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.

Indeed!If you want a happier version look at the Society's Facebook page where they did a version with a different result. I particularly like the bit where someone kicks Stanley in the ribs. Nice to hear from you Eileen! H
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 09:08:10 BST, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


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...!

I enjoyed that post too. Nico
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 09:57:31 GMT+1, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


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

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

And you! I was starting to worry!
Doug



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

RIP Loyaulte me Lie.Mary

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

Good! I for one have missed you. There aren't many of us in the George support group. HSent 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...!

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...!

Is there a Clarence support group on Google? I'd be interested.Nico
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 20:16:41 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Sorry Doug!Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Wednesday, August 22, 2018, 8:07 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
I'm still around Doug..you don't get rid of me that easily...!

If there is, it would have very salubrious meetings.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 22 August 2018 22:16
To:
Subject: Re: Bosworth 22 August 1485

 
Is there a Clarence support group on Google? I'd be interested.

Nico
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 20:16:41 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


 
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...!

Well I'm a Clarence supporter.... but I don't think there are many others sadly..

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.Mary

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?

Spot on Mary! And from what we've learned so far on this forum you can take absolutely nothing at face value. H
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, 23:17:39 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


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.Mary

A agree. I reckon there is much more to the whole Twynyho thing, particularly given that her half-brother and his father seem to have been accomplished forgers. One day we will stumble on something. H
On Thursday, 23 August 2018, 00:07:20 BST, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


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?

Eileen wrote:
"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?"

Doug here:
To be fair, George did a lot of "blotting" during his life, starting with
betraying his brother, and his father's memory for that matter, during the
Re-Adeption. By supporting Warwick and Margaret of Anjou and her son, he
also basically accused his mother of adultery by encouraging the spread of
the Blayburn story. After Edward returned to the throne, George fought tooth
and nail to prevent Richard from marrying Anne, possibly even trying to make
a deal with his mother-in-law over the Warwick/Neville inheritances. All the
while it was perfectly obvious that his brother the king had originally
disapproved of George's marriage and had no intention of allowing George to
inherit Warwick's mantle of "Kingmaker." Why George ever thought so is a
mystery to me. Then we get to the period of Isabel's death. I really think
that, whatever his personal problems were, Isabel does seem to have been the
only one who could "manage" him. Whether it was drink that set him off, I
can't say, but it's entirely possible. At any rate, once Isabel died, George
seemingly had no one to rely on but himself - which appears to have been an
extremely weak reed, indeed.
The accusation that George was attempting to send his son overseas was
nothing less than a direct insult to Edward and George certainly must have
recognized it as being so. He was, basically, claiming that his own brother,
or the family of his brother's wife, was either plotting harm to George's
son. Otherwise, why not ask Edward for assistance in protecting young
Edward? The judicial murders, based on accusations of Isabel being
poisoning, seem to me to be yet another example of George determined to show
he was "Number One," and had the power to accuse, try and, by packing the
jury, have someone executed.
Throughout his adult life George appears to have had an overwhelming
obsession with being "Number 1" and, IMO anyway, that's what caused all his
problems. For whatever reason, he refused to accept that it was Edward, and
not himself, who was the King. We also have to always keep in mind that this
was a period in history when the king was the lynch-pin of the government
and Parliament, while important, simply didn't have the place in national
affairs it later gained. IOW, George was balked at forming some sort of
opposition party, mainly because the concept of "Loyal Opposition" simply
didn't exist at that time. Had Parliament been more central to the governing
of the realm, George, while undoubtedly completing the destruction of his
relationship with Edward, might have had a chance to display those talents
he believed were his and which his brother refused to acknowledge. OTOH, he
might very well have made another attempt at the throne and, FWIW, I tend to
believe that's the major reason Edward acted as his did in regards to the
Warwick/Neville inheritances and made certain George didn't get all of it.
As to the "Why" of George's behavior, I really don't know. Perhaps it was
the death of his father and his brother Edmund, when George went from being
the "spare" to the heir apparent? George was only 11-12 when that happened,
perhaps it went to his head? Undoubtedly he'd have been treated differently
after the deaths of his father and Edmund than before. If, to a swelled
sense of his own importance, one adds the various effects alcoholism can
induce, perhaps that's as close to understanding George's actions as we'll
ever get.
He does seem to have had talents that, when not over-ridden by his ego
and/or drink that might have been better used, but we still have to remember
that it was up to George to demonstrate to Edward that he, George, was
competent and could be trusted to carry out the instructions of his brother,
the king. Which, to the best of my knowledge, was how Richard operated. Had
Isabel survived, perhaps that might have happened, I don't know.
Doug
who also would love to have a cache of documents that shed more light on
this discovered. Of course, any such discovery is almost certain to only add
to the questions...




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

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,,,

I agree with all this Eileen!Let's imagine that George believed the illegitimacy story (after all some people still do) and also that, after 1471, he found out about the Pre Contract? After 1471 the first story would be useless because on Edward's death the Woodvilles would make sure young Edward succeeded which in fact they did try to do in 1483. However, a buddy (Stillington?) producing the Pre Contract story would be a whole different thing - as it was again in 1483. So perhaps that's why George 'conjured the death of the King'. It would be really useful to know and be ready, wouldn't it?If he knew either of these things then I can quite understand why he resented being pushed around by Edward and more particularly Edward's wife's family of upstarts. We know Edward deliberately undermined him in Warwickshire to the advantage of Hastings. He twice refused him the bride of his own choice, once way back in 1468 and again after Isabel's death. He refused to let him go to Margaret in Burgundy where he'd probably be quite happy - I think Margaret was another 'rock' like Isabel. I think Edward was quite cruel to George; forget that about re-admitting him to the fold, that was almost certainly at the behest of Cis. And in a similar way Edward 'used' Richard who was more humble and pliable.Finally, re the Warwick lands issue, I think Richard was just as determined as George. These were two young men who had had a turbulent youth, who were probably desperate for the security that land brought them and the example was set by their elder brother who Ross quite rightly claims to have continued behaving like a land-grabbing magnate.Phew! See George always brings out the fighter in me. :) ) H
On Thursday, 23 August 2018, 18:04:51 BST, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> 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'.

So do I. Well we've already seen one 'find' that no-one ever dreamed we would. H
On Thursday, 23 August 2018, 18:05:37 BST, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


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.

Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

As always, when you re-visit something it prompts something else.I'm as guilty as anyone else in neglecting the period 1469/1471. For example, Warwick often gets glossed over as a 'bad 'un' but he was an educated man, a talented sea captain, admired by Louis XI (now that's something) and with his father had provided staunch support to ROY and Edward. I doubt whether without those two the Yorkists would have made it to the throne.So we get to 1468. Edward knows that Warwick feels shabbily treated and, as if to rub it in, he specifically forbids him to suggest marrying his daughters to George and Richard. George has had enough too. Margaret has gone and he's been forbidden to make a foreign marriage. And recently John Mowbray has died suddenly without explanation, Eleanor too has died suddenly whilst her sister is with Margaret and two of her sister's servants have possibly been murdered. A lot going on.Warwick invites George and Richard to a slap-up meal in Cambridge and moots the idea of marriage to his daughters. Richard takes the huff but George, probably desperate to be important to someone, agrees to go ahead. And the rest is history.And then George and Warwick put out the rumours about Edward's illegitimacy, which will be very much in their interest if they de-throne him but actually don't mean much because he took the throne by conquest. Let's imagine that at the same time Warwick's lady mentions the rumours (or facts) surrounding the shabby treatment of her niece. Warwick and George seek to authenticate this through a bishop, a Yorkshireman who has connections deep into Eleanor's family - and whose family is a member of Warwick's northern affinity. Stillington of course.You see I forgot in the past when I said that all my investigations show that Stillington's family were of the Richard affinity that Richard had of course inherited his northern support from Warwick. Even Horrox agrees with that.It's information that can't be used at that time because Edward could marry and produce a legitimate heir - at this point his heir is George, declared or not. And of course in due course Warwick dies and only George, Stillington and possibly Anne Beauchamp are left with that knowledge. And you can bet that Edward guesses they know. It raises the interesting question of how to deal with George. Does he defy his already upset mother and imprison him? Does he buy him off by giving him more of the Warwick lands? He knows George's nature, how to provoke him (I agree with your diagnosis Doug) and that provoking him may give Edward the outward justified reason to silence him forever. As for Stillington - he's a bishop and a politician - he's not going to rock the boat and Edward has no intention of dying for years. So a little stint in the Tower during George's downfall is a sharp reminder to keep quiet.If you look at it this way does it start to make sense? H
On Friday, 24 August 2018, 17:09:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




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.

Hilary...yes exactly ..I'm thinking on these lines too..

Doug...maybe George was neither..an alcoholic or suffering from a mental illness. No doubt he was hotheaded though..but he certainly gave a very good account of himself when he argued both with Edward at his trial and Richard earlier. Not indications of him being either irrational or drunk.

