Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
My email to Philippa: Sandra Worth wrote a book about Perkin' and mentioned in her author's notes about Mary Shelley finding proof in the Tower that the boys did live after Bosworth& I will send you another email with the Appendix from The History of Scotland by Pinkerton with the letters mentioned below, I don't know if you will find them relevant or not?Excerpt From: Mary Shelley. The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck. PrefaceThe story of Perkin Warbeck was first suggested to me as a subject for historical detail. On studying it, I became aware of the romance which his story contains, while, at the same time, I felt that it would be impossible for any narration, that should be confined to the incorporation of facts related by our old Chronicle to do it justice.It is not singular that I should entertain a belief that Perkin was, in reality, the lost Duke of York. For, in spite of Hume, and the later historians who have followed in his path, no person who has at all studied the subject but arrives at the same conclusion. Records exist in the Tower, some well known, others with which those who have access to those interesting papers are alone acquainted, which put the question almost beyond a doubt.This is not the place for a discussion of the question. The principal thing that I should wish to be impressed on my reader's mind is, that whether my hero was or was not an impostor, he was believed to be the true man by his contemporaries.The partial pages of Bacon, of Hall, and Holinshed[&]of that date, are replete with proofs of this fact. There are some curious letters, written by Sir John Ramsay, Laird of Balmayne, calling himself Lord Bothwell, addressed to Henry the Seventh himself, which, though written by a spy and hireling of that monarch, tend to confirm my belief, and even demonstrate that in his eagerness to get rid of a formidable competitor, Henry did not hesitate to urge midnight assassination. These letters are printed in the Appendix to Pinkerton's History of Scotland. The verses which form the motto to these volumes, are part of a rythmical Chronicle, written by two subjects of Burgundy, who lived in those days; it is entitled "Recollection des Merveilles, advenues en nostre temps, commencée par très élégant orateur, Messire Georges Chastellan, et continuée par Maistre Jean Molinet."In addition to the unwilling suffrage of his enemies, we may adduce the acts of his friends and allies. Human nature in its leading features is the same in all ages. James the Fourth of Scotland was a man of great talent and discernment: he was proud; attached, as a Scot, to the prejudices of birth; of punctilious honour. No one can believe that he would have bestowed his near kinswoman, nor have induced the Earl of Huntley to give his daughter in marriage, to one who did not bear evident signs of being of royal blood. The various adventures of this unfortunate Prince in many countries, and his alliance with a beautiful and high-born woman, who proved a faithful, loving wife to him, take away the sting from the ignominy which might attach itself to his fate; and make him, we venture to believe, in spite of the contumely later historians have chosen, in the most arbitrary way, to heap upon him, a fitting object of interesta hero to ennoble the pages of a humble tale. Excerpt From: Mary Shelley. The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck. iBooks.****Philippa replied: " Many thanks Dianne, this mention might be interesting but at the moment I can't say either way as my understanding is that there are no records in the ToL that confirm the survival of the younger Prince (even well-known ones). However, that is not to say they don't exist they may have been forgotten about or inadvertently mis-catalogued. Seems unlikely they would have been forgotten, but the problem is Shelly is not specific about them (which is very strange in itself as surely these would form a slam dunk for her argument, with even a brief mention). Also she doesn't say if she actually saw any of the documents herself. As a result it sounds like she's heard whispers only about them even though she says some are well-known.I can certainly mark this down as a line of investigation for TMPP, and many thanks for the heads-up, but at the moment I haven't got the man-power to offer this investigation to anyone. Will this be enough for you that I've marked it down at this stage, or if you know of anyone who would like to take this line of enquiry on and produce a report on it that will help get it bumped up the queue. There's always that nagging doubt that Shelly is bang-on and the whispers she heard are actually true and the documents have been mis-catalogued. I also wonder if the ToL know about this statement and if they have ever investigated it. I've got a contact there but I would need a properly researched report on Shelly's findings first so that they don't think it's a wild goose-chase and then ignore an approach (we are fighting this perception all the time sadly with so many lines of investigation which I'm sure will be no surprise we got this with LFRP as well, sigh ...)Apols I've wittered on a bit but suffice it to say I've taken note but if you know of anyone who would be willing to look into this in the first instance and produce a foot-noted report, I could then approach my TOL contact with it.All the best as everPhilippa *** I asked if I could share her reply:Yes Dianne, please share ... if it's meant to be hopefully someone will see it and give a shout out ... we can only keep opening all the doors before us in the hope that one (or more) may be the right ones!Take care also, and thanks again for the heads-up.ATBPhilippaSo&. is there anyone reading this who can research this further? Here is a link to the Appendix in the book Mary Shelley mentioned Pinkerton's The History of Scotland' and the Appendix is Page 437
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0dI_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA424&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=appendix&f=false
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/the-missing-princes-looking-in-lincolnshire-devon/
A J
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/story. php?story_fbid= 1787061257988901&id= 214317755263267Here is the text.I have written to Philippa Langley drawing her attention to this (see below) in connection with her Missing Princes Project and she has given me permission to share her email asking if there is anyone who can look into it further&. is there anyone who can delve into this a bit further so she can forward it to her contact at the Tower of London? In my opinion, there very well might be documents or whatever hiding away there as the TofL doesn't seem overly keen on clearing King Richard's name.
