Bosworth 22 August 1485

This horrible anniversary is with us once more. King Richard and all his loyal supporters who gave their lives for him RIP. Loyaulte me lie.

I'll take a look. And, Hilary, nice to see that the forum is still alive and kicking...!

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 8:07 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

I'm still around Doug..you don't get rid of me that easily...!

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 8:07 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

I'm still around Doug..you don't get rid of me that easily...!

Sorry Doug!


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 8:07 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

I'm still around Doug..you don't get rid of me that easily...!

Not sure I am a Clarence supporter in the same way as I am a Richard supporter but I think there was much more to his story than we are told. I think there is probably a bit of truth in the possible poisoning of Isabel. Probably needs a lot more research but even then there wouldn't be much evidence to prove one way or the other.

I think George has been maligned in a similar fashion as his brother but people seem less bothered. . I think maybe the Twynhoe affair has blotted his copy book' - it's a shame someone can't get to the bottom of it. It doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment. I'm sure though George didn't wake up one day and think what mayhem can I cause today, I know, I will have an elderly lady dragged from her house and executed just because I feel like it - like a petulant child. Why would he do that?

I find it a little baffling that people view George's (and Warwick's) rebellion in a bad way. I find it perfectly understandable. After all they were only trying to get the Wydevilles ousted from so much power which makes sense, the Wydevilles were detested in seems. I would have been up there with them no doubt. It's hard to defend Clarence then deserting Warwick perhaps because Warwick had promised him the crown. Who knows...I think you would have to walk a mile in George's shoes really. I think he made his mistakes as we all do. If he believed Isobel was poisoned then I don't blame him for trying to get his son out of England. Blimey I don't know why but I just seem to be able to sympathise with George so much...

But I don't go along with these stories that he was a drunk. There are no contemporary sources that mention this and I don't know where it comes from. John
Ashdown-Hill has also put this story down to a myth'.

Well I hope it's before I pop my clogs Hilary,,,

Eileen,
Were Warwick's, and George's, noses out of joint so much over the Woodvilles
being included, or because they themselves weren't? I personally tend
towards the latter view (big surprise, I know).
FWIW, I do sympathize with George, but only to the extent that, again in my
view, he was in over his head and simply unfitted for the position, the
throne, that he seemed so desperately to want. I also don't doubt he was,
from an early age, likely taken advantage of by less scrupulous people
because of his position as Edward's heir. Am I correct in believing that
George was never officially announced as being Edward's heir? Perhaps it
might have been better had Edward done so and given George the same sort of
education/training as befitted a potential heir? It's also occurred to me
that possibly the problem with George may have been as simple as that,
unlike his younger brother Richard, he (George) was temperamentally too much
like Edward? If that wouldn't set those two off against each other...
Perhaps, rather than alcoholism, George suffered from sort of
manic/depressive condition? If so, then I seriously doubt the use of
alcohol, in any amount, would have been to the good. If, as I suggested
above, the main cause of the problems between George and Edward was their
similarity in temperament, perhaps Isabel was able to "managed" George when,
for whatever the reason, he got into a "state"? It certainly would be nice
to know.
Doug

Eileen wrote:
"I find it a little baffling that people view George's (and Warwick's)
rebellion in a bad way. I find it perfectly understandable. After all they
were only trying to get the Wydevilles ousted from so much power which makes
sense, the Wydevilles were detested in seems. I would have been up there
with them no doubt. It's hard to defend Clarence then deserting Warwick
perhaps because Warwick had promised him the crown. Who knows...I think you
would have to walk a mile in George's shoes really. I think he made his
mistakes as we all do. If he believed Isobel was poisoned then I don't
blame him for trying to get his son out of England. Blimey I don't know why
but I just seem to be able to sympathise with George so much...
But I don't go along with these stories that he was a drunk. There are no
contemporary sources that mention this and I don't know where it comes from.
John Ashdown-Hill has also put this story down to a myth'."

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

As I said before there is more to George's story than we know at present. The story about him supposedly sending his son to Ireland and then the" Dublin King" seems too much of a coincidence to me. I think that George had problems but whether he was an alcoholic or not we will probably never know. When Edward refused to let him marry Isabel, I suppose if he was a headstrong young man ( and he probably was) he would have thought how dare Edward try to stop him marrying the woman of his choice and maybe greed was the reason that he tried to stop Richard marrying Anne. It could have been arrogance too, Edward tried to stop me marrying Isabel so I'll do the same thing to Richard.