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.Mary

Interesting post Hilary. I have never ruled out Anne Beauchamp knowing about the pre-contract, and George and Isabel. I think a lot more was going on in the late 1470s that made Edward insecure, but it hasn't been recorded by the chroniclers.Nico
On Sunday, 26 August 2018, 23:26:45 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


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.Mary

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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen wrote:
"Hilary...yes exactly ..I'm thinking on these lines too..
Doug...maybe George was neither..an alcoholic or suffering from a mental
illness. No doubt he was hotheaded though..but he certainly gave a very
good account of himself when he argued both with Edward at his trial and
Richard earlier. Not indications of him being either irrational or drunk."

Doug here:
George's attested abilities are the main reason I wondered if he wasn't
manic/depressive, because there are actions of his that indicate fairly long
spells of George acting, well, sensibly; interspersed with actions that, to
say the least, simply don't help his cause. Whether George's "problems" were
the result of a medical condition or a case of ego run amok, I just don't
know. It may have been as simple as George not being able to handle the
responsibilities that went along with his position? What I do know is that
George's actions certainly appear to me to be those of someone who, whatever
his other talents were, simply had to be "Number One." Maybe it's as simple
as his having been Edward's heir for so long, and the way he was treated
because of that, went to his head and he never got past that? He was, after
all, only 11 or so when Edward became king.
I know I keep coming back to it, but I really do think that the dynamic
between Edward and George, especially after the Re-Adeption, was based on
George's willingness to see his older brother not only dethroned, but likely
killed, either in battle or on a chopping block. Had Edward been captured in
1469/70, the latter is almost certainly what would have happened as I can't
see MoA allowing Edward to live, nor can I see Warwick literally battling
her forces to prevent Edward's death. At any rate, that wouldn't have been
good for any relationship, would it?
In my mind anyway, it explains much of how Edward treated/viewed George
after 1471. George was a problem that couldn't be solved with the
executioner's axe because of who George was; but at the same time, George
couldn't be trusted, at least in Edward's eyes, in the same manner as, say,
Richard was. It basically became a vicious cycle; any attempt by George to
show responsibility and carry out his duties as "Lord of the manor"
effectively in the region Edward had plopped him into, would only arouse
Edward's suspicions that George was trying to build up an "affinity" and,
going by his previous behavior, Edward felt he couldn't trust George at the
head of any group of supporters, especially supporters who looked to first
George as their leader. That's the way society was arranged - roughly a
pyramid with the king relying on those immediately below him for support,
and troops if necessary. However, what was "normal" for everyone else in the
same position, could have been, and likely was, viewed by Edward as a direct
threat to his throne, and his life.
I rather wonder if George didn't have as his model John of Gaunt? The
problem being, Edward IV wasn't Edward III in his dotage nor Richard II in
his youth...
Doug



