Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities
such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and
outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort
of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

If the letter really existed (and the more recent discovery of the Portuguese marriage plans do give it some credibility), it could be a bit of both - a comment Anne's suffering with quite a lot of Woodville self interest thrown in. However, there is something about the tone that doesn't reflect well on her. It is a harsh way of phrasing such a tragic situation; there is no compassion, it just sounds like she wants Anne to hurry up and die because her illness is such an inconvenience to her plans. Whatever etiquette customs were with 15th century letter writing, expressing yourself eloquently was always desirable, and this letter is any thing but that. As for the ending, people did address each other in more flowery terms, but how flowery is too flowery? The comment that she was Richard's 'in body' seems a bit strange. Nico On Tuesday, 4 April 2017, 16:50, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
Eileen
wrote:
15th
century ladies (and probably earlier) could certainly read well and own
books. I cant remember the source but EoY co-signed a book with
Richard. Maybe he gifted it to her. A book owned by Richard the
Booke of Gostlye Grace was co-owned with his wife. The signature of R
Gloucestre and Anne warrewyk are on the flyleaf although this could possibly be
Anne Beauchamp's, his mother in law's signature. We do know
that Anne Neville read and shared her books with her mother in law,
Cicely. Mary of Burgundy had an impressive library. I
should imagine that reading was a way for these ladies to pass the time.
Anne Neville is described as 'bookish' in Richard lll's books by Anne Sutton and
Livia Visser-Fuchs.
Doug
here:
FWIW, I learned to read well before my writing was legible and, mostly,
error-free, so I imagine the same could apply to 15th century ladies. And, just
as with those ladies, I read much more than I write or, what with computers,
type. To be honest, except for posts on the internet, I also would only need to
know how to write my name  and that's in order to sign the checks to pay my
bills! Some things don't seem to change much!
Eileen continued:
Does being able to read assume that you can also write? I dont
know. However, and this is purely speculation, did these ladies actually
need to write much if eve r? We certainly know they sent letters -
Anne Beauchamp from sanctuary complaining bitterly about her treatment, Cicely
wrote to Margaret of Anjou, MB to her son, unfortunately etc, But were
these letters on the whole dictated to medieval versions of secretaries?
Its hard to imagine them, bent over, struggling with quills, and inky fingers
when someone else can do it far better anyway.
Doug here:
I find it interesting that most, if not all, of the women you mentioned
were often likely involved in managing their husbands' property while they were
away, thus giving these ladies a real need to not only know how to write, but
also to actually put pen to paper (parchment?). Lots of things could be
dictated, but letters to husbands, or letters dealing with financial/land
affairs might be viewed as being private and not necessarily something to b
shared with a secretary  however well-trusted!
Eileen concluded:
More importantly did EoY write this letter to Norfolk as described by Buck
or not. Had Buck lost the plot. Did his nephew make it up as he went
along? Did the letter actually exist and been misconstrued by Buck?
Was it a figment of his imagination? Would EofY been daft enough to
put pen to paper or even more dafter get someone else to put pen to paper
complaining that the Queen was taking too long to die and could Norfolk please
get everyone to get a move on with her proposed nuptials to the King who was
everything, everything in the whole wide world to her. Well I dont thi nk
so but there you go. Maybe she was indeed daft and shallow..her privy
purse accounts dont really show much in the way of book purchases but certainly
a lot of gambling debts.
Doug here:
My personal opinion, for what that's worth, is that EoY
did write a letter to Norfolk and that Buck
did see it, or a copy. But there's two things to remember:
while Buck undoubtedly knew about Richard's public disavowal of any intent to
marry EoY; as far as we know, he didn't know about the proposed Portuguese
marriages. Now, if one reads Buck's precis of the letter, and keeping
in mind those proposed marriages, the result, IMO anyway, doesn't support Buck's
conclusion that EoY was angling to marry Richard, but that she was eager for the
proposed marriage take place. With that proposed marriage being the one
between EoY and Manuel of Portugal.
As for EoY's remarks about the queen's lengthy death, and all the while
remembering what we have is Buck's take on what was written, I can think of at
least two possible interpretations. The first is that the knowledge that the
queen was suffering was known to both EoY and Norfolk and left unsaid. In that
context, the remark that queen was taking so long to die would be taken by
Norfolk as a sign of sympathy for Anne's sufferings. The possible second
interpretation is that EoY was simply being a Woodville and looking out for
Number 1.
The fervid (another word I've always wanted to use!) remarks by EoY
concerning Richard are likely no more than polite nothings, as the phrase is.
A 15th century version of sincerely or respectfully, IOW.
Doug
(Who, even though it was fifty years later, still doesn't understand how
those people executed by H8 could stand next to the block and declare their
devotion to the king! Perhaps this was where it started?)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I am reading Annette Carson's book. She provides her modernized version of the letter. The just of it is 'Thank you John Howard for your many kindnesses.Please be a mediator for me to the King In the matter of the proposed marriage. He is my only hope in this world.P.S. It is now mid February and I fear the queen will never die(I.e when will her poor suffering end?) On Apr 6, 2017 6:53 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 
Firstly to say I'm sorry that I wrote such a brief thing about ladies and writing. I was away and writing anything lengthy on an IPhone is a pig.What I was trying to say is that there is handwriting and writing. To actually put pen to velum in the Middle Ages was a laborious, messy (if you weren't good at it) and expensive undertaking. If you went wrong you couldn't just screw it up, throw it in the bin and start again. So it was much more sensible to get an expert to do it (cleric, attorney, scrivener) and then put your name to it, hence folk could sign their name but not do much else. We know Richard was well-schooled because of the annotations in his books, but even letters to his mother were dictated and then signed by him - given that as King he probably hadn't got much time anyway. The epitome of this of course is Napoleon would could dictate six letters simultaneously ! Until we get to Henry VIII I haven't seen a full letter in what we know is definitely the handwriting of an individual.  (Re the Paston letters, Paston was a lawyer which was useful. Do we know Margaret wrote her own or was it amanuensis again?).I'm not saying that upper class women were uneducated, quite the opposite in a lot of cases, and they did of course 'write' to people. EW at Westminster would no doubt have had access to plenty of people who could pen her letters but if the EOY letter did exist it doesn't seem to me the sort of letter that she would dictate to someone, more likely that, as Eileen joked, someone wrote it for her. I don't buy the reference to Manuel bit, it's way too girlish and why mention the Queen dying which is rather tasteless whichever way you look at it. EOY also later signs her household accounts, but she never annotates them like the men. I don't have her as one of our scholarly queens.I am tending more and more towards the opinion that it was written by someone (if it was written at all) to make mischief in the hope it would cause more trouble for Richard's reputation, either before of after his death. H From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 4:48 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
 