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere?
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks. H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi all,

Been away a while, so a lot of stuff to catch up with. I'll try and work through the posts I've missed, but if I can start with Clarence. I don't mind about astrology being discussed. What interests me is whether it fits in with the historical picture. In this case I think it really rather does.

My take on Clarence is that he was very narcissistic - perhaps he would even have merited a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, if such a diagnosis had existed in his day. In other words, he instinctively felt himself to be the special person in the world - the natural centre of everything; and he would have been a bit lacking in the empathy department. He would have found playing second fiddle to Edward very difficult, and when it was put to him that Edward might not be the Duke of York's real son, well, it would have been very easy for George to believe. It was just as his gut instincts had indicated: finally, everything made sense.*

The thing is, Clarence used the story of Edward's bastardy in 1477 as well as 1469 (his recent reuse of it is in the Act of Attainder against him). So it wasn't just something he got talked into by Warwick in his impressionable youth. And we don't actually have any evidence that he knew of, let alone made use of, the Eleanor Butler story. I believe that George got himself eaten up with the idea that Edward was sitting on his throne. With that sort of personality type he would have had a job, too, understanding the hurt he was causing his mother.

Nor do I think Clarence only plotted against Edward in 1469 and 1477. The most natural explanation for the treasons of Oxford and Archbishop Neville in the early 1470s is that they were plotting on George's behalf. So I don't think there was ever a genuine reconciliation. Same old George all the way through, eaten up with the same ambition. In 1471 he chose the least worst option for himself, but I don't think he ever intended living under Edward's rule for long than strictly necessary.

His sense of being something special I think also explains his hostility to sharing any of the Beauchamp estates with Richard. In his eyes they were his reward (possibly actually promised him by Edward) for changing sides and saving Edward's bacon. And he certainly didn't think his younger brother should have wealth and influence on a par with his own. But I also suspect John Paston was right, and that the renewed quarrel with Richard over the estates in 1473 (apparently after Richard's marriage) was probably a cover for treason - it coincided with Oxford's rebellion, after all. If Edward also suspected that, it would make rather better sense of his partisan approach to enforcing a settlement, in confiscating Clarence's estates but not Richard's.

Like a lot of narcissists, Clarence was, I'm sure, extremely charming and engaging socially. Mancini and Crowland both indicate that he was. And I think he really believed that Edward was a bastard, so felt completely justified in seeking his throne, and also found it easy to believe that Edward would stop at nothing to prevent him getting his 'rights'.

But, really, I don't see why Edward would poison Isabel and the baby, and leave Edward of Warwick, or why he would assassinate George's wife and baby but leave George and his heir alive and well. Clearly Clarence believed Edward was trying to poison him and Edward of Warwick as well, as he stopped eating at court and tried to smuggle his son overseas, but it really doesn't seem to have been true. He survived several months of incarceration in the Tower, and his son and daughter were both well looked after following his execution. What precipitated these strange ideas, we will probably never know, but Clarence only seems to have got all this into his head whilst he was at court in February and March, following Isabel's extremely lengthy obsequies. Something somebody said??

Or was Clarence starting to tip over into some sort of delusional illness?

Where I would differ from Nico is that I don't really believe George worried much about what being king was for. There is no indication in the way he ran his own area of the country that he had much vision, or inspired any great loyalty.

Poor old Clarence. He was obviously so distraught at Isabel's death but, if he was the sort of person I think he was, then I don't think he would actually have been a very thoughtful husband. It's rather similar with his outrage over Burdet's execution. It's hard to find any evidence that he took any interest in Thomas Burdet whilst he was alive.

Marie

*For me, the important question about the story of Edward's bastardy for an historian (other than, perhaps, a biographer of Cecily Neville) is not whether it was true - only DNA evidence can answer that - but whether it had enough plausibility to have affected people's actions at the time. In other words, did the existence of the story change history or not?

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment.
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age. Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction.

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere?
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks. H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment. 
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age.  Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction. 

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

 

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere? 
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks.  H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

 

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy.  The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him.  George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 12:44 PM Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment.
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age. Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction.

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere?
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks. H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions.. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager.. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 12:44 PM Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment.
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age. Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction.

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere?
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks. H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions.. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager.. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 12:44 PM Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment.
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age. Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction.