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

Hilary
wrote:
I agree with all this Eileen!
Let's imagine that George believed the illegitimacy story (after all some
people still do) and also that, after 1471, he found out about the Pre Contract?
After 1471 the first story would be useless because on Edward's death the
Woodvilles would make sure young Edward succeeded which in fact they did
try to do in 1483. However, a buddy (Stillington?) producing the Pre Contract
story would be a whole different thing - as it was again in 1483. So perhaps
that's why George 'conjured the death of the King'. It would be really useful to
know and be ready, wouldn't it?
Doug here:
The main problem I have with this is George's
impulsiveness(?). Everything I've read, good and bad, about him, leads me to the
conclusion that there simply was no way George, had he even an inkling about the
Pre-Contract, could have kept quiet about it. For example, while I certainly
can't imagine Edward providing his brother with pen and paper so that George
could leave a message to posterity about the Pre-Contract's existence, I wonder,
if Edward's major reason for removing George was the latter's
knowledge of the Pre-Contract, then why didn't George raise that issue in his
defense at his trial? He was on trial for, among other things, treason against
the king, for which the penalty was death. What did George have to lose by
not having the bombshell of his brother's bigamous liaison with
Elizabeth Woodville dropped? If he knew about it, that is? At the very least it
would have been a final strike against the brother he may have felt had so often
wronged him over the years. George wasn't at his trial, prosecuted by Edward
BTW, but I find it hard to imagine that, had George known about the
Pre-Contract, there wasn't some way he couldn't have gotten the word out. To the
best of my knowledge, he wasn't held incommunicado, so there would have
people he could have passed what he knew on to. Of course, it is
possible he did just that, but whomever he told simply ignored it.
Hilary continued:
If he knew either of these things then I can quite understand why he
resented being pushed around by Edward and more particularly Edward's wife's
family of upstarts. We know Edward deliberately undermined him in Warwickshire
to the advantage of Hastings. He twice refused him the bride of his own choice,
once way back in 1468 and again after Isabel's death. He refused to let him go
to Margaret in Burgundy where he'd probably be quite happy - I think Margaret
was another 'rock' like Isabel. I think Edward was quite cruel to George; forget
that about re-admitting him to the fold, that was almost certainly at the behest
of Cis. And in a similar way Edward 'used' Richard who was more humble and
pliable.
Doug here:
I have no doubts that George may have
felt he was pushed around by Edward, but the question is: Was he in
reality?
Marriages, at almost all levels of society,
usually weren't the romantic joinings together of today, but most often
hard-headed business dealings. So the question for Edward would have been: What
did George get out his proposed marriage to the Earl of Warwick's eldest
daughter? More importantly, what did the Earl get out of it? We mustn't
forget that by this point in time, Edward and Warwick were no longer BFFs, to
say the least. Any marriage George contracted would have, just because of who he
was, a political importance that needed to be considered at the highest level;
IOW, by the King and his Council. We also don't know when the first
rift appeared between Edward and George; although we do know George
disapproved of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Perhaps that was where
the trouble between the two started?
After Isabel's death, George had already been
forgiven for his marrying Isabel without Edward's permission, committing treason
against Edward and then attempting to grab the entirety of the
Warwick/Neville inheritance for himself, possibly with the agreement of his
mother-in-law. I'm sorry, but I can see where Edward simply didn't trust George
enough to let him out of the kingdom.
A final thought just occurred to me: If George
was allowed to marry the Burgundian heiress, what was there to stop George from
cutting some sort of deal with Louis XI? An exchange of some of Mary of
Burgundy's lands for Louis' support to overthrow Edward, say? Or perhaps
something less drastic, such as Burgundian support of the French efforts to
annex Brittany and Navarre to the French crown?
Hilary concluded:
Finally, re the Warwick lands issue, I think Richard was just as
determined as George. These were two young men who had had a turbulent youth,
who were probably desperate for the security that land brought them and the
example was set by their elder brother who Ross quite rightly claims to have
continued behaving like a land-grabbing magnate.
Phew! See George always brings out the fighter in me. :) )
Doug here:
Needless to say, my view of the quarrel between
George and Richard over their respective wives' inheritance isn't quite same
(Surprise! Surprise!).
Because, in my view anyway, there weren't
two men involved in the dispute, but three: George, Richard
and, most importantly, Edward IV. I use his official title for a
reason.
Warwick's lands, the Neville inheritance, were
subject for forfeiture for his treason, but to the best of my knowledge, Edward
didn't take them (I think that's correct?). What Edward didn't want was
any one person receiving the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance whole and
intact. Edward had just reclaimed the throne and one of the major factors in his
having been pushed off it in the first place had been the power the combination
of the Neville/Beauchamp/Despenser had given Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick.
Any hesitation Edward may have felt about allowing George to inherit that power
was, I think, fully justified by George's recent treason. George may have been
forgiven by Edward, but I seriously doubt what he'd done was
forgotten!
Which meant that inheritance had to be divided up
between George and Richard. Apparently, however, George didn't want to give up
anything and may have been supported in that position by his mother-in-law. So
Edward stepped in and, seemingly, forced a division of the inheritance. Even
going to the point of having Anne Beauchamp's properties treated as if she were
dead. Whether Richard was satisfied with the results, I can't say, but there's
no evidence I know of saying otherwise.
IOW, the division of the
Neville/Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance was of vital importance to
Edward's security as king. Personally, if Edward was as greedy as Ross
suggests, I don't know why he didn't just take the Neville inheritance via an
Attainder, but there it is. At any rate, it was Warwick's wife's inheritance
that was so importance and couldn't be allowed to fall in toto into the
hands of anyone Edward didn't trust completely. Thus the division between his
two brothers, one of whom he trusted and one he apparently didn't.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover
that over the years George has received a bad Press; after all, look at what
happened to his older brother's reputation! Still, I do think George himself was
responsible for his actions and thus has to bear any blame that resulted from
them.
At any rate, these posts/discussions are, to say
the least, very interesting; even if, barring the discovery of some new
information, not likely to change anyone's views.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
As always, when you re-visit something it prompts something else.
Doug here:
Ain't it the truth!
Hilary continued:
I'm as guilty as anyone else in neglecting the period 1469/1471. For
example, Warwick often gets glossed over as a 'bad 'un' but he was an educated
man, a talented sea captain, admired by Louis XI (now that's something) and with
his father had provided staunch support to ROY and Edward. I doubt whether
without those two the Yorkists would have made it to the throne.
So we get to 1468. Edward knows that Warwick feels shabbily treated and, as
if to rub it in, he specifically forbids him to suggest marrying his daughters
to George and Richard. George has had enough too. Margaret has gone and he's
been forbidden to make a foreign marriage. And recently John Mowbray has died
suddenly without explanation, Eleanor too has died suddenly whilst her sister is
with Margaret and two of her sister's servants have possibly been murdered. A
lot going on.
Warwick invites George and Richard to a slap-up meal in Cambridge and moots
the idea of marriage to his daughters. Richard takes the huff but George,
probably desperate to be important to someone, agrees to go ahead. And the rest
is history.
Doug here:
FWIW, and it regards to your first paragraph, I
thought of something and had to look it up. Warwick was younger than Richard,
Duke of York by about 15 years or so and almost exactly the same number of years
separated Warwick from Edward IV. Perhaps some, much?, of what we're dealing
with here is the result of the differences in ages? It's become a cliché as to
how kids nowadays don't have the respect for their elder we did; could
something along these lines help account for the actions of Edward, George and
Richard Neville?
Might Warwick's position, besides being the
greatest magnate in the kingdom, have been that he'd taken a backseat,
anachronistically speaking, to Richard, Duke of York in large part because of
the age difference and expected Edward to do the same? Of course Edward
was actually the king, a position his father had only claimed, but
still...
There's also a very good possibility that Edward
also realized that without those two (Warwick and his father) he wouldn't be
king. Would he, Edward, really want to see someone with the power to possibly
remove and replace him start grooming a possible spare?
Hilary continued:
And then George and Warwick put out the rumours about Edward's
illegitimacy, which will be very much in their interest if they de-throne him
but actually don't mean much because he took the throne by conquest. Let's
imagine that at the same time Warwick's lady mentions the rumours (or facts)
surrounding the shabby treatment of her niece. Warwick and George seek to
authenticate this through a bishop, a Yorkshireman who has connections deep into
Eleanor's family - and whose family is a member of Warwick's northern affinity.
Stillington of course.
You see I forgot in the past when I said that all my investigations show
that Stillington's family were of the Richard affinity that Richard had of
course inherited his northern support from Warwick. Even Horrox agrees with
that.
Doug here:
I can imagine such information not being used at
that time as it wasn't needed but, once again and unlike the illegitimacy story,
there's the complete lack of any rumors about the Pre-Contract
after 1471 and before May of 1483.
A lot could be put down simply to inertia, which
applies to political affairs as well as the physical sciences. Why rock the
boat? The other possibility is that there were rumors, but so limited
in those who heard them that we simply have no record of them. Which could,
OTOH, might help explain why the Pre-Contract was so readily believed  there
were enough people of status to claim that, yes, they'd heard the rumors, but
considered them to be in the same category as the stories about Edward IV's
illegitimacy.
Hilary concluded:
It's information that can't be used at that time because Edward could
marry and produce a legitimate heir - at this point his heir is George, declared
or not. And of course in due course Warwick dies and only George, Stillington
and possibly Anne Beauchamp are left with that knowledge. And you can bet that
Edward guesses they know. It raises the interesting question of how to deal with
George. Does he defy his already upset mother and imprison him? Does he buy him
off by giving him more of the Warwick lands? He knows George's nature, how to
provoke him (I agree with your diagnosis Doug) and that provoking him may give
Edward the outward justified reason to silence him forever. As for Stillington -
he's a bishop and a politician - he's not going to rock the boat and Edward has
no intention of dying for years. So a little stint in the Tower during George's
downfall is a sharp reminder to keep quiet.
If you look at it this way does it start to make sense?
Doug here:
I just can't see Edward, presuming he suspected
George and Anne of knowing about the Pre-Contract, not doing more than he did.
Yes, he stripped Anne Beauchamp of her inheritance, but he then allowed her to
go and live with Richard and her younger daughter. Really? When he had an
excellent prima facie case against her for aiding and abetting treason?
I could understand Edward not wanting to have her executed, but if Edward even
suspected Anne Beauchamp of knowing about the Pre-Contract, why didn't
he keep her locked up someplace under the supervision people definitely
loyal to him? Why risk her talking to, say, her daughter, who just might believe
her? And could Edward expect Richard's wife to keep such a secret from her
husband? Because, from Richard's actions after Edward's death, it appears he had
no knowledge of the Pre-Contract until it was revealed to the
Council.
I can easily imagine Stillington keeping quiet;
after all, unless or until Edward IV dies, whether his children by Elizabeth
Woodville are illegitimate or not doesn't matter  too much. Lacking any further
information, I'm still inclined to place Stillington's spell in the Tower (or
wherever) down to Edward simply not being certain of the bishop's
loyalty.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
Do we know George was intending to send his son to Ireland? I know he was
charged with attempting to send him overseas, but do we know just where? Of
course, if there were any disagreements(?) between Edward and the magnates in
Ireland, the idea of sending young Edward there might appear doubly suspicious
to Edward IV. After all, George had already tried to get throne, what sort of
trouble might he stir up if Edward of Warwick was in a position where he could
be offered as a possible substitute to Edward's offspring?
FWIW, I tend to view George's actions in regards to his marrying Isabel
more on the lines of his looking out for himself. After all, someone
was going to inherit the Neville/Beauchamp/Despenser properties, why not George,
Duke of Clarence? I also rather think that the idea of controlling all that
power may have been George's original and main motive for marrying Isabel. After
all, wasn't Warwick known as the Kingmaker? If he couldn't be the actual king,
he'd settle for being the Kingmaker.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re your first paragraph, which I broadly agree with Doug, I think there's even more. Warwick was Cis's favourite nephew and she and he had been involved in the negotiations with Bona of Savoy. Edward's behaviour to both of them was actually quite humiliating. Cis also went to see George at Sandwich before he went to France with Warwick. This as good as endorsed his marriage - Isabel was her goddaughter. Yes it probably was about age equaling seniority but Warwick had a marvellous track record. He was one to keep on your side and he was Edward's cousin. At no time did he ever hint of claiming the throne for himself. And of course he had to watch the Woodvilles, who had done nothing to help, appear to have more influence than he did.As with everything to do with this period, I think we need to start from scratch and try to sort the literature/legend from what we really know. As Eileen says, what is there to say that George was a drunkard, it wasn't mentioned in his indictment? If you look at the CPR he was on as many if not more Commissions than Richard. He actually worked very hard. Would Edward trust him to dispense justice in a public scenario if he was normally drunk or irrational? The one record we do have (and I can't remember from where) is of him chastising a member of the Commission for going to sleep during a particularly boring hearing. Again he receives no mention in the indictments against Edward's behaviour in the Parliament of 1484. What we do have is the strange case of Ankarette Twynyho and I for one do think there is a lot more to that than meets the eye.I think Stillington's northern affinity to Warwick/Richard is relevant. He's always puzzled me because he had a foot in both camps. I could see there being more of a buzz about this shortly after Eleanor's death. As I've said before it's very much a woman thing - 'have you heard about poor Eleanor Butler?'. But it would have to be very discreet gossip. It wouldn't surprise me if MB knew, she moved in those circles. But the knowledge was useless until Edward died and who would want to incur the wrath of EW? So very discreet. I don't think Richard or Anne knew. Incidentally this was around the time of the birth of Stillington's three granddaughters. Did he obtain the information from Sir John Newton in exchange for arranging their future marriage into his family? They were considerable heiresses.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.Every bit of the whole Richard story needs taking right back to the drawing board - just like Stony Stratford. And in the meantime there are a lot of popular historians on the gravy train churning out and perpetuating the same old untruths. H
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018, 19:25:08 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary
wrote:
As always, when you re-visit something it prompts something else.
Doug here:
Ain't it the truth!
Hilary continued:
I'm as guilty as anyone else in neglecting the period 1469/1471. For
example, Warwick often gets glossed over as a 'bad 'un' but he was an educated
man, a talented sea captain, admired by Louis XI (now that's something) and with
his father had provided staunch support to ROY and Edward. I doubt whether
without those two the Yorkists would have made it to the throne.
So we get to 1468. Edward knows that Warwick feels shabbily treated and, as
if to rub it in, he specifically forbids him to suggest marrying his daughters
to George and Richard. George has had enough too. Margaret has gone and he's
been forbidden to make a foreign marriage. And recently John Mowbray has died
suddenly without explanation, Eleanor too has died suddenly whilst her sister is
with Margaret and two of her sister's servants have possibly been murdered. A