I think in the Tristan romance she writes her name beneath his. They put it in the middle so you wouldn't tear the page out. I guess he'd read it two or three times.On Apr 3, 2017 9:37 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously.  However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 
 
 
Karen
wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill
says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the
Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was
about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea
that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:Also could the great changing gown controversy
be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another
ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's
Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities
such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and
outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort
of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Nico
wrote:
If the letter
really existed (and the more recent discovery of the Portuguese marriage plans
do give it some credibility), it could be a bit of both - a comment Anne's
suffering with quite a lot of Woodville self interest thrown in.
However, there is something about the tone that doesn't reflect well on
her. It is a harsh way of phrasing such a tragic situation; there is no
compassion, it just sounds like she wants Anne to hurry up and die because her
illness is such an inconvenience to her plans. Whatever etiquette customs
were with 15th century letter writing, expressing yourself eloquently was always
desirable, and this letter is any thing but
that.
Doug here:
Regarding that tone; one thing we have to always keep in mind is
that the letter we have is actually what Buck understood it to say
and not an exact, word-for-word copy which, needless to say, is a great pity. We
also have to remember that what we have is Buck's memory of what the letter said
and, most importantly, how it was said. I don't find it difficult to
imagine that Buck, after first reading about how Elizabeth first referenced the
business of the marriage, goes to to praise the king and describe her own
devotion to Richard, and finally says something that Buck remembered as
how long it was taking the Queen to die, to come to conclusion that, at least on
Elizabeth's part, there was something to those rumors about Richard and
her marrying.
FWIW, I tend to go along with Dr. Kincaid's idea of what the letter
may have actually (printed on page 259 of the paperback version of The
Maligned King) because of what I wrote above.
Nico concluded:
As for the ending,
people did address each other in more flowery terms, but how flowery is too
flowery? The comment that she was Richard's 'in body' seems a bit
strange.
Doug here:
Might any strangeness about that comment be simply because of the
rumors? EoY was writing to a Duke asking him to intercede on her behalf, but she
may also have wanted to demonstrate that, regardless of what happened, she
remained completely loyal to Richard? After all, if the king tells a subject to
go somewhere or do something, that subject is, usually anyway, expected to
obey.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

How can you say that Richard's letters to his mother were all written by a scribe. At least his letter from 3. June1484 was written " with the hand of your most humble son Ricardus Rex". This letter is so beautifully writtenand IMO looks like he was well practised in using his writing skills.Eva

Hilary, regarding a letter written in an individual's own hand. Circa 1394, Richard Fitzalan, 11th Earl of Arundel, executed 1397, wrote a letter to his brother, Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of York, in which he mentions writing in my own hand'. At least,
that is how I translate the following:-

...Et honuré frere, vous prie chierment que vous vuillés prendre bone garde à la lettre escript de ma mayn quele je vous envoie par le porteur d'ycestes...
I'm prepared to be told I've got it wrong!

Firstly to say I'm sorry that I wrote such a brief thing about ladies and writing. I was away and writing anything lengthy on an IPhone is a pig.
What I was trying to say is that there is handwriting and writing. To actually put pen to velum in the Middle Ages was a laborious, messy (if you weren't good at it) and expensive undertaking. If you
went wrong you couldn't just screw it up, throw it in the bin and start again. So it was much more sensible to get an expert to do it (cleric, attorney, scrivener) and then put your name to it, hence folk could sign their name but not do much else. We know
Richard was well-schooled because of the annotations in his books, but even letters to his mother were dictated and then signed by him - given that as King he probably hadn't got much time anyway. The epitome of this of course is Napoleon would could dictate
six letters simultaneously ! Until we get to Henry VIII I haven't seen a full letter in what we know is definitely the handwriting of an individual. (Re the Paston letters, Paston was a lawyer which was useful. Do we know Margaret wrote her own or was it
amanuensis again?).
I'm not saying that upper class women were uneducated, quite the opposite in a lot of cases, and they did of course 'write' to people. EW at Westminster would no doubt have had access to plenty of people
who could pen her letters but if the EOY letter did exist it doesn't seem to me the sort of letter that she would dictate to someone, more likely that, as Eileen joked, someone wrote it for her. I don't buy the reference to Manuel bit, it's way too girlish
and why mention the Queen dying which is rather tasteless whichever way you look at it. EOY also later signs her household accounts, but she never annotates them like the men. I don't have her as one of our scholarly queens.
I am tending more and more towards the opinion that it was written by someone (if it was written at all) to make mischief in the hope it would cause more trouble for Richard's reputation, either before
of after his death. H
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 4:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck


I think in the Tristan romance she writes her name beneath his. They put it in the middle so you wouldn't tear the page out. I guess he'd read it two or three times.
On Apr 3, 2017 9:37 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []" <mailto:>
wrote:
Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable.
MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry
VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously. However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.
So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate'
destama@... [] <mailto:>
wrote:
Karen wrote:
EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Doug here:
I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.
Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?
Doug here:
Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for
participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I so agree Nico - you've hit the nail on the head.Re the comments below, which I hadn't caught up with, unlike today reading and writing didn't go together. Yes these ladies were indeed learned but it didn't necessarily mean they picked up the quill and splashed their silks - they had someone who took down their communications, amanuensis. It's like the CEO of a company about fifty years' ago - they dictate to secretary who types it up and they sign. Nothing weird about it but if you have servants why not use them, your signature is your endorsement. H From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Thursday, 6 April 2017, 12:14 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
If the letter really existed (and the more recent discovery of the Portuguese marriage plans do give it some credibility), it could be a bit of both - a comment Anne's suffering with quite a lot of Woodville self interest thrown in. However, there is something about the tone that doesn't reflect well on her. It is a harsh way of phrasing such a tragic situation; there is no compassion, it just sounds like she wants Anne to hurry up and die because her illness is such an inconvenience to her plans. Whatever etiquette customs were with 15th century letter writing, expressing yourself eloquently was always desirable, and this letter is any thing but that. As for the ending, people did address each other in more flowery terms, but how flowery is too flowery? The comment that she was Richard's 'in body' seems a bit strange. Nico On Tuesday, 4 April 2017, 16:50, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
Eileen
wrote:
15th
century ladies (and probably earlier) could certainly read well and own
books. I cant remember the source but EoY co-signed a book with
Richard. Maybe he gifted it to her. A book owned by Richard the
Booke of Gostlye Grace was co-owned with his wife. The signature of R
Gloucestre and Anne warrewyk are on the flyleaf although this could possibly be
Anne Beauchamp's, his mother in law's signature. We do know
that Anne Neville read and shared her books with her mother in law,
Cicely. Mary of Burgundy had an impressive library. I
should imagine that reading was a way for these ladies to pass the time.
Anne Neville is described as 'bookish' in Richard lll's books by Anne Sutton and
Livia Visser-Fuchs.
Doug
here:
FWIW, I learned to read well before my writing was legible and, mostly,
error-free, so I imagine the same could apply to 15th century ladies. And, just
as with those ladies, I read much more than I write or, what with computers,
type. To be honest, except for posts on the internet, I also would only need to
know how to write my name  and that's in order to sign the checks to pay my
bills! Some things don't seem to change much!
Eileen continued:
Does being able to read assume that you can also write? I dont
know. However, and this is purely speculation, did these ladies actually
need to write much if eve r? We certainly know they sent letters -
Anne Beauchamp from sanctuary complaining bitterly about her treatment, Cicely
wrote to Margaret of Anjou, MB to her son, unfortunately etc, But were
these letters on the whole dictated to medieval versions of secretaries?
Its hard to imagine them, bent over, struggling with quills, and inky fingers
when someone else can do it far better anyway.
Doug here:
I find it interesting that most, if not all, of the women you mentioned
were often likely involved in managing their husbands' property while they were
away, thus giving these ladies a real need to not only know how to write, but
also to actually put pen to paper (parchment?). Lots of things could be
dictated, but letters to husbands, or letters dealing with financial/land
affairs might be viewed as being private and not necessarily something to b
shared with a secretary  however well-trusted!
Eileen concluded:
More importantly did EoY write this letter to Norfolk as described by Buck
or not. Had Buck lost the plot. Did his nephew make it up as he went
along? Did the letter actually exist and been misconstrued by Buck?
Was it a figment of his imagination? Would EofY been daft enough to
put pen to paper or even more dafter get someone else to put pen to paper
complaining that the Queen was taking too long to die and could Norfolk please
get everyone to get a move on with her proposed nuptials to the King who was
everything, everything in the whole wide world to her. Well I dont thi nk
so but there you go. Maybe she was indeed daft and shallow..her privy
purse accounts dont really show much in the way of book purchases but certainly
a lot of gambling debts.
Doug here:
My personal opinion, for what that's worth, is that EoY
did write a letter to Norfolk and that Buck
did see it, or a copy. But there's two things to remember:
while Buck undoubtedly knew about Richard's public disavowal of any intent to
marry EoY; as far as we know, he didn't know about the proposed Portuguese
marriages. Now, if one reads Buck's precis of the letter, and keeping
in mind those proposed marriages, the result, IMO anyway, doesn't support Buck's
conclusion that EoY was angling to marry Richard, but that she was eager for the
proposed marriage take place. With that proposed marriage being the one
between EoY and Manuel of Portugal.
As for EoY's remarks about the queen's lengthy death, and all the while
remembering what we have is Buck's take on what was written, I can think of at
least two possible interpretations. The first is that the knowledge that the
queen was suffering was known to both EoY and Norfolk and left unsaid. In that
context, the remark that queen was taking so long to die would be taken by
Norfolk as a sign of sympathy for Anne's sufferings. The possible second
interpretation is that EoY was simply being a Woodville and looking out for
Number 1.
The fervid (another word I've always wanted to use!) remarks by EoY
concerning Richard are likely no more than polite nothings, as the phrase is.
A 15th century version of sincerely or respectfully, IOW.
Doug
(Who, even though it was fifty years later, still doesn't understand how
those people executed by H8 could stand next to the block and declare their
devotion to the king! Perhaps this was where it started?)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I dont doubt Buck's sincerity one bit..but his original draft was a) damaged in a fire and b) added to dramatically by his grand-nephew. This person added to the original by one half. Therefore we must look at Buck's 'History' very, very cautiously. This letter to be honest, for me, anyway dont ring true. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. There is too much doubt about this book to consider seriously thanks to the actions of Buck's selfish grand-nephew.