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere?
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks. H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions.. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager.. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

As for the 'custody' of Anne Beauchamp, she was treated totally illegally by Edward - her entitlement as a widow was expunged. You could say that letting her go to Richard was a incarceration in itself. Edward trusted Richard. She wasn't going to upset any chance of getting back her lands by telling him. And what good would it do? No-one knew that Edward would die so young. Incidentally, at this point no woman had ever been executed for treason, just put in 'safe-keeping' like MOA with the Dowager Duchess of Oxford. Edward I'm sure thought he was putting her in that safe-keeping with Richard.

Marie responds:

Slowly getting back through the old posts.

I agree to some extent, but I'm afraid don't have quite the same take as most people on the Countess of Warwick issue because:-

1. Edward didn't initially attaint any of the rebels - he changed his mind after Archbishop Neville's plot.

2. Edward never attainted even the Neville men. He tells us specifically in one Act of Parliament that he wanted to but Richard talked him out of it.

3. It was very unusual to attaint widows - the Countess of Salisbury (a great heiress as well) was the exception rather than the rule. It was, however, normal to curtail their freedoms.

4. Of all the traitors' wives and mothers in the WotR, Anne Beauchamp was surely the most obviously culpable. She fled with her husband, and after his return to England stayed on in France with Queen Margaret to help Louis push through her daughter's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. She didn't deny any of this, but simply pleaded coverture as an excuse. From what I can see from articles on legal history, it wasn't.

So, when Edward had her lodgings in Beaulieu Sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard he may not have gone through legal channels, but he was king so he was the law, and he certainly had reason to treat the Countess as a defeated enemy. Similarly with regard to her estates - they had been appropriated by the Crown because she had committed open treason. Edward seems to have felt that, with openly declared traitors rather than secret plotters, the formality of a trial was not necessary. I'm not a legal expert, but it's certainly the case the property was routinely confiscated in these circumstances.

So Edward has the lands and decides to bestow them on Clarence, probably in keeping with a promise made to him before he changed sides. But this deprives not only the Countess, but also her younger daughter. Anne was, of course, also an open traitor, but she had been only 14 when she was married off to Prince Edward, and so leniency in her case would have been reasonable. And that is where Richard comes in. He may also have argued for the Countess herself - there's some indication that it was believed he did so - but the final settlement was Edward's decision and took into account both his own implacability towards the Countess and Clarence's recent doings. (Richard made a point of being a long way from parliament when the Act went through, so I think we can ignore Michael Hicks' claim that the whole settlement was pushed through by Richard against Edward's better judgement.)

Yes, I do agree that sending the Countess to Richard was probably tantamount to imprisonment because I very much doubt that he was supposed to allow her to go down to Westminster and start haranguing Edward again to have her lands back. I imagine she remained one very disgruntled lady.

Nico asked

Out of interest, in you reply to Nance, you mentioned Angelo Cato doing an astrological chart that suggested that Edward V would die young. Do you know what his reasoning was?

Marie replies:

That's not quite what I meant. It was Stacy and Blake, back in the mid 1470s, whom we know to have plotted the charts of Edward IV and his elder son, and to have pronounced that neither had too long to live. We don't know their reasoning, but I did once communicate with an expert in medieval astrology, who sent me copies of the relevant lessons in an online course he was running. I can email one of the chapters to you, if you would like - let me know. But what struck me about what I learned from what he sent me that, in the case of a child, early death was held to be indicated by the complete lack of a life force principle in the horoscope, and was believed to result in death at any point from birth to 13th birthday.

Cato had never lived in England, therefore he had never had any English clients that are known about. But in the early 1470s he had lectured in Natural Philosophy and Astrology at Naples University, and in 1472 he wrote a book on the political effects of the comet which had appeared the previous January, looking at events in many countries, even as far afield as Morocco. I'm afraid I don't know whether he mentioned English affairs in this little work. At that point he was still in southern Italy and England can't have seemed that relevant.

He left Italy in 1474, and spent some time with Charles of Burgundy before finally moving on to France. There are several stories of his amazingly accurate predictions, including the succession of his old patron Federico of Taranto to the throne of Naples, some of Duke Charles' military defeats, and even a warning to a French official not to take a particular ferry - the official ignored the advice, the boat capsized and he only survived by hanging on to the branch of a tree.

With that background, I can't help but think that Cato - by this time at the court of Louis XI - would have taken an interest in the Stacy/ Burdet case, and perhaps tried to cast the horoscopes of Edward IV and his son for his new master, assuming he was able to get hold of the necessary birth details.