lot going on.
Warwick invites George and Richard to a slap-up meal in Cambridge and moots
the idea of marriage to his daughters. Richard takes the huff but George,
probably desperate to be important to someone, agrees to go ahead. And the rest
is history.
Doug here:
FWIW, and it regards to your first paragraph, I
thought of something and had to look it up. Warwick was younger than Richard,
Duke of York by about 15 years or so and almost exactly the same number of years
separated Warwick from Edward IV. Perhaps some, much?, of what we're dealing
with here is the result of the differences in ages? It's become a cliché as to
how kids nowadays don't have the respect for their elder we did; could
something along these lines help account for the actions of Edward, George and
Richard Neville?
Might Warwick's position, besides being the
greatest magnate in the kingdom, have been that he'd taken a backseat,
anachronistically speaking, to Richard, Duke of York in large part because of
the age difference and expected Edward to do the same? Of course Edward
was actually the king, a position his father had only claimed, but
still...
There's also a very good possibility that Edward
also realized that without those two (Warwick and his father) he wouldn't be
king. Would he, Edward, really want to see someone with the power to possibly
remove and replace him start grooming a possible spare?
Hilary continued:
And then George and Warwick put out the rumours about Edward's
illegitimacy, which will be very much in their interest if they de-throne him
but actually don't mean much because he took the throne by conquest. Let's
imagine that at the same time Warwick's lady mentions the rumours (or facts)
surrounding the shabby treatment of her niece. Warwick and George seek to
authenticate this through a bishop, a Yorkshireman who has connections deep into
Eleanor's family - and whose family is a member of Warwick's northern affinity.
Stillington of course.
You see I forgot in the past when I said that all my investigations show
that Stillington's family were of the Richard affinity that Richard had of
course inherited his northern support from Warwick. Even Horrox agrees with
that.
Doug here:
I can imagine such information not being used at
that time as it wasn't needed but, once again and unlike the illegitimacy story,
there's the complete lack of any rumors about the Pre-Contract
after 1471 and before May of 1483.
A lot could be put down simply to inertia, which
applies to political affairs as well as the physical sciences. Why rock the
boat? The other possibility is that there were rumors, but so limited
in those who heard them that we simply have no record of them. Which could,
OTOH, might help explain why the Pre-Contract was so readily believed  there
were enough people of status to claim that, yes, they'd heard the rumors, but
considered them to be in the same category as the stories about Edward IV's
illegitimacy.
Hilary concluded:
It's information that can't be used at that time because Edward could
marry and produce a legitimate heir - at this point his heir is George, declared
or not. And of course in due course Warwick dies and only George, Stillington
and possibly Anne Beauchamp are left with that knowledge. And you can bet that
Edward guesses they know. It raises the interesting question of how to deal with
George. Does he defy his already upset mother and imprison him? Does he buy him
off by giving him more of the Warwick lands? He knows George's nature, how to
provoke him (I agree with your diagnosis Doug) and that provoking him may give
Edward the outward justified reason to silence him forever. As for Stillington -
he's a bishop and a politician - he's not going to rock the boat and Edward has
no intention of dying for years. So a little stint in the Tower during George's
downfall is a sharp reminder to keep quiet.
If you look at it this way does it start to make sense?
Doug here:
I just can't see Edward, presuming he suspected
George and Anne of knowing about the Pre-Contract, not doing more than he did.
Yes, he stripped Anne Beauchamp of her inheritance, but he then allowed her to
go and live with Richard and her younger daughter. Really? When he had an
excellent prima facie case against her for aiding and abetting treason?
I could understand Edward not wanting to have her executed, but if Edward even
suspected Anne Beauchamp of knowing about the Pre-Contract, why didn't
he keep her locked up someplace under the supervision people definitely
loyal to him? Why risk her talking to, say, her daughter, who just might believe
her? And could Edward expect Richard's wife to keep such a secret from her
husband? Because, from Richard's actions after Edward's death, it appears he had
no knowledge of the Pre-Contract until it was revealed to the
Council.
I can easily imagine Stillington keeping quiet;
after all, unless or until Edward IV dies, whether his children by Elizabeth
Woodville are illegitimate or not doesn't matter  too much.. Lacking any further
information, I'm still inclined to place Stillington's spell in the Tower (or
wherever) down to Edward simply not being certain of the bishop's
loyalty.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I'm sure George and Richard would be keen to get their hands on Warwick's lands, who wouldn't? For a start it would take away some of their reliance on Edward. They would also be marrying cousins that they knew and with the encouragement of their Neville mother.However, the fly in the ointment to power and influence was the Woodvilles. The days of being kingmaker in any form were over whilst they were around. You know I blame More for a lot of this. It's his account of Edward being the model king, full on bonhomie and everyone else villains. In fact, it was probably Edward who was the dark character, if his treatment of others is anything to go by. H
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018, 19:40:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
Do we know George was intending to send his son to Ireland? I know he was
charged with attempting to send him overseas, but do we know just where? Of
course, if there were any disagreements(?) between Edward and the magnates in
Ireland, the idea of sending young Edward there might appear doubly suspicious
to Edward IV. After all, George had already tried to get throne, what sort of
trouble might he stir up if Edward of Warwick was in a position where he could
be offered as a possible substitute to Edward's offspring?
FWIW, I tend to view George's actions in regards to his marrying Isabel
more on the lines of his looking out for himself. After all, someone
was going to inherit the Neville/Beauchamp/Despenser properties, why not George,
Duke of Clarence? I also rather think that the idea of controlling all that
power may have been George's original and main motive for marrying Isabel. After
all, wasn't Warwick known as the Kingmaker? If he couldn't be the actual king,
he'd settle for being the Kingmaker.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Nico 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.
Doug here:
Assertions of illegitimacy seem to have been a
fairly common political tactic during this period, so my personal view
is that the Blaybourne story is just that  a story. However, even presuming
George knew it to be simply a political stratagem, his apparent going along with
it doesn't reflect well on him. What the propagation of the story, and George's
apparent willingness to have it spread, does tell me, however. is that, for
whatever reason, George was, well, desperate to be thought of as
someone important in his own right. As to Why George may have felt
thus, I don't know.
Nico continued:
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.
Doug here:
While reading your post,
something came to mind that I hadn't thought of before. We tend to think of the
York brothers as consisting of Edward, George and Richard  but there was
another one, Edmund. I've listed their dates of birth below.
Edward  April 22, 1442
Edmund  May 17, 1443
George  October 21, 1449
Richard  October 2, 1452
and what we appear to have are two
sets of siblings; Edward and Edmund as the first set, with George and
Richard as the second. What do we know, if anything, about the relationship
between the two oldest brothers? Is it possible that, after Edmund's death,
George expected to take Edmund's place? Not just as Edward's heir, but as a
companion and friend? And, for whatever reason/s, Edward rebuffed George's
overtures? Perhaps some sort of dynamic along those lines might better explain
why George seems to have not only gotten along with all the other members of his
family, but was well-regarded by them; well, usually well-regarded,
anyway.
I suggested the possibility of George suffering from
something such being a manic/depressive only as a possible explanation of his
actions before and after his marriage to Isabel. After all, almost everyone has
moods unconnected with any illness, but almost everyone isn't, and wasn't,
the next in line to the throne of England at a period when the king was much
more powerful than today and when one's every utterance and action would be
closely observed by followers/hangers on for any hints on how to curry favor.
What you and I might say or do while we're depressed or over-joyed about
something rarely has any ramifications outside our immediate circle of family
and/or friends, but that wouldn't be the case with George, though. Henry II and
Becket come to mind.
Nico
continued:
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.
Doug here:
If, as I surmised above, Edward and Edmund were
close, and George wanted to take Edmund's after the latter's death, perhaps
Edward resented George's efforts? Perhaps Edward rebuffed George's attempts, not
only because George was only 11/12, but also because Edward didn't want to risk
developing a relationship with George that could very well have the same outcome
as the one he'd had with Edmund? Trying to decipher the personal feelings of
people dead for half a millenium isn't easy; to say the least.
Nico concluded:
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.
Doug here:
I believe it was Hilary who mentioned that
Ankaret and some of her relations were involved in forgery and some shady land
dealings. Do you know if there are any links between such activities on the part
of Ankaret and her relatives and George? Could he have ruled against them in
some legal case or, more likely, been known to have exerted his influence
against them so that the idea of Ankaret & Co. holding a grudge against
George might seem plausible?
Otherwise, it's just another blot for
George...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Re your first paragraph, which I broadly agree with Doug, I think there's
even more. Warwick was Cis's favourite nephew and she and he had been involved
in the negotiations with Bona of Savoy. Edward's behaviour to both of them was
actually quite humiliating. Cis also went to see George at Sandwich before he
went to France with Warwick. This as good as endorsed his marriage - Isabel was
her goddaughter. Yes it probably was about age equaling seniority but Warwick
had a marvellous track record. He was one to keep on your side and he was
Edward's cousin. At no time did he ever hint of claiming the throne for himself.
And of course he had to watch the Woodvilles, who had done nothing to help,
appear to have more influence than he did.
Doug here:
Edward's behavior to his mother and cousin in
regards to the negotiations about a marriage with Bona of Savoy was, indeed,
humiliating for them. Which is one reason I tend to think that Edward's
original plan had been to treat Elizabeth Woodville just as he'd
treated Eleanor Butler. Apparently, however, he was outsmarted and caught in a
trap of his own making. Which also leads me to wonder if what we see wasn't
Edward simultaneously trying to wriggle out of his marriage to Elizabeth,
while the negotiations about Bona were underway? Why he didn't trump Elizabeth's
and Jacquetta's queen with his own ace, his marriage to Eleanor, is, to me
anyway, the real puzzle. Perhaps he was a willing victim of their
plotting?
Do we have any indications of what Cis
discussed with George during that meeting? 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.
FWIW, my current view of Edward's relationship
with Warwick is that it was likely based on two things; Edward's determination
to not appear to be ruled by anyone, not even by someone who not only had been
such a staunch supporter of his father, but was also so powerful in his own
right (well, his wife's really) and Edward's actual feelings for his wife.
Unlike his grandson, Henry VIII, Edward seems to have wanted to run his kingdom
from the very beginning of his reign, while simultaneously indulging himself in
any manner he pleased  such as marrying whomever he wanted.
Once Warwick gave his support to Richard, Duke of
York as the rightful king, he more or less foreswore any possible claims of his
own, or so it seems to me. I suppose he could have made a grab for the throne
after Edward's father was killed but, barring Edward standing aside in his
favor, all that would have accomplished is split the Yorkists  not unlike what
occurred after Edward IV died, come to think of it.
Hilary continued:
As with everything to do with this period, I think we need to start from
scratch and try to sort the literature/legend from what we really know. As
Eileen says, what is there to say that George was a drunkard, it wasn't
mentioned in his indictment? If you look at the CPR he was on as many if not
more Commissions than Richard. He actually worked very hard. Would Edward trust
him to dispense justice in a public scenario if he was normally drunk or
irrational? The one record we do have (and I can't remember from where) is of
him chastising a member of the Commission for going to sleep during a
particularly boring hearing. Again he receives no mention in the indictments
against Edward's behaviour in the Parliament of 1484. What we do have is the
strange case of Ankarette Twynyho and I for one do think there is a lot more to
that than meets the eye.
Doug here:
It looks as if the idea of George being either an
alcoholic or simply often incapacitated from liquor comes solely from
Shakespeare (and possibly some of the Chronicles?). I imagine that the only
actual fact in the story is that George was supplied with some malmesey
wine while he was in the Tower; something that could have stood out if only
because malmesey came from Greece and most wines in England were imported from
France or the Iberian peninsula. It may even have been that that particular wine
was the one George usually drank and, as he was in the Tower for some time
before his execution, he was also allowed to have his usual wine.
I link the George/Ankarette affair with George's
actions of 1469-70 because they demonstrate to me that George, before he married
Isabel and after her death, seems to have had a penchant for going off
half-cocked. It may have something as simple as his having an explosive temper
that Isabel was able to help him control? The Anglo-Indian major retired to some
country house in England and exploding in anger at the drop of a hat is a comic
cliché, but that doesn't mean there weren't such people. And just because he
never saw India, doesn't mean George couldn't have been a medieval
prototype.
And if was the case that George had a temper he
had difficulty in controlling, then his actions in regards to Ankarette Twynyho
might make a bit more sense. George had just suffered the loss of his wife and
his newborn and wanted to strike out at someone, anyone. Perhaps Ankarette had
offered or prepared something for Isabel while she was pregnant and, determined
to punish someone for his loss, George targeted Ankarette? If, as you've noted,
some of Ankarette's associates weren't on the up-and-up, that merely confirmed
George in what he did. Do we have any information that might link those
forgeries/land deals you mentioned to George or anyone he likely
knew?
Hilary continued:
I think Stillington's northern affinity to Warwick/Richard is relevant.
He's always puzzled me because he had a foot in both camps. I could see there
being more of a buzz about this shortly after Eleanor's death. As I've said
before it's very much a woman thing - 'have you heard about poor Eleanor
Butler?'. But it would have to be very discreet gossip. It wouldn't surprise me
if MB knew, she moved in those circles. But the knowledge was useless until
Edward died and who would want to incur the wrath of EW? So very discreet. I
don't think Richard or Anne knew. Incidentally this was around the time of the
birth of Stillington's three granddaughters. Did he obtain the information from
Sir John Newton in exchange for arranging their future marriage into his family?
They were considerable heiresses.
Doug here:
To be fair, most bishops had to have a foot in
both camps. They served regardless of who sat on the throne, after all. Since
we don't know exactly what Stillington's proofs were, they may indeed have
originated in gossip; and, as you say, it would have been very discreet gossip.
Whatever those proofs were, however, they seem to have been strong enough to
convince a majority of the Council, a meeting of the Three Estates and a
subsequent Parliament. So, or so it seems to me, that if even Stillington did
hear about Eleanor via gossip, someone, somewhere, was able to provide more
concrete evidence.
Hilary concluded:
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.
Every bit of the whole Richard story needs taking right back to the drawing
board - just like Stony Stratford. And in the meantime there are a lot of
popular historians on the gravy train churning out and perpetuating the same old
untruths.
Doug here:
Could Anne Beauchamp have been attainted. I can't
recall that she was and it seems, to me anyway, that would have been the
simplest way to go about it. I find it hard to believe that a case couldn't have
been made before Parliament, where the Bill of Attainder would have to be
passed. Perhaps Edward felt that the attainder of
traitors' female relatives might be a road he didn't want to
travel?
It would be nice to see some of the
falsely-based certainty in the history books replaced by the occasional, and
more honest, It's not known, wouldn't it?
I guess it's up to us...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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?