I have to say I like Annette's interpretation. Elizabeth could be hoping Anne dies soon to put her suffering to an end, the queen's that is. As well as to hasten the Portuguese negotiations that would mean her becoming important again, and maybe getting away from mother. I think the whole slander about a possible marriage between King Richard and his niece comes from the post Bosworth horrors attributed to Richard once he was no longer able to defend himself. His enemies poured their hatred into his grave, the worst they could say of him the better, to try and justify the new regime. Over 500 years later they still haven't managed it, except perhaps in the eyes of the blind like Starkey, Weir, and Hicks!PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 7 avr. 2017 à 12:22, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
I dont doubt Buck's sincerity one bit..but his original draft was a) damaged in a fire and b) added to dramatically by his grand-nephew. This person added to the original by one half. Therefore we must look at Buck's 'History' very, very cautiously. This letter to be honest, for me, anyway dont ring true. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. There is too much doubt about this book to consider seriously thanks to the actions of Buck's selfish grand-nephew.

I agree that there are a lot of reasons to view this letter with caution before judging EofY too harshly because of it. As Doug suggested, the paraphrase is Buck's interpretation rather than her exact words. If he didn't know about the Portuguese marriage arrangements, he may have interpreted the marriage reference as her being desperate to marry Richard himself and made his own notes in a harsher tone. And of course, the nephew may have added other misinterpretations, or he could have seen something fake. There is also the question of Buck's mental state. I don't know what type of mental illness he had, or how adversely it affected his historical research, but the reference to someone who might be John of Gloucester being 'made away' by Henry isn't backed up by any evidence, including the source given by Buck himself.Nico On Friday, 7 April 2017, 11:51, "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:
I have to say I like Annette's interpretation. Elizabeth could be hoping Anne dies soon to put her suffering to an end, the queen's that is. As well as to hasten the Portuguese negotiations that would mean her becoming important again, and maybe getting away from mother. I think the whole slander about a possible marriage between King Richard and his niece comes from the post Bosworth horrors attributed to Richard once he was no longer able to defend himself. His enemies poured their hatred into his grave, the worst they could say of him the better, to try and justify the new regime. Over 500 years later they still haven't managed it, except perhaps in the eyes of the blind like Starkey, Weir, and Hicks!PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 7 avr. 2017 à 12:22, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
I dont doubt Buck's sincerity one bit..but his original draft was a) damaged in a fire and b) added to dramatically by his grand-nephew. This person added to the original by one half. Therefore we must look at Buck's 'History' very, very cautiously. This letter to be honest, for me, anyway dont ring true. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. There is too much doubt about this book to consider seriously thanks to the actions of Buck's selfish grand-nephew.

They say Buck insane...but nowadays its thought he may have had Alzheimers..poor man. Im kind of fond of him..he was one of the first to come out in defence of Richard.

What did happen to John of Gloucester? Anyone know anything about this..

He was brought up on some trumped up charge having been given a promise of safe conduct and executed.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 7 Apr 2017, at 13:34, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:What did happen to John of Gloucester? Anyone know anything about this..

He certainly disappeared from the pages of history without a trace. As several others with Plantagenet blood did..

Ill have to look this up Eileen but what comes to me is that he was in Calais and given a safe conduct if he returned to England by Tudor. We all know how trustworthy he was! John was locked up in the Tower, I think with Warbeck at some time, then executed for attempting to escape!As I say, this is off the top of my head, but I think that's the gist.Paul
Richard Liveth Yet
On 7 Apr 2017, at 13:34, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:What did happen to John of Gloucester? Anyone know anything about this..

I recall reading something along those lines Paul. It would certainly seem he didn't last long after HT took the throne..he just simply seems to have disappeared.

Sorry all behind again. I recall we discussed it on here and reached the conclusion that we don't actually know. As Paul says there is a report from someone of the times saying that after the Warbeck business a bastard son of King Richard was put to death in the Tower but I think we concluded (and Marie was helping on this) that both the source and the identity of the person were not conclusive evidence. So he could indeed have still been out there somewhere. Does anyone else remember? I think it's in the forum thread 'John of Gloucester' about a year ago. Incidentally Edward Franke, who was Richard's northern Sheriff of Northants, was taken to the Tower round about this time and never seen again. H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 7 April 2017, 14:24 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
I recall reading something along those lines Paul. It would certainly seem he didn't last long after HT took the throne..he just simply seems to have disappeared.

I think we did have a discussion last year that John of Gloucester was an unsolved mystery. The reference of him being imprisoned and 'made away' was from Buck, who gave the Grafton Chronicle as his source. However, it doesn't seem to be in there and seems vague at best. John isn't even mentioned by name. Also, Grafton wasn't a contemporary chronicle either, so I'm not convinced that it is a reliable indicator of John of Gloucester's fate. It could be confusion with the Ralph Wilford story, which was also in 1499 - one that I have always suspected that there may have been more to than what we have been told. Also, if Henry wanted to imprison or execute John, it would make sense to make it known, given all the trouble he had from impostors. He wouldn't have wanted someone turning up claiming to be JofG, saying that he was legitimate after all. Henry did pardon a 'John Gloucester' of the Calais Staple in the early 1500s; it could be someone else, but perhaps JofG never left Calais. I would like to think so anyway. If he was keeping a low profile in Calais, he could have slipped away from the historical record. He may have left descendants - it might be you, or me or whoever, you never know!FWIW, I do have a lot of respect for Buck generally; he did find Titulus Regius after all. Nico On Friday, 7 April 2017, 15:34, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Sorry all behind again. I recall we discussed it on here and reached the conclusion that we don't actually know. As Paul says there is a report from someone of the times saying that after the Warbeck business a bastard son of King Richard was put to death in the Tower but I think we concluded (and Marie was helping on this) that both the source and the identity of the person were not conclusive evidence. So he could indeed have still been out there somewhere. Does anyone else remember? I think it's in the forum thread 'John of Gloucester' about a year ago. Incidentally Edward Franke, who was Richard's northern Sheriff of Northants, was taken to the Tower round about this time and never seen again. H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 7 April 2017, 14:24 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
I recall reading something along those lines Paul. It would certainly seem he didn't last long after HT took the throne..he just simply seems to have disappeared.