And, when Edward IV suddenly died in 1483, leaving his (allegedly) astrologically doomed 12-year-old son to succeed, and then that son was deposed and disappeared from view, again I can't help thinking that the particular interest that Cato showed in Mancini's report, and expected his old patron the Prince of Taranto to show (the account was after all written as a gift to him), would have had to do with astrology. My guess is that Cato may have checked and confirmed Stacey's findings at the time (but it is a guess), and had sent word of this to his old patron Taranto, with whom he remained in touch, and was now sending him the next best thing to proof that he had been right again. If so, then Mancini would have known what was expected of him.

Thanks Hilary for Dorothy Davies book mention. I had never heard of it before, but it is available on Amazon Kindle entitled 'Death be Pardoner to me' for £2.77. I'm looking forward to reading it. There is another one about Henry VIII's wives.
It is interesting that she is a medium. The Dening book had some interesting hits (and a few misses), and the Erasmus/Edward V theory started with a psychic too. As for the latter, she had a ropy grip of history, but some good insights, so I have never discarded that theory entirely.
Nico
On Monday, 3 September 2018, 14:26:14 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Marie,

*For me, the important question about the story of Edward's bastardy for an historian (other than, perhaps, a biographer of Cecily Neville) is not whether it was true - only DNA evidence can answer that - but whether it had enough plausibility to have affected people's actions at the time. In other words, did the existence of the story change history or not?
I have just written some things about Edward's possible bastardy in reply to one of Doug's posts, but my feeling is that they introduced the story because they thought it would have had some effect of people's loyalty. While I don't think that it necessarily changed history by itself, it was part of a propaganda campaign that did. Furthermore, I don't think that someone like Warwick would have relied on such a soap opera strategy unless he thought there some substance to it - which in turn encouraged other people to believe it.

I think that Clarence being a narcissistic personality type is another possibility. The other strike against him that I forgot to mention in earlier posts is the feud with Richard over the Warwick estates, and his sense of entitlement to the whole lot. I can't think of anything to justify that. Also, the story of Anne having to be rescued disguised as a cook may or may not be true, but the fact is that it would appear that he was prepared to oppress her and take away her inheritance suggest calculated cruelty rather than a condition such as bipolar disorder or alcoholism, so here Narcissistic Personality Disorder would fit. Also, narcissistic people can be very charming with anyone who doesn't threaten their ego or ambitions, but can be particularly vile to those who do.
As for George having a purpose as King, it may have been just his sense of entitlement, but it must have come from idea somewhere that made sense to him, but not necessarily to anyone else. I also agree with you that he may never have stopped plotting.

Out of interest, in you reply to Nance, you mentioned Angelo Cato doing an astrological chart that suggested that Edward V would die young. Do you know what his reasoning was?
Nico
On Monday, 3 September 2018, 12:07:30 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Karen wrote: Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. I had put the notes on Richard and Henry's charts to one side, due lack of time and the uncertain position of astrology on the forum. However, since there has been a more positive response here, I start putting them back together again. Nico



On Sunday, 2 September 2018, 19:51:41 GMT+1, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 12:44 PM Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment.
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age. Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction.

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere?
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks. H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy. The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him. George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions.. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager.. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote

Do we have any indications of what Cis discussed with George during that meeting [at Sandwich]? My impression is that she was making a last-ditch attempt to get George to not go to France, but I admit I haven't anything in particular to support that idea other than what occurred after Edward returned from Flanders a year or so later when George was convinced to come home.

Marie:

Hi Doug. Well, Edward didn't find out what was going on for ages. He doesn't seem to have known they were off to Calais for a wedding, still less that they were planning a rebellion, and was taken totally by surprise when they got back and issued their proclamations. So Cecily obviously knew about the wedding and didn't tell Edward. There does seem to have been quite bit of support for the marriage, a lot of people feeling Edward was being mean. Archbishop Bourchier actually accepted the papal dispensation for the marriage and had it entered into his register - without telling Edward. There was a very big turnout at the wedding.

So it looks likely that Cecily condoned the marriage, and went to Sandwich to wish her son all the best, but she probably knew nothing about what they had planned for the honeymoon (so to speak).