Than you so much Nico. I think it's brilliant! There used to be a book out there about George by Dorothy Davies who is a medium (and was a member of the Foundation). It's called 'God be Pardoner to Me' and it's his 'dictation' about his life. It's fascinating and the descriptions of Richard are eerily accurate given that we now do know what he really looked like.I for one like to explore everything - I'm a firm believer in 'there are more things in heaven and earth.....'Thanks again. H
On Saturday, 1 September 2018, 17:44:26 BST, 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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Actually I find it hard but good to be a truth seeker Doug; though of course your theories often get slapped back by other evidence which is as it should be.What does strike me as odd going over this again is that Cis continued to tacitly support George (and Warwick) and yet they are supposed to have put out this rumour about her affair with Braybourne. Did they actually do this or is it where 'Robin of Redesdale' comes in? Need to look it up. If you look in the Fine Rolls Edward gives George and Warwick quite a few opportunity to come and apologise before openly declaring them rebels. I wonder if Cis was behind some of that? She was still pleading for Warwick before Barnet. I think most of this comes from the 'Arrivall' so not Croyland (or More).I can't remember Anne Beauchamp being attainted - I suppose one would have had to prove that she was actively involved, as with MB? Doesn't the same apply to the Countess of Oxford who had her lands taken because Edward believed she could use them to fund her husband? It's very hard to think of any woman being attainted for treason, perhaps it was an activity in which women were not expected to be involved - actually that's probably why MB got away with it for so long. I suppose the first women plotters were those who aided Catholic Priests in the next century? It's an interesting point. I suppose the other thing with Cis is that we tend to forget about the missing brother - Edmund. She'd already lost one son, losing another must have been a dreadful prospect.I like the Indian colonel bit! We've never really asked why Warwick ditched George for MOA, who really didn't like him. OK he'd get more aid from Louis but ..... When this happened George had just undergone the dreadful trauma of Isabel giving birth to a stillborn child when they were stuck on ship off Calais. I wonder whether he'd undergone a similar outburst/breakdown then and Warwick judged that he was just too risky? That's something we'll never know. H
On Friday, 31 August 2018, 17:58:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary
wrote:
Re your first paragraph, which I broadly agree with Doug, I think there's
even more. Warwick was Cis's favourite nephew and she and he had been involved
in the negotiations with Bona of Savoy. Edward's behaviour to both of them was
actually quite humiliating. Cis also went to see George at Sandwich before he
went to France with Warwick. This as good as endorsed his marriage - Isabel was
her goddaughter. Yes it probably was about age equaling seniority but Warwick
had a marvellous track record. He was one to keep on your side and he was
Edward's cousin. At no time did he ever hint of claiming the throne for himself.
And of course he had to watch the Woodvilles, who had done nothing to help,
appear to have more influence than he did.
Doug here:
Edward's behavior to his mother and cousin in
regards to the negotiations about a marriage with Bona of Savoy was, indeed,
humiliating for them. Which is one reason I tend to think that Edward's
original plan had been to treat Elizabeth Woodville just as he'd
treated Eleanor Butler. Apparently, however, he was outsmarted and caught in a
trap of his own making. Which also leads me to wonder if what we see wasn't
Edward simultaneously trying to wriggle out of his marriage to Elizabeth,
while the negotiations about Bona were underway? Why he didn't trump Elizabeth's
and Jacquetta's queen with his own ace, his marriage to Eleanor, is, to me
anyway, the real puzzle. Perhaps he was a willing victim of their
plotting?
Do we have any indications of what Cis
discussed with George during that meeting? 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.
FWIW, my current view of Edward's relationship
with Warwick is that it was likely based on two things; Edward's determination
to not appear to be ruled by anyone, not even by someone who not only had been
such a staunch supporter of his father, but was also so powerful in his own
right (well, his wife's really) and Edward's actual feelings for his wife.
Unlike his grandson, Henry VIII, Edward seems to have wanted to run his kingdom
from the very beginning of his reign, while simultaneously indulging himself in
any manner he pleased  such as marrying whomever he wanted.
Once Warwick gave his support to Richard, Duke of
York as the rightful king, he more or less foreswore any possible claims of his
own, or so it seems to me. I suppose he could have made a grab for the throne
after Edward's father was killed but, barring Edward standing aside in his
favor, all that would have accomplished is split the Yorkists  not unlike what
occurred after Edward IV died, come to think of it.
Hilary continued:
As with everything to do with this period, I think we need to start from
scratch and try to sort the literature/legend from what we really know. As
Eileen says, what is there to say that George was a drunkard, it wasn't
mentioned in his indictment? If you look at the CPR he was on as many if not
more Commissions than Richard. He actually worked very hard. Would Edward trust
him to dispense justice in a public scenario if he was normally drunk or
irrational? The one record we do have (and I can't remember from where) is of
him chastising a member of the Commission for going to sleep during a
particularly boring hearing. Again he receives no mention in the indictments
against Edward's behaviour in the Parliament of 1484. What we do have is the
strange case of Ankarette Twynyho and I for one do think there is a lot more to
that than meets the eye.
Doug here:
It looks as if the idea of George being either an
alcoholic or simply often incapacitated from liquor comes solely from
Shakespeare (and possibly some of the Chronicles?). I imagine that the only
actual fact in the story is that George was supplied with some malmesey
wine while he was in the Tower; something that could have stood out if only
because malmesey came from Greece and most wines in England were imported from
France or the Iberian peninsula. It may even have been that that particular wine
was the one George usually drank and, as he was in the Tower for some time
before his execution, he was also allowed to have his usual wine.
I link the George/Ankarette affair with George's
actions of 1469-70 because they demonstrate to me that George, before he married
Isabel and after her death, seems to have had a penchant for going off
half-cocked. It may have something as simple as his having an explosive temper
that Isabel was able to help him control? The Anglo-Indian major retired to some
country house in England and exploding in anger at the drop of a hat is a comic
cliché, but that doesn't mean there weren't such people. And just because he
never saw India, doesn't mean George couldn't have been a medieval
prototype.
And if was the case that George had a temper he
had difficulty in controlling, then his actions in regards to Ankarette Twynyho
might make a bit more sense. George had just suffered the loss of his wife and
his newborn and wanted to strike out at someone, anyone. Perhaps Ankarette had
offered or prepared something for Isabel while she was pregnant and, determined
to punish someone for his loss, George targeted Ankarette? If, as you've noted,
some of Ankarette's associates weren't on the up-and-up, that merely confirmed
George in what he did. Do we have any information that might link those
forgeries/land deals you mentioned to George or anyone he likely
knew?
Hilary continued:
I think Stillington's northern affinity to Warwick/Richard is relevant.
He's always puzzled me because he had a foot in both camps. I could see there
being more of a buzz about this shortly after Eleanor's death. As I've said
before it's very much a woman thing - 'have you heard about poor Eleanor
Butler?'. But it would have to be very discreet gossip. It wouldn't surprise me
if MB knew, she moved in those circles. But the knowledge was useless until
Edward died and who would want to incur the wrath of EW? So very discreet. I
don't think Richard or Anne knew. Incidentally this was around the time of the
birth of Stillington's three granddaughters. Did he obtain the information from
Sir John Newton in exchange for arranging their future marriage into his family?
They were considerable heiresses.
Doug here:
To be fair, most bishops had to have a foot in
both camps. They served regardless of who sat on the throne, after all. Since
we don't know exactly what Stillington's proofs were, they may indeed have
originated in gossip; and, as you say, it would have been very discreet gossip.
Whatever those proofs were, however, they seem to have been strong enough to
convince a majority of the Council, a meeting of the Three Estates and a
subsequent Parliament. So, or so it seems to me, that if even Stillington did
hear about Eleanor via gossip, someone, somewhere, was able to provide more
concrete evidence.
Hilary concluded:
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.
Every bit of the whole Richard story needs taking right back to the drawing
board - just like Stony Stratford. And in the meantime there are a lot of
popular historians on the gravy train churning out and perpetuating the same old
untruths.
Doug here:
Could Anne Beauchamp have been attainted. I can't
recall that she was and it seems, to me anyway, that would have been the
simplest way to go about it. I find it hard to believe that a case couldn't have
been made before Parliament, where the Bill of Attainder would have to be
passed. Perhaps Edward felt that the attainder of
traitors' female relatives might be a road he didn't want to
travel?
It would be nice to see some of the
falsely-based certainty in the history books replaced by the occasional, and
more honest, It's not known, wouldn't it?
I guess it's up to us...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
I'm sure George and Richard would be keen to get their hands on Warwick's
lands, who wouldn't? For a start it would take away some of their reliance on
Edward. They would also be marrying cousins that they knew and with the
encouragement of their Neville mother.
Doug here:
While George and Richard were the brothers of the
king, as time passed and Edward's son and grandson followed on the throne, that
relationship would almost certainly widen. So, yes, best to get what one could
while the getting was good in order to provide for one's own
descendants.
Hilary continued:
However, the fly in the ointment to power and influence was the
Woodvilles. The days of being kingmaker in any form were over whilst they were
around.
Doug here:
Influence I'll grant to Edward's wife's
relations, but I'm not certain about power. At least not power in the sense of
it not being, ultimately anyway, dependent on Edward. While properties and
appointments were handed fairly liberally, none of them allowed the recipient a
really independent source of power. Power such as, for example, the
Stanleys were developing in Lancashire. Which is why, IMO anyway, that even had
it been Richard who'd been angling for the Warwick/Neville inheritance in
toto, Edward would still have nixed the idea.
Hilary concluded:
You know I blame More for a lot of this. It's his account of Edward being
the model king, full on bonhomie and everyone else villains. In fact, it was
probably Edward who was the dark character, if his treatment of others is
anything to go by.
Doug here:
More's treatment of Edward is almost certainly
due to the position Edward held as Henry VIII's grandfather. Well, going by the
rest of the book, anyway...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