Nico said: 'FWIW I do have a lot of respect for Buck..he found TR..'Me Too! Lots...

It's interesting to think how Arthur, Edward's bastard son was treated - quite well until the end. If a child is known to be illegitimate, as John was, it can be no threat and JOG was in just that position. So why execute him? Yes he might attract a bit of sympathy but that's quite different from being a pretender to the Crown. He's not going anywhere; even those who loved Richard would admit that. H From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Saturday, 8 April 2017, 13:18 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
I think we did have a discussion last year that John of Gloucester was an unsolved mystery. The reference of him being imprisoned and 'made away' was from Buck, who gave the Grafton Chronicle as his source. However, it doesn't seem to be in there and seems vague at best. John isn't even mentioned by name. Also, Grafton wasn't a contemporary chronicle either, so I'm not convinced that it is a reliable indicator of John of Gloucester's fate. It could be confusion with the Ralph Wilford story, which was also in 1499 - one that I have always suspected that there may have been more to than what we have been told. Also, if Henry wanted to imprison or execute John, it would make sense to make it known, given all the trouble he had from impostors. He wouldn't have wanted someone turning up claiming to be JofG, saying that he was legitimate after all. Henry did pardon a 'John Gloucester' of the Calais Staple in the early 1500s; it could be someone else, but perhaps JofG never left Calais. I would like to think so anyway. If he was keeping a low profile in Calais, he could have slipped away from the historical record. He may have left descendants - it might be you, or me or whoever, you never know!FWIW, I do have a lot of respect for Buck generally; he did find Titulus Regius after all. Nico On Friday, 7 April 2017, 15:34, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Sorry all behind again. I recall we discussed it on here and reached the conclusion that we don't actually know. As Paul says there is a report from someone of the times saying that after the Warbeck business a bastard son of King Richard was put to death in the Tower but I think we concluded (and Marie was helping on this) that both the source and the identity of the person were not conclusive evidence. So he could indeed have still been out there somewhere. Does anyone else remember? I think it's in the forum thread 'John of Gloucester' about a year ago. Incidentally Edward Franke, who was Richard's northern Sheriff of Northants, was taken to the Tower round about this time and never seen again. H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 7 April 2017, 14:24 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
I recall reading something along those lines Paul. It would certainly seem he didn't last long after HT took the throne..he just simply seems to have disappeared.