My email to Philippa: Sandra Worth wrote a book about Perkin' and mentioned in her author's notes about Mary Shelley finding proof in the Tower that the boys did live after Bosworth& I will send you another email with the Appendix from The History of Scotland by Pinkerton with the letters mentioned below, I don't know if you will find them relevant or not?Excerpt From: Mary Shelley. The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck. PrefaceThe story of Perkin Warbeck was first suggested to me as a subject for historical detail. On studying it, I became aware of the romance which his story contains, while, at the same time, I felt that it would be impossible for any narration, that should be confined to the incorporation of facts related by our old Chronicle to do it justice.It is not singular that I should entertain a belief that Perkin was, in reality, the lost Duke of York. For, in spite of Hume, and the later historians who have followed in his path, no person who has at all studied the subject but arrives at the same conclusion. Records exist in the Tower, some well known, others with which those who have access to those interesting papers are alone acquainted, which put the question almost beyond a doubt.This is not the place for a discussion of the question. The principal thing that I should wish to be impressed on my reader's mind is, that whether my hero was or was not an impostor, he was believed to be the true man by his contemporaries.The partial pages of Bacon, of Hall, and Holinshed[&]of that date, are replete with proofs of this fact. There are some curious letters, written by Sir John Ramsay, Laird of Balmayne, calling himself Lord Bothwell, addressed to Henry the Seventh himself, which, though written by a spy and hireling of that monarch, tend to confirm my belief, and even demonstrate that in his eagerness to get rid of a formidable competitor, Henry did not hesitate to urge midnight assassination. These letters are printed in the Appendix to Pinkerton's History of Scotland. The verses which form the motto to these volumes, are part of a rythmical Chronicle, written by two subjects of Burgundy, who lived in those days; it is entitled "Recollection des Merveilles, advenues en nostre temps, commencée par très élégant orateur, Messire Georges Chastellan, et continuée par Maistre Jean Molinet."In addition to the unwilling suffrage of his enemies, we may adduce the acts of his friends and allies. Human nature in its leading features is the same in all ages. James the Fourth of Scotland was a man of great talent and discernment: he was proud; attached, as a Scot, to the prejudices of birth; of punctilious honour. No one can believe that he would have bestowed his near kinswoman, nor have induced the Earl of Huntley to give his daughter in marriage, to one who did not bear evident signs of being of royal blood. The various adventures of this unfortunate Prince in many countries, and his alliance with a beautiful and high-born woman, who proved a faithful, loving wife to him, take away the sting from the ignominy which might attach itself to his fate; and make him, we venture to believe, in spite of the contumely later historians have chosen, in the most arbitrary way, to heap upon him, a fitting object of interesta hero to ennoble the pages of a humble tale. Excerpt From: Mary Shelley. The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck. iBooks.****Philippa replied: " Many thanks Dianne, this mention might be interesting but at the moment I can't say either way as my understanding is that there are no records in the ToL that confirm the survival of the younger Prince (even well-known ones). However, that is not to say they don't exist they may have been forgotten about or inadvertently mis-catalogued. Seems unlikely they would have been forgotten, but the problem is Shelly is not specific about them (which is very strange in itself as surely these would form a slam dunk for her argument, with even a brief mention). Also she doesn't say if she actually saw any of the documents herself. As a result it sounds like she's heard whispers only about them even though she says some are well-known.I can certainly mark this down as a line of investigation for TMPP, and many thanks for the heads-up, but at the moment I haven't got the man-power to offer this investigation to anyone. Will this be enough for you that I've marked it down at this stage, or if you know of anyone who would like to take this line of enquiry on and produce a report on it that will help get it bumped up the queue. There's always that nagging doubt that Shelly is bang-on and the whispers she heard are actually true and the documents have been mis-catalogued. I also wonder if the ToL know about this statement and if they have ever investigated it. I've got a contact there but I would need a properly researched report on Shelly's findings first so that they don't think it's a wild goose-chase and then ignore an approach (we are fighting this perception all the time sadly with so many lines of investigation which I'm sure will be no surprise we got this with LFRP as well, sigh ...)Apols I've wittered on a bit but suffice it to say I've taken note but if you know of anyone who would be willing to look into this in the first instance and produce a foot-noted report, I could then approach my TOL contact with it.All the best as everPhilippa *** I asked if I could share her reply:Yes Dianne, please share ... if it's meant to be hopefully someone will see it and give a shout out ... we can only keep opening all the doors before us in the hope that one (or more) may be the right ones!Take care also, and thanks again for the heads-up.ATBPhilippaSo&. is there anyone reading this who can research this further? Here is a link to the Appendix in the book Mary Shelley mentioned Pinkerton's The History of Scotland' and the Appendix is Page 437
https://books.google.co.uk/ books?id=0dI_AAAAcAAJ&pg= PA424&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3# v=onepage&q=appendix&f=false
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:13 PM, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:
On the subject of the Missing Princes project, this blog post has some tidbits about the project, beyond the recent item in a newspaper.