  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:


 


 
 
Mary
wrote:
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.
 
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
 
 --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:
Actually I find it hard but good to be a truth seeker Doug; though of course your theories often get slapped back by other evidence which is as it should be.

Doug here:
I believe the proper response is: Tell me about it!

Hilary continued:
What does strike me as odd going over this again is that Cis continued to tacitly support George (and Warwick) and yet they are supposed to have put out this rumour about her affair with Braybourne. Did they actually do this or is it where 'Robin of Redesdale' comes in? Need to look it up. If you look in the Fine Rolls Edward gives George and Warwick quite a few opportunity to come and apologise before openly declaring them rebels. I wonder if Cis was behind some of that? She was still pleading for Warwick before Barnet. I think most of this comes from the 'Arrivall' so not Croyland (or More).

Doug here:
To be honest, we don't know just who did spread that rumor, do we? And lacking the local news outlet or (shudder) Twitter, Warwick and George may actually have never heard it was making the rounds until much later. I can also easily understand Cecily doing everything in her power to smooth things over between, on the one hand, her son the King, and on the other, her other son and her nephew. All it would take is one battle and she could easily lose all three.

Hilary continued:
I can't remember Anne Beauchamp being attainted - I suppose one would have had to prove that she was actively involved, as with MB? Doesn't the same apply to the Countess of Oxford who had her lands taken because Edward believed she could use them to fund her husband? It's very hard to think of any woman being attainted for treason, perhaps it was an activity in which women were not expected to be involved - actually that's probably why MB got away with it for so long. I suppose the first women plotters were those who aided Catholic Priests in the next century? It's an interesting point.

Doug here:
The only reason I can arrive at for Edward not having Anne Beauchamp attainted is, as you say, custom. The King in Parliament could do just about anything in regards to a subject with regards to that person's property or life. Evidence wasn't required - only enough votes; although some sort of evidence was usually provided. Come to think of it, I can't recall whether stripping Anne of her properties was done via Parliament or the courts, only that Edward did so. Do you, or anyone else, know the method Edward used; a Parliamentary Act or a judicial ruling obtained with the Royal Thumb on the scales of Justice? If it was the latter means, perhaps that was because Edward didn't want to risk a Parliamentary vote where some sort of evidence might be expected?

Hilary continued:
I suppose the other thing with Cis is that we tend to forget about the missing brother - Edmund. She'd already lost one son, losing another must have been a dreadful prospect.

Doug here:
And I think the possibility of another loss, or worse losses, likely explains her actions, especially those concerning George. I mentioned in another post that the boys were roughly paired; Edward and Edmund, and George and Richard. Perhaps, after providing the proverbial heir and spare, she considered George to be hers? I suppose it's possible she may have felt she might have spoiled George and was as a result, at least to some extent, responsible for his later actions? Further than that I won't go.

Hilary concluded:
I like the Indian colonel bit! We've never really asked why Warwick ditched George for MOA, who really didn't like him. OK he'd get more aid from Louis but ..... When this happened George had just undergone the dreadful trauma of Isabel giving birth to a stillborn child when they were stuck on ship off Calais. I wonder whether he'd undergone a similar outburst/breakdown then and Warwick judged that he was just too risky? That's something we'll never know.