Hilary
wrote:
It's interesting to think
how Arthur, Edward's bastard son was treated - quite well until the end. If a
child is known to be illegitimate, as John was, it can be no threat and JOG was
in just that position. So why execute him? Yes he might attract a bit of
sympathy but that's quite different from being a pretender to the Crown. He's
not going anywhere; even those who loved Richard would admit that.
Doug here:
According to the article on him in
Wikipedia, Arthur was arrested in 1540 for conspiring to turn Calais
over to the French, spent two years in the Tower and died of a heart attack upon
receiving the news he was being released. According to his article,
John, OTOH, simply disappears from the record a
year or so after Bosworth.
FWIW, this is the final paragraph from
John's Wikipedia entry, including the notes:
In his confession, Perkin Warbeck stated
that when he began his impersonation of Richard, Duke of York, in 1491, King
Richard's bastard son was in the hands of the king of England.' [12] In the
seventeenth century, an early defender of Richard III, George Buck, claimed that
around the time of the executions of Warbeck and Edward, Earl of Warwick, in
1499, there was a base son of King Richard III made away, and secretly, having
been kept long before in prison.' Buck, who does not identify John by name,
claims that he was executed to prevent him from falling into the hands of
certain Irishmen who wished to make him their chief or prince.[13} There are no
other sources for John's execution.
[12} D.M. Kleyn, Richard
of England (Kensal Press 1990), p. 206
[13] Arthur Noel Kincaid,
ed., The History of King Richard the Third by Sir George Buck, Master of the
Revels (Alan Sutton 1979), pp. 170, 212
Wasn't Ireland reputed to support the House of York? Could
it be that John was first imprisoned, then executed for being in contact with
those certain Irishmen who were supporters of the House of York, and not
because they wished to make him their prince?
Is it me, or did any Yorkist who accepted being appointed to
a post in Calais or Guisnes take his life in his hands? Sir James Tyrell, Arthur
Plantagenet, and, possibly now, John?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug apologies, I was obscure again. By 'the end' I mean the bit where Arthur was arrested. Until then he was very much in favour with the Court.As for Calais, well I expect Warwick was a good precedent of someone who used it to his advantage until even for him it all went wrong.Your next bit was what I recall we discussed last year and concluded (I think) that there was no proof that it was John or that it was even correct - another thing that only Buck came up with.The year of Arthur's death is very interesting. That was when a number of people, including Adrian Fortescue, were arrested and imprisoned without trial. Something must have brought the old Tudor Yorkist fears back. And of course Margaret was executed the following May. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 17:36 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
Hilary
wrote:
It's interesting to think
how Arthur, Edward's bastard son was treated - quite well until the end. If a
child is known to be illegitimate, as John was, it can be no threat and JOG was
in just that position. So why execute him? Yes he might attract a bit of
sympathy but that's quite different from being a pretender to the Crown. He's
not going anywhere; even those who loved Richard would admit that.
Doug here:
According to the article on him in
Wikipedia, Arthur was arrested in 1540 for conspiring to turn Calais
over to the French, spent two years in the Tower and died of a heart attack upon
receiving the news he was being released. According to his article,
John, OTOH, simply disappears from the record a
year or so after Bosworth.
FWIW, this is the final paragraph from
John's Wikipedia entry, including the notes:
In his confession, Perkin Warbeck stated
that when he began his impersonation of Richard, Duke of York, in 1491, King
Richard's bastard son was in the hands of the king of England.' [12] In the
seventeenth century, an early defender of Richard III, George Buck, claimed that
around the time of the executions of Warbeck and Edward, Earl of Warwick, in
1499, there was a base son of King Richard III made away, and secretly, having
been kept long before in prison.' Buck, who does not identify John by name,
claims that he was executed to prevent him from falling into the hands of
certain Irishmen who wished to make him their chief or prince.[13} There are no
other sources for John's execution.
[12} D.M. Kleyn, Richard
of England (Kensal Press 1990), p. 206
[13] Arthur Noel Kincaid,
ed., The History of King Richard the Third by Sir George Buck, Master of the
Revels (Alan Sutton 1979), pp. 170, 212
Wasn't Ireland reputed to support the House of York? Could
it be that John was first imprisoned, then executed for being in contact with
those certain Irishmen who were supporters of the House of York, and not
because they wished to make him their prince?
Is it me, or did any Yorkist who accepted being appointed to
a post in Calais or Guisnes take his life in his hands? Sir James Tyrell, Arthur
Plantagenet, and, possibly now, John?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Doug
apologies, I was obscure again. By 'the end' I mean the bit where Arthur was
arrested. Until then he was very much in favour with the Court.
Doug here:
Which, to be honest, is what struck me as a bit
unusual. Arthur is in, so to speak, with the Court, while John is fobbed off
with a pension and, as noted, seems to just disappear. I suppose the
difference might be down to Arthur being the Queen's illegitimate half-brother
and John being her illegitimate cousin, but it does make me
wonder.
Hilary continued:
As
for Calais, well I expect Warwick was a good precedent of someone who used it to
his advantage until even for him it all went wrong.
Your
next bit was what I recall we discussed last year and concluded (I think) that
there was no proof that it was John or that it was even correct - another thing
that only Buck came up with.
Doug here:
Being in charge of Calais/Guisnes would be a rather
high-profile appointment and subject whoever held the job to close scrutiny; not
only from the king, but any enemies of whoever held the
post/s.
Hilary
concluded:
The year of Arthur's
death is very interesting. That was when a number of people, including Adrian
Fortescue, were arrested and imprisoned without trial. Something must have
brought the old Tudor Yorkist fears back. And of course Margaret was executed
the following May.
Doug here:
Well, we do there was something
to support Tudor's fear of the Yorkists at the turn of the century, so it's
possible John was gathered in during some sweep of potential Yorkist
supporters/advocates. It's also possible he simply retired to the country and
died quietly. Or simply died and, as he wasn't well-known or occupying any
position, his death went un-noticed.
Doug
Who rather thinks he'll put a possible
in front of Buck's story and leave it at that.
For now, anyway...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen O. wrote: "I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)"Carol responds:Hi, Karen. This part is a mistake. Prince Edward as we know from Rous was at Middleham and then in York for his investiture as Prince of Wales. At least one chronicler (Crowland?) mistook the York ceremony for a second coronation. Possibly that's the source of Buck's mistake.Karen wrote:
"2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown."Carol responds:Does it? Are you sure it's authentic? I don't think we have that in any contemporary source (except for some paraphrased remarks about wanting to be a good ruler that I can't precisely recall right now).Karen wrote:
"3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on."Carol responds:Someone else has already responded regarding the letter from Elizabeth that he recalls seeing (he's quoting from memory) and has apparently misinterpreted. Certainly, as you say, Richard never had any intention of marrying her (what could be the and he vehemently and publicly denied the rumor. But are you sure you have the original version? Buck's nephew, Sir George Buck, published a highly edited version that's less trustworthy. I don't believe in St. Richard, either, but I don't think he played games.Carol

Karen wrote:"Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true."
Carol responds:I forgot to mention that even if Richard were as self-interested as you seem to believe him to be, he would not have considered marrying his niece, not only because of the incest angle but because his claim depended on the illegitimacy of Elizabeth's brothers. To marry her, he would have had to reverse Titulus Regius. Even if you suppose that her brothers were dead at this point, *her* claim would be at least as strong as his and he would appear to be a liar and a hypocrite. So, simply put, a marriage to Elizabeth of York, his illegitimized niece, was not in his interest. Marrying a foreign princess like Joanna of Portugal of one of the Ferdinand and Isabella's daughters (an alternative proposal he was also considering) definitely was.Carol

Eileen wrote:"The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is Good Old Croyland having his usual dig at Richard....what a total old misery guts and anything to blacken Richard's name. Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless fun."Carol responds:Right. And, to answer Karen's question, it can't have anything to do with Elizabeth's proposed marriage to Manuel of Portugal or Richard's to Joanna as Anne was still alive--and there's no indication even in Croyland that she was ill at this point (December 1484).Carol

Karen wrote:"You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth, hungry for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty. Big mistake."Carol responds:My apologies for misunderstanding you (as others did as well). Can you quote the passage from Buck on which you're basing your speculations (or with which you're agreeing)? You don't need to quote the letter itself, with which I'm sure we're all familiar. And, again, which edition of Buck are you reading, the original or Sir George Buck's? It may or may not make a difference.Of course, Buck (the original author) is interpreting (or misinterpreting) a letter he's quoting (is that the only evidence?), but in any case, the letter reflects only Elizabeth's point of view. Why would that lead Buck to think that Richard himself would pretend to be interested in a marriage that would only hurt him? He had already promised to find good husbands for EW's daughters--" And such gentlemen as shall hap to marry with them, I shall straitly
charge lovingly to love and entreat them as wives and my kinswomen . . . ."--and, of course, Duke Manuel of Portugal was more than a mere gentleman.Certainly, he didn't fuel the rumors, which were not at all in his interest--unless the public denial hurt more than it helped.I do agree that Elizabeth herself, far from loathing the uncle who had supposedly murdered her brothers (as Tudor propaganda in the form of post-Bosworth ballads would have us believe) may have had a bit of a crush on her young uncle. She did keep a book that he had given her and put her signature and motto under his. But her crush, if indeed she had one, has nothing whatever to do with his feelings for her or his fueling rumors spread by his enemies (who may have feared that he would marry EoY to thwart Tudor, whose weak claim might have benefited in a way that Richard's strong one, clearly outlined in Titulus Regius, would not have).Sorry if this post is incoherent. Interrupted several times by visitors with children and now by a ringing bell.Carol