Karen wrote: Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. I had put the notes on Richard and Henry's charts to one side, due lack of time and the uncertain position of astrology on the forum. However, since there has been a more positive response here, I start putting them back together again.  Nico



On Sunday, 2 September 2018, 19:51:41 GMT+1, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

 

  Nico. Waiting eagerly for those charts you were promising. You're a good astrologer. 
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 12:44 PM Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
 

Hi Hilary,
My apologies for being so late replying. I have been away and I'm just catching up with the forum now.
The full chart on Edward should still be in the files. It is rather long, something that may have been off putting, but I wanted to get the full picture on Edward as well as cover some events like the precontract and what was going on with him at the time. There is a section on relationships with various individuals. What is striking about Clarence's chart is a very high degree of personal ambition - much more so than Edward. The sun is right next to the midheaven - the highest point of the chart, associated with public image as well as Capricorn rising - an aspirational ascendant. The distribution of the planets show a very strong desire to make his mark on the world. There are a lot of planets in his 8th house, including Mars and Saturn, his ruling planet, which indicates conflict over inheritance and other peoples resources. Edward's chart, by contrast, shows him to be more concerned with his immediate environment. 
Astrologically speaking, I would say that Clarence may have thought he had a better plan for England and viewed Edward as too narrowly and personally focused. His chart shows a tendency towards grand ideas (Mercury 9th house), and while his methods were wrong, I suspect his reasons were idealistic in origin. Edward never openly cultivated George as the immediate heir or even as a prominent family member, which suggest that his problem with his younger brother may have begun in childhood. Perhaps he saw George as opinionated and difficult from an early age.  Also, the positions of Mercury, the Moon, Uranus and Neptune hint that he was bright, but vulnerable to instability and/or addiction. 

I agree with your observations about Edward's relationships with women, and the element of a power imbalance with them. Their astrological charts indicate that this may have begun with an unfulfilled need for Cecily's approval. The lunar aspects that give clues to how someone relates to their mother show that both he and Clarence may have found her rather perfectionist, but of the two, Clarence seems to have had a closer connection, while Edward's was more remote, but reactive and needy. My suspicion is that this may not just have been the root of the pattern with Edward's relationships with women, but perhaps towards his younger brothers, as he was even happiest with Richard being useful far away up North. There is a definite need for dominance with Edward and probably some bullying tendencies. As for friends, like you say, he probably didn't cultivate close friends; the astrological indications are that he was rather detached in terms both friendships and partners.
I hope that I am not crossing the line with this analysis, as there was some controversy about astrology on the forum last year.

Nico
On Monday, 27 August 2018, 10:24:11 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

 

Nico have you ever done one of your charts on Edward?
You see the more we find out about him with regard to all sorts of things the darker his character becomes.
With regard to women, he seemed attracted to older, more experienced women, a bit like Edward VIII. But the latter saw them as a sort of mother substitute, the earlier Edward was different. He had power over these women because they were petitioning him for something and the way he wielded this power was not very nice to say the least. Only one, EW, thought she had the upper hand and she came badly unstuck.
If you look at Edward's relationships with men (and I don't mean JAH's potential sexual ones) he seems to have had very few close friends except Hastings and perhaps Hatticliffe. I doubt the Woodvilles fell into the friends category. Again it's the way he wielded his power. He used it to undermine (as with George) or divide (as with the gentry in the counties). And of course no-one with any charisma (Warwick and potentially George) was allowed to get very far at all. Perhaps that's one reason he didn't woo back the talented De Vere? 
Richard and George on the other hand seem to have made longstanding friends from those who worked with them. Richard in particular was a much better team player in the modern sense.. And Richard used power in a much different way - to effect change. In the way he worked he was much more modern than both his predecessor and his successor.
BTW I've just realised that Burdet would have been of the Warwick affinity too - he was an ex High Sheriff of Warks.  H

On Monday, 27 August 2018, 01:07:59 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

 

There have been a lot insightful thoughts here about Clarence. I never know what to make of him. At first glance he sounds dreadful, so treacherous that he would not just join a treasonous rebellion to overthrow his brother, but he even colluded in shaming his own mother with stories of Edward's illegitmacy.  The latter is a real turn off when it comes to sympathy for George, but it is such a low blow that makes me wonder if there actually was a chance of it being true. Alternatively, he may have had little to do with this rumour, but historians have lumped him in with Warwick who instigated it. Also, Warwick was Cecily's nephew - an insider who could have known a family secret. Perhaps it wasn't Blaybourne the archer - an unlikely relationship for Cecily - but someone more senior in the retinue. While Michael Jones theory isn't conclusive, if Edward's illegitimacy was a skeleton in the York family closet, then it could have caused a negative dynamic within the family that ended up manifesting itself in a feud between Edward and George.
However, as we know, history is written by the winners, and when you dig deeper, the picture may be more complex in relation to George. He lost and if there was some reason validating his actions, it was lost with him.  George doesn't seem to be all bad, and some people, especially in his own lands thought highly of him, and Margaret and Richard remained very fond of him. However, there are hints that something isn't right, and there is an unusual volatility about him and his decisions.. I also detect a sense of entitlement. The suggestions of bipolar disorder and alcoholism are plausible, and it is interesting that Warwick, who trained Edward, Edmund and Richard had no involvement with George as a teenager.. Could this have had something to do with his temperament? In fact, even at this stage, there don't seem to have any plans for George, which is very strange as he would have been Edward's heir. Surely, Edward - at least until he had a son - should have given George some preparation as these were unstable times. Was this something to do with his character or was there some between Edward and George? Even if George wasn't militarily inclined, then like many younger sons, he could have found a career in the Church probably rising to be a bishop - someone who could have been very useful.