Doug here:
I thought of those Indian Colonels because whatever problems George had, they didn't seem to be physically or mentally debilitating. A temper, OTOH, especially one that gets out of control on occasion, could be the explanation for some of George's actions. It could also explain the seeming lack of outbursts while Isabel was alive; she recognized the warning signals and managed to avert any blow-ups. Unfortunately, I don't have anything in the way of outlines on who was where in order to verify that George's outbursts only occurred when Isabel wasn't with him.
The only reason I can come up with as to why Warwick joined up with MoA is that she, via her son (and husband), held the allegiance of all the remaining Lancastrians versus the likely minuscule number George could provide. If one adds the Lancastrians MoA could call out to the number of men Warwick could, they stood an excellent chance of placing Henry VI back on the throne. Nor would MoA be in a position to ditch Warwick once that happened. Even if Edward died in battle or was executed, and thus removed from future considerations, Warwick would still have George as his ace in the hole for possible use should MoA try anything. IOW, MoA would need Warwick just as much as he would need her. Talk about a match made in Hell...
Doug


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

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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote: However, even presuming
George knew it to be simply a political stratagem, his apparent going along with
it doesn't reflect well on him. What the propagation of the story, and George's
apparent willingness to have it spread, does tell me, however. is that, for
whatever reason, George was, well, desperate to be thought of as
someone important in his own rightNo, it certainly doesn't reflect well on him at all if it was nothing more than a political stratagem, and the same goes for Warwick, from whom the rumour originated. I find it particularly strange that Warwick circulated a story that besmirched the honour of an aunt who had been kind to him. Regardless of what he thought about Edward, there was no need to bring her into it, and while the jury is out on George, even Warwick's harshest detractors wouldn't call him a flake. Also, Cecily is not on record as being outraged by Warwick and George, or disowning them. If they were prepared to go so low as to trash the reputation of their innocent aunt and mother that story was a real barrel scraper, but there is something about it that makes me reluctant to rule it out. The other thing is that while derogatory, legally it had no effect on Edward's right to the throne, which he had taken by conquest and even if he had to rely on reclaiming it by hereditary right, he could still do so because the presumption of paternity rule protected his status as Richard of York's son, and this was very difficult to challenge (you had to prove that it was impossible for someone to be the father, usually because he was far away at the time - Michael Jones is getting there, but would need a bit more information.) Doug: While reading your post,
something came to mind that I hadn't thought of before. We tend to think of the
York brothers as consisting of Edward, George and Richard  but there was
another one, Edmund...and what we appear to have are two
sets of siblings; Edward and Edmund as the first set, with George and
Richard as the second. What do we know, if anything, about the relationship
between the two oldest brothers? Is it possible that, after Edmund's death,
George expected to take Edmund's place? I don't know much about Edmund or his relationship with Edward, but they did grow up together at Ludlow, and you are right about the sons being brought up in two groups, with Richard of York playing a prominent role in the lives of the older two, and the younger one getting the lion's share of Cecily's attention and most likely idealizing their dead father. The early lives of the older two were arguably more stable and predictable than the younger ones. If Edward was close to Edmund, he would have found him irreplaceable, but given the age gap, I can't see George threatening that. In fact, as King, Edward had a duty to cultivate his heir as a capable successor for the sake of the nation, which is why I find it astounding that Edward didn't find any role of George at all. There may have been something about George's personality that he didn't like - he may have seen him as a brat or an attention seeker, but he was an adult and should have put his feelings to one side and got on with training George, while dealing with any excesses of his personality in the process. Something that could understandably have inspired the resentment that we later see from George would have been if Edward just relentlessly and cruelly bullied a younger brother who rubbed him up the wrong way, then sidelined him, perhaps publicly belittling him as useless. Richard earned Edward's respect due to his unquestioned accomplishments as a soldier, but if George was a more intellectual/artistic type, then that may have set off Edward's own insecurities about his possible bisexuality.Cecily's possible indulgence of her younger sons may have set off some jealousy in Edward that he took out on George. I get a sense of some intensity between Edward and Cecily that may have affected his relationships. Hilary pointed out the inequality between Edward and the women in his life. Perhaps he had general difficulties relating to women and needed to feel dominant with them. If J-AH is right his closest relationship with a social equal was with Henry Beaufort.
Doug: I suggested the possibility of George suffering from
something such being a manic/depressive only as a possible explanation of his
actions before and after his marriage to Isabel...
What you and I might say or do while we're depressed or over-joyed about
something rarely has any ramifications outside our immediate circle of family
and/or friends, but that wouldn't be the case with George, though. Henry II and
Becket come to mind. Bipolar disorder or even even just unstable moods are a possibility for George. Generally, mental health problems emerge between 15 and 25, often with a genetic predisposition being set off by trauma or stress. George certainly had some stressful early years that could have left its mark. Not that this excuses treason, but if we are looking for explanations, then it is something to consider. None of these disorders were known at the time, and he if he were an ordinary person, then he would probably have been dismissed as someone with a difficult or moody personality. Unfortunately, he wasn't and whatever was going with George had monumental consequences.Doug: I believe it was Hilary who mentioned that
Ankaret and some of her relations were involved in forgery and some shady land
dealings. Do you know if there are any links between such activities on the part
of Ankaret and her relatives and George? Could he have ruled against them in
some legal case or, more likely, been known to have exerted his influence
against them so that the idea of Ankaret & Co. holding a grudge against
George might seem plausible?
Otherwise, it's just another blot for
George...I don't know the answer to this one, but Hilary did some work on the Twynhos. The allegation seems to be that Elizabeth Woodville hired Ankaret to poison Isabel and the baby. I can't any reason to poison the baby or much reason for Isabel, but the facts are murky here. If groundless, then it is - another 'blot' for George.Nico
On Sunday, 2 September 2018, 17:28:14 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary
wrote:
I'm sure George and Richard would be keen to get their hands on Warwick's
lands, who wouldn't? For a start it would take away some of their reliance on
Edward. They would also be marrying cousins that they knew and with the
encouragement of their Neville mother.
Doug here:
While George and Richard were the brothers of the
king, as time passed and Edward's son and grandson followed on the throne, that
relationship would almost certainly widen. So, yes, best to get what one could
while the getting was good in order to provide for one's own
descendants.
Hilary continued:
However, the fly in the ointment to power and influence was the
Woodvilles. The days of being kingmaker in any form were over whilst they were
around.
Doug here:
Influence I'll grant to Edward's wife's
relations, but I'm not certain about power. At least not power in the sense of
it not being, ultimately anyway, dependent on Edward. While properties and
appointments were handed fairly liberally, none of them allowed the recipient a
really independent source of power. Power such as, for example, the
Stanleys were developing in Lancashire. Which is why, IMO anyway, that even had
it been Richard who'd been angling for the Warwick/Neville inheritance in
toto, Edward would still have nixed the idea.
Hilary concluded:
You know I blame More for a lot of this. It's his account of Edward being
the model king, full on bonhomie and everyone else villains. In fact, it was
probably Edward who was the dark character, if his treatment of others is
anything to go by.
Doug here:
More's treatment of Edward is almost certainly
due to the position Edward held as Henry VIII's grandfather. Well, going by the
rest of the book, anyway...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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 askedOut 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.

She also had a particular attachment to Rivers! I'll warn you it's a strange book, particularly with regard to George's feelings about Isabel, but the fragility of Richard comes through. Particularly when George was charged with looking after him at Utrecht at such a young age. And how they gradually came to drift apart ...I have to say that evening when it was announced that the Leicester find was Richard one of the first things that struck me was that blow to the back of the head as in Dening. Now it might have been a lucky guess, but ... H
On Monday, 3 September 2018, 14:42:17 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


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:




Mary
wrote:
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.
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wroteDo 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).

==
=
># Didn't realise you got scared off.  You should start a WOTR astrology blog!  On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 10:43 AM 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:


 


 
 
Mary
wrote:
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.
 
Doug
here:
I'd
have to say that I'm not a supporter, but with the caveat that we
definitely need more information about the family dynamics that existed between
Edward and George; if only to discover why their relationship wasn't more on the
order of the one that existed between Edward and Richard. It may have been
nothing more than that often-noted sibling rivalry between two brothers of not
too dissimilar ages.
Even
taking the dangers of childbirth into account, I find it interesting that
neither Isabel nor Anne lived past 30. Perhaps something genetic was
involved?
Doug
 
 --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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 askedOut 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:
Now that's something I never knew! Am I correct in presuming that in the
normal course of events, Isabel would have received some sort of dowry? Would
Edward have been expected to provide something along the same lines for George?
And Edward may not have liked the idea of George no longer being beholden to
him, what with his having an income not dependent on Edward. Trying to
understand the dynamics of any family  let alone a royal one...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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 askedOut 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.Thanks Marie, I would be very interested in reading one of the chapters. I may even give the online course a try. Medieval astrology is very different and quite complex, but I think it would be a helpful insight into the medieval psyche. That is an interesting observation about the life force, although not all lifespan predictions worked out as Henry VII and Parron discovered. Modern astrology rejects the notion of predicting when a person will die, and the indicators could have other meanings, particularly something of a transformative nature, but the medieval mindset was more fatalistic. However, whatever Stacy and Blake came up with has a certain accuracy about it. Edward IV did die a few years later, and Edward V's life was unexpectedly transformed; one minute he was heir to the throne, the next he was King, then it emerged he was illegitimate, then he disappeared. The question is did he die or did he transform again into another life an identity altogether? I haven't read the latest J-AH book yet, but it seems he thinks he died in the summer of 1483. My suspicion is that something went wrong during the Tower rescue attempt; if he was physically weak, he may have died of an injury.Nico
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018, 11:30:18 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


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 askedOut 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.