Karen wrote:"I am reading Annette Carson's book. She provides her modernized version of the letter. The just of it is 'Thank you John Howard for your many kindnesses.Please be a mediator for me to the King In the matter of the proposed marriage. He is my only hope in this world.P.S. It is now mid February and I fear the queen will never die(I.e when will her poor suffering end?)"Carol responds:Annette's book is very informative and I hope you find that it answers a number of your questions. I would also recommend her short work on Richard as Protector and Lord High Constable.By the way, I tried to find Buck's book online but could only find snippets on Google Books, including part of the letter and bits of commentary by Alan Sutton, who edited the 1982 edition (which he took pains to explain was not the bowdlerized, plagiarized, and otherwise flawed 1646 version edited by Sir George's great-nephew).At any rate, I can't determine from the snippets what Sir George (not his great-nephew or Sutton) said about the letter. I'd be grateful if you would quote it for us. Buck, of course, was writing in 1619 when it was finally safe to write favorably about Richard, but his sources were limited and 124 years had already passed since Richard's defeat and death, so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on him.Carol

Eileen wrote:

"The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is Good Old Croyland having his usual dig at Richard....what a total old misery guts and anything
to blacken Richard's name. Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless fun."
Sandra:
Just a thought, but the portraits we have of Elizabeth of York show her to be a wee bit embonpoint. OK, maybe she became so after childbirth (don't a huge number of us?) but maybe she was that way inclined anyway.
She was EIV's daughter, after all, and took after him, not EW. We are also stuck with an image of Anne Neville as being slender, probably to the point of being too thin because of ill health. Anyway, if the gown-swapping story is true, surely they had to be
more or less the same size? So, which was it? Willowy? Or curvy?
Don't tell me the gowns were so loose and adaptable that anyone from a Size 6 to Size 32 could wear them!

EoY was quite tall so I doubt any of Anne's clothes would fit her.Reputedly she had the same colouring and dimensions to her father that she passed down to her kids.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 15 avr. 2017 à 09:10, Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... [] <> a écrit :


Eileen wrote:

"The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is Good Old Croyland having his usual dig at Richard....what a total old misery guts and anything
to blacken Richard's name. Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless fun."
Sandra:
Just a thought, but the portraits we have of Elizabeth of York show her to be a wee bit embonpoint. OK, maybe she became so after childbirth (don't a huge number of us?) but maybe she was that way inclined anyway.
She was EIV's daughter, after all, and took after him, not EW. We are also stuck with an image of Anne Neville as being slender, probably to the point of being too thin because of ill health. Anyway, if the gown-swapping story is true, surely they had to be
more or less the same size? So, which was it? Willowy? Or curvy?
Don't tell me the gowns were so loose and adaptable that anyone from a Size 6 to Size 32 could wear them!

Well ladies were sewn into their gowns in those days so I expect, yes a gown could fit several shapes. As to the length...well that might prove a problem although of course the gowns were long too but It would have been impractical, and dangerous, for a gown to be so long that you could have constantly tripped over. I do believe some sort of dress changing went on and the fabrics were maybe similar. But Croyland is really over egging the pudding here implying an awful lot. If Richard was hankering after EoY and wanting to make her his wife and IF the dress changes fabrics etc, were symbolic of that he was hardly going to do that in front of his wife and the whole court was he? People should remember Anne was a Neville and the daughter of the Kingmaker..people up north were not going to take to it to kindly if Richard was humiliating her openly. He was trying to win hearts not hatred. I believe a man like Richard, from what we know of him, would have had a lot of respect for his wife and her lineage and treated her as such. Croyland was just being nasty, spiteful and a bit naughty.

Hi Carol - I agree very much with all your posts!However, re your last sentence, 1619 wasn't safe. The Stuarts were even more anti-Richard than the Tudors, because most of their claim to the throne came through the Tudors. And this was only 14 years' after the Gunpowder Plot. Just remember it was Charles II who happily supported the idea of the discovered bones and had them put in that urn!! So Buck was brave. H From: "justcarol67@... []" <> To: Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 2:03 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck
Karen wrote:"I am reading Annette Carson's book. She provides her modernized version of the letter. The just of it is 'Thank you John Howard for your many kindnesses.Please be a mediator for me to the King In the matter of the proposed marriage. He is my only hope in this world.P.S. It is now mid February and I fear the queen will never die(I.e when will her poor suffering end?)"Carol responds:Annette's book is very informative and I hope you find that it answers a number of your questions. I would also recommend her short work on Richard as Protector and Lord High Constable.By the way, I tried to find Buck's book online but could only find snippets on Google Books, including part of the letter and bits of commentary by Alan Sutton, who edited the 1982 edition (which he took pains to explain was not the bowdlerized, plagiarized, and otherwise flawed 1646 version edited by Sir George's great-nephew).At any rate, I can't determine from the snippets what Sir George (not his great-nephew or Sutton) said about the letter. I'd be grateful if you would quote it for us. Buck, of course, was writing in 1619 when it was finally safe to write favorably about Richard, but his sources were limited and 124 years had already passed since Richard's defeat and death, so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on him.Carol