Objectively speaking, Edward didn't treat Clarence well. Could there have been an element of bullying a younger brother who clashed with Edward's personality? If he had given him some leeway with his marriage choices and a meaningful role, then the outcome may have been different. Instead, he left George on the sidelines, restricted his choices and eventually let the Woodvilles lord it over him. George was only 11 when Edward became king and was clearly of normal intelligence, but Edward appears to have ignored him from the outset. Edward didn't seem to be very good at dealing with people. Surely he should have known that if you give your heir no meaningful role and treat him poorly, you will alienate him. Even if George were a difficult person, Edward should have tried to manage him better. Without condoning George's rebellion, his festering resentment was a very human reaction, and any feelings he may have had that Edward's rule was bad for England were given a chance to mushroom into something more extreme. If he really believed that Edward was illegitimate that could have fired him up even more.
The other strike against George was his treatment of Ankaret Twyhno. If he did accuse and have her hanged without foundation, that was abhorrent, but I'm not convinced there wasn't more to it. Doug mentioned that both Anne and Isabel died before they were 30, but the direct female line of Anne Beauchamps family seems to be physically weak, and Anne herself was given dispensations from fasts. Perhaps four births weakened Isabel and that led to her early death. Isabel could have died of natural causes or maybe there was something more sinister. Ankaret's family had a criminal history, but we can't be sure about her. I also hope we one day find out something more about this strange episode.
Nico



On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:31:05 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

Nico asked

Out of interest, in you reply to Nance, you mentioned Angelo Cato doing an astrological chart that suggested that Edward V would die young. Do you know what his reasoning was?

Marie replies:

That's not quite what I meant. It was Stacy and Blake, back in the mid 1470s, whom we know to have plotted the charts of Edward IV and his elder son, and to have pronounced that neither had too long to live. We don't know their reasoning, but I did once communicate with an expert in medieval astrology, who sent me copies of the relevant lessons in an online course he was running. I can email one of the chapters to you, if you would like - let me know. But what struck me about what I learned from what he sent me that, in the case of a child, early death was held to be indicated by the complete lack of a life force principle in the horoscope, and was believed to result in death at any point from birth to 13th birthday.

Cato had never lived in England, therefore he had never had any English clients that are known about. But in the early 1470s he had lectured in Natural Philosophy and Astrology at Naples University, and in 1472 he wrote a book on the political effects of the comet which had appeared the previous January, looking at events in many countries, even as far afield as Morocco. I'm afraid I don't know whether he mentioned English affairs in this little work. At that point he was still in southern Italy and England can't have seemed that relevant.

He left Italy in 1474, and spent some time with Charles of Burgundy before finally moving on to France. There are several stories of his amazingly accurate predictions, including the succession of his old patron Federico of Taranto to the throne of Naples, some of Duke Charles' military defeats, and even a warning to a French official not to take a particular ferry - the official ignored the advice, the boat capsized and he only survived by hanging on to the branch of a tree.

With that background, I can't help but think that Cato - by this time at the court of Louis XI - would have taken an interest in the Stacy/ Burdet case, and perhaps tried to cast the horoscopes of Edward IV and his son for his new master, assuming he was able to get hold of the necessary birth details.

And, when Edward IV suddenly died in 1483, leaving his (allegedly) astrologically doomed 12-year-old son to succeed, and then that son was deposed and disappeared from view, again I can't help thinking that the particular interest that Cato showed in Mancini's report, and expected his old patron the Prince of Taranto to show (the account was after all written as a gift to him), would have had to do with astrology. My guess is that Cato may have checked and confirmed Stacey's findings at the time (but it is a guess), and had sent word of this to his old patron Taranto, with whom he remained in touch, and was now sending him the next best thing to proof that he had been right again. If so, then Mancini would have known what was expected of him.