https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/the-missing-princes-looking-in-lincolnshire-devon/
A J
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Karen O
karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/story. php?story_fbid= 1787061257988901&id= 214317755263267
Here is the text.
I have written to Philippa Langley drawing her attention to this (see below) in connection with her Missing Princes Project and she has given me permission to share her email asking if there is anyone who can look into it further&. is there
anyone who can delve into this a bit further so she can forward it to her contact at the Tower of London? In my opinion, there very well might be documents or whatever hiding away there as the TofL doesn't seem overly keen on clearing King Richard's name.
My email to Philippa:
Sandra Worth wrote a book about Perkin' and mentioned in her author's notes about Mary Shelley finding proof in the Tower that the boys did live after Bosworth& I will send you another email with the Appendix from The History of Scotland by
Pinkerton with the letters mentioned below, I don't know if you will find them relevant or not?
Excerpt From: Mary Shelley. The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck. Preface
The story of Perkin Warbeck was first suggested to me as a subject for historical detail. On studying it, I became aware of the romance which his story contains, while, at the same time, I felt that it would be impossible for any narration,
that should be confined to the incorporation of facts related by our old Chronicle to do it justice.
It is not singular that I should entertain a belief that Perkin was, in reality, the lost Duke of York. For, in spite of Hume, and the later historians who have followed in his path, no person who has at all studied the subject but arrives at
the same conclusion. Records exist in the Tower, some well known, others with which those who have access to those interesting papers are alone acquainted, which put the question almost beyond a doubt.
This is not the place for a discussion of the question. The principal thing that I should wish to be impressed on my reader's mind is, that whether my hero was or was not an impostor, he was believed to be the true man by his contemporaries.
The partial pages of Bacon, of Hall, and Holinshed[&]of that date, are replete with proofs of this fact. There are some curious letters, written by Sir John Ramsay, Laird of Balmayne, calling himself Lord Bothwell, addressed to Henry the Seventh
himself, which, though written by a spy and hireling of that monarch, tend to confirm my belief, and even demonstrate that in his eagerness to get rid of a formidable competitor, Henry did not hesitate to urge midnight assassination. These letters are printed
in the Appendix to Pinkerton's History of Scotland. The verses which form the motto to these volumes, are part of a rythmical Chronicle, written by two subjects of Burgundy, who lived in those days; it is entitled "Recollection des Merveilles, advenues en
nostre temps, commencée par très élégant orateur, Messire Georges Chastellan, et continuée par Maistre Jean Molinet."
In addition to the unwilling suffrage of his enemies, we may adduce the acts of his friends and allies. Human nature in its leading features is the same in all ages. James the Fourth of Scotland was a man of great talent and discernment: he
was proud; attached, as a Scot, to the prejudices of birth; of punctilious honour. No one can believe that he would have bestowed his near kinswoman, nor have induced the Earl of Huntley to give his daughter in marriage, to one who did not bear evident signs
of being of royal blood.
The various adventures of this unfortunate Prince in many countries, and his alliance with a beautiful and high-born woman, who proved a faithful, loving wife to him, take away the sting from the ignominy which might attach itself to his fate;
and make him, we venture to believe, in spite of the contumely later historians have chosen, in the most arbitrary way, to heap upon him, a fitting object of interesta hero to ennoble the pages of a humble tale.