Hilary,
The
only flaw I see in your scenario is that Elizabeth Woodville allowed her younger
son to join his brother. If a horoscope had shown Edward wasn't long for this
world, then why give up her possession of the next king?
In
regards to young Richard's wife, I notice she had both Neville and Beauchamp
ancestry. Knowing what we do about the daughters of the Earl of Warwick, perhaps
that ancestry had something to do with her early demise? Particularly the
Beauchamp side, as young Richard doesn't seem to have had any direct Beauchamp
ancestry.
My
opinion of horoscopes is unprintable, even though I recognize that they were
seen as a science during this period. However, we're also presuming that the
contents of the horoscope cast by Stacey and Blake weren't good news for
Edward but, going by who suffered that presumption might very well be false.
Were Stacey and Blake irreplaceable? Because they, even if they suffered
Edward's displeasure for a while while the only person to die was Burdet, and
his death could be explained as Edwad's retaliation for George's presumption in
usurping the King's justice.
And
even if the horoscope predicted bad things for Edward , and his son, we don't
know that the prediction was their deaths.
Doug
Hilary
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!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I was actually putting the prediction as a secondary thing, Doug. There are some signs, visits of doctors etc, that Edward junior was suffering from ill health and we have JAH identifying papal masses which he believes were said for him. The prediction (which was a lot earlier of course) would just serve to make the Woodvilles even more itchy when something happened to Edward senior, particularly if Edward junior's health appeared to be declining. They would need to get him crowned fast.As for EW giving up ROY I honestly don't reckon she had any choice. What would happen if Edward junior died and ROY was therefore king. She couldn't keep him imprisoned, could she? And perhaps a deteriorating Edward was asking for him.It's just that the Northampton/Stony Stratford pattern of events, and the Woodville panic before and after do point to some sort of pending crisis which was not just Richard taking over the Protectorate. My view of course. H
On Friday, 7 September 2018, 16:08:33 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
The
only flaw I see in your scenario is that Elizabeth Woodville allowed her younger
son to join his brother. If a horoscope had shown Edward wasn't long for this
world, then why give up her possession of the next king?
In
regards to young Richard's wife, I notice she had both Neville and Beauchamp
ancestry. Knowing what we do about the daughters of the Earl of Warwick, perhaps
that ancestry had something to do with her early demise? Particularly the
Beauchamp side, as young Richard doesn't seem to have had any direct Beauchamp
ancestry.
My
opinion of horoscopes is unprintable, even though I recognize that they were
seen as a science during this period. However, we're also presuming that the
contents of the horoscope cast by Stacey and Blake weren't good news for
Edward but, going by who suffered that presumption might very well be false..
Were Stacey and Blake irreplaceable? Because they, even if they suffered
Edward's displeasure for a while while the only person to die was Burdet, and
his death could be explained as Edwad's retaliation for George's presumption in
usurping the King's justice.
And
even if the horoscope predicted bad things for Edward , and his son, we don't
know that the prediction was their deaths.
Doug
Hilary
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!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
I
was actually putting the prediction as a secondary thing, Doug. There are some
signs, visits of doctors etc, that Edward junior was suffering from ill health
and we have JAH identifying papal masses which he believes were said for him.
The prediction (which was a lot earlier of course) would just serve to make the
Woodvilles even more itchy when something happened to Edward senior,
particularly if Edward junior's health appeared to be declining. They would need
to get him crowned fast.
Doug
here:
I
know of Argentine being in attendance on Edward, but do we have any actual
records of those visits of doctors? Because it occurred to me that we might
just have gotten things backwards.
Now,
Edward entered the Tower as Edward V, a proclaimed, if not crowned, king. As
such, he would have been accompanied by most of his retinue from Wales. His stay
in the Tower as King Edward V, ended when the Council, followed by the Three
Estates, agreed that there had been a Pre-Contract and Edward, due to his
illegitimacy, was no longer king. Now, as merely a bastard of Edward IV, Edward
no longer rates, or requires for that matter, the same retinue as befitted an
uncrowned monarch. So, one by one (possibly faster), his retinue is decreased
until none of the original members are left.
According
to Mancini, Edward ...like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of
his sins by daily confession and penance, but there's absolutely no
mention of any physical ailments. None. So what do we actually have? A report
that Edward was depressed and, considering his previous status, that's not a
surprise. Then add in his age, he was 12 going on 13, and for him to be
depressed isn't at all surprising but, again, that's not a record of Edward
suffering any physical ailment. That the good doctor was called in merely shows
that Edward's depression worried those responsible for his welfare and nothing
more.
Do
we have any clarification on the type of masses supposedly said in Rome? Or is
it a presumption that the masses were memorial, and not celebratory, ones?
Preferably, of course, a copy of the Pope declaring the type of mass to be
performed? Because it's not unusual for people to remember something that
didn't occur. In this case there'd actually be something to remember, a mass,
what's been misremembered is the reason for that mass based on what the person/s
learned later about Edward's disappearance. I hope that makes sense?
Considering
the status of horoscopes during this period, I fully agree that, had they known
the contents and the contents been unfavorable to Edward V, then that
could be an additional reason for hurrying his coronation.
Hilary continued:
As for EW giving up ROY I honestly don't reckon she had any choice. What
would happen if Edward junior died and ROY was therefore king. She couldn't keep
him imprisoned, could she? And perhaps a deteriorating Edward was asking for
him.
Doug here:
If the date given in Williamson's The Mystery
of the Princes is correct, RoY left Westminster on 16 June, three days
after Hastings was executed. I admit that there's no definitive proof, but do
believe that the plot Hastings was involved in intended Richard's death. If
Edward was to remain on the throne, then Richard, the senior, legitimate adult
male directly descended from Richard, Duke of York had to go. Richard's death
may not have been one of the aims when the plot was first set into motion, but I
believe it was viewed as a necessity because, and here I definitely am in the
realm of conjecture, the Council, or at least several members (likely including
Hastings), had been been informed of the existence of the
Pre-Contract.
However, once the 13 June plot failed, keeping
RoY with her made no sense. He no longer held any value as a hostage/pawn. I
believe the idea that Edward was asking for his brother comes from More, so I
don't know how much faith to place in it. After all, other than the occasional
journey Edward may have made to his father's court, when did Richard and Edward
even encounter each other? Let alone become close?
Hilary conclude:
It's just that the Northampton/Stony Stratford pattern of events, and the
Woodville panic before and after do point to some sort of pending crisis which
was not just Richard taking over the Protectorate. My view of
course.
Doug here:
Strictly speaking, I don't think any of
what the Woodvilles planned was illegal; prior to Stony Stratford, anyway. There
was, however, only a very short window of opportunity available to them during
which they had to get Edward to London while Richard wasn't there. I also don't think there was any panic among the
Woodvilles until Rivers received notice that Richard was going to meet his
nephew at Northampton. It's only my opinion, but I don't think Rivers expected
Richard to show up anywhere, let alone Northampton until after Edward, still
only escorted by his Woodville relations, was safely in London. As to Why?
Rivers may have thought so, I can only guess. Perhaps he presumed Richard had no
idea of what the Woodvilles planned in regards to a remaking of the Council, and
therefore there was no reason for Richard to not make his journey south
accompanied by a proper retinue that would include his wife; and such a retinue
would almost by itself preclude Richard arriving until after Edward had. Because
I do think the whole Woodville plot was to get Edward to London, have him take
his seat at the head of the Council and, under the guidance of his Woodville
relations, remake the Council to their liking. Once that had been taken care of
Richard might remain Protector, but he'd have no power without the Council's
agreement  just as in the case of Duke Humphrey.
I don't
the the Woodvilles were, originally, worried about Richard as Protector. Or not
exceedingly so, anyway, because if the Woodvilles controlled the King and used
that control to gain control of the Council, Richard, regardless of what was in
his brother's will, would have been stymied. From what
we do know of the Council make-up of that period, it seems the anti-Woodville
faction was in a minority, but so was the pro-Woodville faction, with the
remainder up for grabs, so to speak. So, with the prestige, and more
importantly, the authority of the king behind them, the
Woodvilles could likely count on attracting enough support to actually become
the majority. No matter how slender that majority might be, it would suffice to
allow the dismissal and replacement of opponents with enough adherents to place
the Woodville faction in complete
control.
The appearance of Richard at Northampton, and his
intention to accompany his nephew to London almost certainly did cause a panic,
which is why the arrangements for handling Richard's being at Northampton
weren't, to say the least, optimal.
Doug
I think I've used qualifiers to show
what my views are, and aren't; apologies if I've missed any.
I also have no idea why there's more than one
font when I type, hopefully it won't show when
transmittted/received.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.