Marie wrote:

Hi Doug. Well, Edward didn't find out what was going on for ages. He doesn't seem to have known they were off to Calais for a wedding, still less that they were planning a rebellion, and was taken totally by surprise when they got back and issued their proclamations. So Cecily obviously knew about the wedding and didn't tell Edward. There does seem to have been quite bit of support for the marriage, a lot of people feeling Edward was being mean. Archbishop Bourchier actually accepted the papal dispensation for the marriage and had it entered into his register - without telling Edward. There was a very big turnout at the wedding.

So it looks likely that Cecily condoned the marriage, and went to Sandwich to wish her son all the best, but she probably knew nothing about what they had planned for the honeymoon (so to speak).

Doug here:

Lets say that this prediction about the death of the younger Edward and JAH's assertion (based on amongst other things Papal masses) was true, then it could throw a whole new light on the events of April/June 1483 couldn't it?
If young Edward's health was known to be declining by those in his closest circle - his father, Rivers, EW, Stanley and Hastings (through his father) then Edward IV couldn't have died at a more inconvenient time. His second son hadn't been trained to rule; Henry VII had time to re-train his and, as far as the Woodvilles were concerned, there was the prospect of a much longer minority which could be dominated by Richard and the Council. And of course young Richard could also become sick. His sister Mary had already died at about that age. His wife had died.
It would explain the urgency of getting young Edward to London and crowned. He could then presumably make a will like Edward VI? It would explain why Richard (probably informed by Hastings, or already knowing this) made all haste to London without a big retinue or Anne. And it would explain why the young King was not exhibited in the cities along the route or made visible in London. It would also explain the poor handwriting from one who had been educated as a future king for the whole of his life. Oh and it would also explain why it was expedient to get rid of Richard with all haste! H

On Monday, 3 September 2018, 18:17:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico asked

Out of interest, in you reply to Nance, you mentioned Angelo Cato doing an astrological chart that suggested that Edward V would die young. Do you know what his reasoning was?

Marie replies:

That's not quite what I meant. It was Stacy and Blake, back in the mid 1470s, whom we know to have plotted the charts of Edward IV and his elder son, and to have pronounced that neither had too long to live. We don't know their reasoning, but I did once communicate with an expert in medieval astrology, who sent me copies of the relevant lessons in an online course he was running. I can email one of the chapters to you, if you would like - let me know. But what struck me about what I learned from what he sent me that, in the case of a child, early death was held to be indicated by the complete lack of a life force principle in the horoscope, and was believed to result in death at any point from birth to 13th birthday.

Cato had never lived in England, therefore he had never had any English clients that are known about. But in the early 1470s he had lectured in Natural Philosophy and Astrology at Naples University, and in 1472 he wrote a book on the political effects of the comet which had appeared the previous January, looking at events in many countries, even as far afield as Morocco. I'm afraid I don't know whether he mentioned English affairs in this little work. At that point he was still in southern Italy and England can't have seemed that relevant.

He left Italy in 1474, and spent some time with Charles of Burgundy before finally moving on to France. There are several stories of his amazingly accurate predictions, including the succession of his old patron Federico of Taranto to the throne of Naples, some of Duke Charles' military defeats, and even a warning to a French official not to take a particular ferry - the official ignored the advice, the boat capsized and he only survived by hanging on to the branch of a tree.

With that background, I can't help but think that Cato - by this time at the court of Louis XI - would have taken an interest in the Stacy/ Burdet case, and perhaps tried to cast the horoscopes of Edward IV and his son for his new master, assuming he was able to get hold of the necessary birth details.

And, when Edward IV suddenly died in 1483, leaving his (allegedly) astrologically doomed 12-year-old son to succeed, and then that son was deposed and disappeared from view, again I can't help thinking that the particular interest that Cato showed in Mancini's report, and expected his old patron the Prince of Taranto to show (the account was after all written as a gift to him), would have had to do with astrology. My guess is that Cato may have checked and confirmed Stacey's findings at the time (but it is a guess), and had sent word of this to his old patron Taranto, with whom he remained in touch, and was now sending him the next best thing to proof that he had been right again. If so, then Mancini would have known what was expected of him.