Excerpt From: Mary Shelley. The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck. iBooks.
****
Philippa replied: " Many thanks Dianne, this mention might be interesting but at the moment I can't say either way as my understanding is that there are no records in the ToL that confirm the survival of the younger Prince (even well-known ones).
However, that is not to say they don't exist they may have been forgotten about or inadvertently mis-catalogued. Seems unlikely they would have been forgotten, but the problem is Shelly is not specific about them (which is very strange in itself as surely
these would form a slam dunk for her argument, with even a brief mention). Also she doesn't say if she actually saw any of the documents herself. As a result it sounds like she's heard whispers only about them even though she says some are well-known.
I can certainly mark this down as a line of investigation for TMPP, and many thanks for the heads-up, but at the moment I haven't got the man-power to offer this investigation to anyone. Will this be enough for you that I've marked it down at
this stage, or if you know of anyone who would like to take this line of enquiry on and produce a report on it that will help get it bumped up the queue. There's always that nagging doubt that Shelly is bang-on and the whispers she heard are actually true
and the documents have been mis-catalogued. I also wonder if the ToL know about this statement and if they have ever investigated it. I've got a contact there but I would need a properly researched report on Shelly's findings first so that they don't think
it's a wild goose-chase and then ignore an approach (we are fighting this perception all the time sadly with so many lines of investigation which I'm sure will be no surprise we got this with LFRP as well, sigh ...)
Apols I've wittered on a bit but suffice it to say I've taken note but if you know of anyone who would be willing to look into this in the first instance and produce a foot-noted report, I could then approach my TOL contact with it.
All the best as ever
Philippa
***
I asked if I could share her reply:
Yes Dianne, please share ... if it's meant to be hopefully someone will see it and give a shout out ... we can only keep opening all the doors before us in the hope that one (or more) may be the right ones!
Take care also, and thanks again for the heads-up.
ATB
Philippa
So&. is there anyone reading this who can research this further? Here is a link to the Appendix in the book Mary Shelley mentioned Pinkerton's The History
of Scotland' and the Appendix is Page 437
https://books.google.co.uk/ books?id=0dI_AAAAcAAJ&pg= PA424&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3# v=onepage&q=appendix&f=false
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
I wrote my doctoral thesis on her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, so I'm rather well acquainted with Mary's background. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (author of "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman") died when she was two weeks old, and she lived a highly unorthodox life in a household composed of her father, his second wife, their son, that wife's two children by a previous relationship, and Mary's illegitimate half-sister. Mary left England at sixteen, eloping with the married poet, Percy Shelley (and bringing her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, along for the adventure. Shelley later wrote to his wife, Harriet, to "come join us and be our sister," but she declined the offer). Mary did not return to England until a year after Shelley's death by drowning in 1822, and until 1844 was hampered by poverty and then by ill health. (She died in 1851.) She did read extensively, as evidenced by the quoted appendix, and she wrote both novels and essays, but there is no evidence that she conducted any original research in the Tower of London or anywhere else. "Perkin" is highly sentimental (and antagonistic toward Henry VII), but I doubt that it provides any solid evidence for the identity of Perkin Warbeck.
Whether she was right or wrong about the existence of documents related to Perkin/Richard of York in Tower I don't know, but she certainly never consulted them.
Carol
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
On Oct 11, 2017 6:48 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
Before we pursue this topic any further, it might be a good idea to read Mary Shelley's book (it's Shelley, not Shelly), which is not particularly favorable toward Richard III. In one place, if I recall correctly, she refers to him as "the old king" (evidently, she had no idea that he died at 32). She does suggest that Edward V died a natural death, but she also states that Elizabeth Woodville was confined to a nunnery for consenting to the marriage of her daughter and Richard III and that "Lord Lincoln disapproved decidedly of the usurpation of his uncle, Richard the Third, over the children of Edward the Fourth"--not exactly grounds for confidence in her research or historical reliability.
I wrote my doctoral thesis on her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, so I'm rather well acquainted with Mary's background. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (author of "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman") died when she was two weeks old, and she lived a highly unorthodox life in a household composed of her father, his second wife, their son, that wife's two children by a previous relationship, and Mary's illegitimate half-sister. Mary left England at sixteen, eloping with the married poet, Percy Shelley (and bringing her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, along for the adventure. Shelley later wrote to his wife, Harriet, to "come join us and be our sister," but she declined the offer). Mary did not return to England until a year after Shelley's death by drowning in 1822, and until 1844 was hampered by poverty and then by ill health. (She died in 1851.) She did read extensively, as evidenced by the quoted appendix, and she wrote both novels and essays, but there is no evidence that she conducted any original research in the Tower of London or anywhere else. "Perkin" is highly sentimental (and antagonistic toward Henry VII), but I doubt that it provides any solid evidence for the identity of Perkin Warbeck.