I agree Eileen. I think we often underestimate how much Richard's popularity in the North rested on Anne. Most of his most ardent supporters and the men who died with him had been her father's men. He would not cast her off lightly or insult her without it being an enormous risk on his part. H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 9:56 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - The gown-changing episode
Well ladies were sewn into their gowns in those days so I expect, yes a gown could fit several shapes. As to the length...well that might prove a problem although of course the gowns were long too but It would have been impractical, and dangerous, for a gown to be so long that you could have constantly tripped over. I do believe some sort of dress changing went on and the fabrics were maybe similar. But Croyland is really over egging the pudding here implying an awful lot. If Richard was hankering after EoY and wanting to make her his wife and IF the dress changes fabrics etc, were symbolic of that he was hardly going to do that in front of his wife and the whole court was he? People should remember Anne was a Neville and the daughter of the Kingmaker..people up north were not going to take to it to kindly if Richard was humiliating her openly. He was trying to win hearts not hatred. I believe a man like Richard, from what we know of him, would have had a lot of respect for his wife and her lineage and treated her as such. Croyland was just being nasty, spiteful and a bit naughty.

I wonder how long it took to be sewn into a gown? Long enough to be a deterrent to any idle notion to swap, I would have thought. Do that and half the evening's gone! I agree that the whole thing is ridiculous, and that if anything, the two gowns were
simply similar. I mean, go to a do these days, and how many little black dresses will you find? Some of them will look very alike. Why not back then too?
From:
mailto:
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} - The gown-changing episode
Well ladies were sewn into their gowns in those days so I expect, yes a gown could fit several shapes. As to the length...well that might prove a problem although of course the gowns were long too but It would have been impractical, and dangerous, for a
gown to be so long that you could have constantly tripped over. I do believe some sort of dress changing went on and the fabrics were maybe similar. But Croyland is really over egging the pudding here implying an awful lot. If Richard was hankering after
EoY and wanting to make her his wife and IF the dress changes fabrics etc, were symbolic of that he was hardly going to do that in front of his wife and the whole court was he? People should remember Anne was a Neville and the daughter of the Kingmaker..people
up north were not going to take to it to kindly if Richard was humiliating her openly. He was trying to win hearts not hatred. I believe a man like Richard, from what we know of him, would have had a lot of respect for his wife and her lineage and treated
her as such. Croyland was just being nasty, spiteful and a bit naughty.

Not only did Charles ll 'happily support the idea of the discovered bones' he might have been behind or at least had knowledge that the bones were a hoax. Helen Maurer mentions this possibility in her excellent article 'Whodunit' with a followup article The Bones part 2 in the Ricardian March 1991 pp 2-22. I do urge anyone who has not read these articles to download and take a look. If this was indeed what happened it would explain why the bones were found more or less where More said they were..under a staircase.

As to Anne's appearance I was watching Gillian Murphy of American Ballet Theater dance and saw her interview. I was struck by the resemblance to Anne's coronation sketch. Red hair, long face, pointed chin, big  ballerina eyes, white white skin, high forehead, even the eyebrows and nose. That is going to be my image of her forever. I would post a link but don't know if that is permitted.  We have no evidence that Anne suffered I'll health until Christmas 1484. TB can be latent for years before killing you.Yes EOY was plumper. An ambassador described her as large breasted. Very handsome . On Apr 15, 2017 3:10 AM, "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
 

Eileen wrote:

"The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is  Good Old Croyland having his usual dig at Richard....what a total  old misery guts and anything
to blacken Richard's name.  Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless fun."
 
Sandra:
 
Just a thought, but the portraits we have of Elizabeth of York show her to be a wee bit embonpoint. OK, maybe she became so after childbirth (don't a huge number of us?) but maybe she was that way inclined anyway.
She was EIV's daughter, after all, and took after him, not EW. We are also stuck with an image of Anne Neville as being slender, probably to the point of being too thin because of ill health. Anyway, if the gown-swapping story is true, surely they had to be
more or less the same size? So, which was it? Willowy? Or curvy?
 
Don't tell me the gowns were so loose and adaptable that anyone from a Size 6 to Size 32 could wear them!

I think she took after Daddy...

Eileen wrote:"I dont doubt Buck's sincerity one bit..but his original draft was a) damaged in a fire and b) added to dramatically by his grand-nephew. This person added to the original by one half. Therefore we must look at Buck's 'History' very, very cautiously. This letter to be honest, for me, anyway dont ring true. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. There is too much doubt about this book to consider seriously thanks to the actions of Buck's selfish grand-nephew."Carol responds:There's a 1982 edition edited by Alan Sutton that I believe is the original version (minus any unreadable parts. He warns against the 1646 version in comments on Google Books. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it at the moment.Carol

Sandra.
I've left Eileen's
post and your response complete below, but I did want to add that I understood
the great gown changing question was likely a mis-interpretation of Anne and
EoY being dressed in similar gowns, and not actually exchanging
garments.
Not unlike, if I also
understand it correctly, where in some modern-day weddings the bride's maids are
dressed alike.
Doug
Eileen
wrote:
"The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is Good Old Croyland having his usual dig
at Richard....what a total old misery guts and anything to blacken
Richard's name. Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless
fun."
Sandra:
Just a thought, but the portraits we
have of Elizabeth of York show her to be a wee bit embonpoint. OK, maybe she
became so after childbirth (don't a huge number of us?) but maybe she was that
way inclined anyway. She was EIV's daughter, after all, and took after him, not
EW. We are also stuck with an image of Anne Neville as being slender, probably
to the point of being too thin because of ill health. Anyway, if the
gown-swapping story is true, surely they had to be more or less the same size?
So, which was it? Willowy? Or curvy?
Don't tell me the gowns were so loose
and adaptable that anyone from a Size 6 to Size 32 could wear them!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.