Marie wrote:

That's not quite what I meant. It was Stacy and Blake, back in the mid 1470s, whom we know to have plotted the charts of Edward IV and his elder son, and to have pronounced that neither had too long to live. We don't know their reasoning, but I did once communicate with an expert in medieval astrology, who sent me copies of the relevant lessons in an online course he was running. I can email one of the chapters to you, if you would like - let me know. But what struck me about what I learned from what he sent me that, in the case of a child, early death was held to be indicated by the complete lack of a life force principle in the horoscope, and was believed to result in death at any point from birth to 13th birthday....

....My guess is that Cato may have checked and confirmed Stacey's findings at the time (but it is a guess), and had sent word of this to his old patron Taranto, with whom he remained in touch, and was now sending him the next best thing to proof that he had been right again. If so, then Mancini would have known what was expected of him.

Karen wrote: ==
= ># Didn't realise you got scared off. You should start a WOTR astrology blog!

I wouldn't say I was scared off, but some regular contributors to the forum clearly thought astrology was beyond the scope of the forum. The other problem was lack of time. I like your suggestion, and I have considered writing something to do with astrology and historical events; maybe one day I will have time to commit to a blog, or even just put all my info on the various WOTR characters and events together. Nico






On Tuesday, 4 September 2018, 11:01:25 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Lets say that this prediction about the death of the younger Edward and JAH's assertion (based on amongst other things Papal masses) was true, then it could throw a whole new light on the events of April/June 1483 couldn't it?
If young Edward's health was known to be declining by those in his closest circle - his father, Rivers, EW, Stanley and Hastings (through his father) then Edward IV couldn't have died at a more inconvenient time. His second son hadn't been trained to rule; Henry VII had time to re-train his and, as far as the Woodvilles were concerned, there was the prospect of a much longer minority which could be dominated by Richard and the Council. And of course young Richard could also become sick. His sister Mary had already died at about that age. His wife had died.
It would explain the urgency of getting young Edward to London and crowned.. He could then presumably make a will like Edward VI? It would explain why Richard (probably informed by Hastings, or already knowing this) made all haste to London without a big retinue or Anne. And it would explain why the young King was not exhibited in the cities along the route or made visible in London. It would also explain the poor handwriting from one who had been educated as a future king for the whole of his life. Oh and it would also explain why it was expedient to get rid of Richard with all haste! H

On Monday, 3 September 2018, 18:17:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico asked

Out of interest, in you reply to Nance, you mentioned Angelo Cato doing an astrological chart that suggested that Edward V would die young. Do you know what his reasoning was?

Marie replies:

That's not quite what I meant. It was Stacy and Blake, back in the mid 1470s, whom we know to have plotted the charts of Edward IV and his elder son, and to have pronounced that neither had too long to live. We don't know their reasoning, but I did once communicate with an expert in medieval astrology, who sent me copies of the relevant lessons in an online course he was running. I can email one of the chapters to you, if you would like - let me know. But what struck me about what I learned from what he sent me that, in the case of a child, early death was held to be indicated by the complete lack of a life force principle in the horoscope, and was believed to result in death at any point from birth to 13th birthday.

Cato had never lived in England, therefore he had never had any English clients that are known about. But in the early 1470s he had lectured in Natural Philosophy and Astrology at Naples University, and in 1472 he wrote a book on the political effects of the comet which had appeared the previous January, looking at events in many countries, even as far afield as Morocco. I'm afraid I don't know whether he mentioned English affairs in this little work. At that point he was still in southern Italy and England can't have seemed that relevant.

He left Italy in 1474, and spent some time with Charles of Burgundy before finally moving on to France. There are several stories of his amazingly accurate predictions, including the succession of his old patron Federico of Taranto to the throne of Naples, some of Duke Charles' military defeats, and even a warning to a French official not to take a particular ferry - the official ignored the advice, the boat capsized and he only survived by hanging on to the branch of a tree.

With that background, I can't help but think that Cato - by this time at the court of Louis XI - would have taken an interest in the Stacy/ Burdet case, and perhaps tried to cast the horoscopes of Edward IV and his son for his new master, assuming he was able to get hold of the necessary birth details.

And, when Edward IV suddenly died in 1483, leaving his (allegedly) astrologically doomed 12-year-old son to succeed, and then that son was deposed and disappeared from view, again I can't help thinking that the particular interest that Cato showed in Mancini's report, and expected his old patron the Prince of Taranto to show (the account was after all written as a gift to him), would have had to do with astrology. My guess is that Cato may have checked and confirmed Stacey's findings at the time (but it is a guess), and had sent word of this to his old patron Taranto, with whom he remained in touch, and was now sending him the next best thing to proof that he had been right again. If so, then Mancini would have known what was expected of him.