Whether she was right or wrong about the existence of documents related to Perkin/Richard of York in Tower I don't know, but she certainly never consulted them.
Carol
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
On Oct 11, 2017 11:36 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
Mary makes reference to sources. Perhaps some here hadn't heard of them. They might prove valuable who knows? I give Phillipa credit for sticking her neck out and exploring every avenue. I wasn't suggesting we take Mary at her word.
On Oct 11, 2017 6:48 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Before we pursue this topic any further, it might be a good idea to read Mary Shelley's book (it's Shelley, not Shelly), which is not particularly favorable toward Richard III. In one place, if I recall correctly, she refers to him as "the old king" (evidently, she had no idea that he died at 32). She does suggest that Edward V died a natural death, but she also states that Elizabeth Woodville was confined to a nunnery for consenting to the marriage of her daughter and Richard III and that "Lord Lincoln disapproved decidedly of the usurpation of his uncle, Richard the Third, over the children of Edward the Fourth"--not exactly grounds for confidence in her research or historical reliability.
I wrote my doctoral thesis on her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, so I'm rather well acquainted with Mary's background. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (author of "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman") died when she was two weeks old, and she lived a highly unorthodox life in a household composed of her father, his second wife, their son, that wife's two children by a previous relationship, and Mary's illegitimate half-sister. Mary left England at sixteen, eloping with the married poet, Percy Shelley (and bringing her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, along for the adventure. Shelley later wrote to his wife, Harriet, to "come join us and be our sister," but she declined the offer). Mary did not return to England until a year after Shelley's death by drowning in 1822, and until 1844 was hampered by poverty and then by ill health. (She died in 1851.) She did read extensively, as evidenced by the quoted appendix, and she wrote both novels and essays, but there is no evidence that she conducted any original research in the Tower of London or anywhere else. "Perkin" is highly sentimental (and antagonistic toward Henry VII), but I doubt that it provides any solid evidence for the identity of Perkin Warbeck.
Whether she was right or wrong about the existence of documents related to Perkin/Richard of York in Tower I don't know, but she certainly never consulted them.
Carol
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
On Oct 11, 2017 11:36 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
Mary makes reference to sources. Perhaps some here hadn't heard of them. They might prove valuable who knows? I give Phillipa credit for sticking her neck out and exploring every avenue. I wasn't suggesting we take Mary at her word.
On Oct 11, 2017 6:48 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Before we pursue this topic any further, it might be a good idea to read Mary Shelley's book (it's Shelley, not Shelly), which is not particularly favorable toward Richard III. In one place, if I recall correctly, she refers to him as "the old king" (evidently, she had no idea that he died at 32). She does suggest that Edward V died a natural death, but she also states that Elizabeth Woodville was confined to a nunnery for consenting to the marriage of her daughter and Richard III and that "Lord Lincoln disapproved decidedly of the usurpation of his uncle, Richard the Third, over the children of Edward the Fourth"--not exactly grounds for confidence in her research or historical reliability.
I wrote my doctoral thesis on her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, so I'm rather well acquainted with Mary's background. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (author of "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman") died when she was two weeks old, and she lived a highly unorthodox life in a household composed of her father, his second wife, their son, that wife's two children by a previous relationship, and Mary's illegitimate half-sister. Mary left England at sixteen, eloping with the married poet, Percy Shelley (and bringing her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, along for the adventure. Shelley later wrote to his wife, Harriet, to "come join us and be our sister," but she declined the offer). Mary did not return to England until a year after Shelley's death by drowning in 1822, and until 1844 was hampered by poverty and then by ill health. (She died in 1851.) She did read extensively, as evidenced by the quoted appendix, and she wrote both novels and essays, but there is no evidence that she conducted any original research in the Tower of London or anywhere else. "Perkin" is highly sentimental (and antagonistic toward Henry VII), but I doubt that it provides any solid evidence for the identity of Perkin Warbeck.
Whether she was right or wrong about the existence of documents related to Perkin/Richard of York in Tower I don't know, but she certainly never consulted them.
Carol
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
A J
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:31 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, I think all the records that were kept in the Tower in Mary S.'s day have been removed - probably all in TNA, but that could be checked. If Philippa is unaware of this, perhaps someone could pass it on?
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
I know. It's Philippa who spells it "Shelly" for some reason. C.
---In , <karenoder4@...> wrote :
I Googled Mary Shelly but every link spells it Shelley. That's where I got my spelling.
On Oct 11, 2017 11:36 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
Mary makes reference to sources. Perhaps some here hadn't heard of them. They might prove valuable who knows? I give Phillipa credit for sticking her neck out and exploring every avenue. I wasn't suggesting we take Mary at her word.
On Oct 11, 2017 6:48 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Before we pursue this topic any further, it might be a good idea to read Mary Shelley's book (it's Shelley, not Shelly), which is not particularly favorable toward Richard III. In one place, if I recall correctly, she refers to him as "the old king" (evidently, she had no idea that he died at 32). She does suggest that Edward V died a natural death, but she also states that Elizabeth Woodville was confined to a nunnery for consenting to the marriage of her daughter and Richard III and that "Lord Lincoln disapproved decidedly of the usurpation of his uncle, Richard the Third, over the children of Edward the Fourth"--not exactly grounds for confidence in her research or historical reliability.
I wrote my doctoral thesis on her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, so I'm rather well acquainted with Mary's background. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (author of "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman") died when she was two weeks old, and she lived a highly unorthodox life in a household composed of her father, his second wife, their son, that wife's two children by a previous relationship, and Mary's illegitimate half-sister. Mary left England at sixteen, eloping with the married poet, Percy Shelley (and bringing her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, along for the adventure. Shelley later wrote to his wife, Harriet, to "come join us and be our sister," but she declined the offer). Mary did not return to England until a year after Shelley's death by drowning in 1822, and until 1844 was hampered by poverty and then by ill health. (She died in 1851.) She did read extensively, as evidenced by the quoted appendix, and she wrote both novels and essays, but there is no evidence that she conducted any original research in the Tower of London or anywhere else. "Perkin" is highly sentimental (and antagonistic toward Henry VII), but I doubt that it provides any solid evidence for the identity of Perkin Warbeck.
Whether she was right or wrong about the existence of documents related to Perkin/Richard of York in Tower I don't know, but she certainly never consulted them.
Carol
Re: Copied post from King Richard III Facebook group by Matt
Nico
On Monday, 16 October 2017, 20:50:11 GMT+1, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
---In , <karenoder4@...> wrote :
I Googled Mary Shelly but every link spells it Shelley. That's where I got my spelling.
On Oct 11, 2017 11:36 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
Mary makes reference to sources. Perhaps some here hadn't heard of them. They might prove valuable who knows? I give Phillipa credit for sticking her neck out and exploring every avenue. I wasn't suggesting we take Mary at her word.
On Oct 11, 2017 6:48 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Before we pursue this topic any further, it might be a good idea to read Mary Shelley's book (it's Shelley, not Shelly), which is not particularly favorable toward Richard III. In one place, if I recall correctly, she refers to him as "the old king" (evidently, she had no idea that he died at 32). She does suggest that Edward V died a natural death, but she also states that Elizabeth Woodville was confined to a nunnery for consenting to the marriage of her daughter and Richard III and that "Lord Lincoln disapproved decidedly of the usurpation of his uncle, Richard the Third, over the children of Edward the Fourth"--not exactly grounds for confidence in her research or historical reliability.
I wrote my doctoral thesis on her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, so I'm rather well acquainted with Mary's background. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (author of "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman") died when she was two weeks old, and she lived a highly unorthodox life in a household composed of her father, his second wife, their son, that wife's two children by a previous relationship, and Mary's illegitimate half-sister. Mary left England at sixteen, eloping with the married poet, Percy Shelley (and bringing her stepsister, Claire Clairmont, along for the adventure. Shelley later wrote to his wife, Harriet, to "come join us and be our sister," but she declined the offer). Mary did not return to England until a year after Shelley's death by drowning in 1822, and until 1844 was hampered by poverty and then by ill health. (She died in 1851.) She did read extensively, as evidenced by the quoted appendix, and she wrote both novels and essays, but there is no evidence that she conducted any original research in the Tower of London or anywhere else. "Perkin" is highly sentimental (and antagonistic toward Henry VII), but I doubt that it provides any solid evidence for the identity of Perkin Warbeck.
Whether she was right or wrong about the existence of documents related to Perkin/Richard of York in Tower I don't know, but she certainly never consulted them.
Carol
