At last a book on Anne Neville

A book called Anne Neville Queen to Richard lll by Michael Hicks is to be publishd in
February 2006. Hicks has also written a book on Richard which I have never read. Could
anyone tell me if this authors books are worth buying/reading. I must say I am a little
surprised anyone has been able to gather enough information to write a book on Anne
best wishes Eileen

Well Eileen, Hicks managed to write a book on Edward V, which I have
but only dipped into. he is very dry.
I doubt I will bother with the Anne Neville. He doesn't like Richard
so I can imagine what it will be like.
Paul

On Jul 4, 2005, at 22:13, eileen wrote:

> A book called Anne Neville Queen to Richard lll by Michael Hicks is
> to be publishd in
> February 2006. Hicks has also written a book on Richard which I
> have never read. Could
> anyone tell me if this authors books are worth buying/reading. I
> must say I am a little
> surprised anyone has been able to gather enough information to
> write a book on Anne
> best wishes Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

Thanks for the information Eileen! I've never read Hicks but, like Paul, I know that he's not very kind with Richard. I wonder too about how many facts one can record about Anne. Anyway the thing is interesting.
Cecilia

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> ha scritto:
A book called Anne Neville Queen to Richard lll by Michael Hicks is to be publishd in
February 2006. Hicks has also written a book on Richard which I have never read. Could
anyone tell me if this authors books are worth buying/reading. I must say I am a little
surprised anyone has been able to gather enough information to write a book on Anne
best wishes Eileen




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3

Hick's books on Richard are not very kind. I know the Foundation had an article on Anne in one of their publications that was quite lengthy and focused entirely on Anne, but I can't see where Hicks would do a whole book on her. I would assume it would bring in the politics of the period and other people to fill up the pages.

Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:Thanks for the information Eileen! I've never read Hicks but, like Paul, I know that he's not very kind with Richard. I wonder too about how many facts one can record about Anne. Anyway the thing is interesting.
Cecilia

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> ha scritto:
A book called Anne Neville Queen to Richard lll by Michael Hicks is to be publishd in
February 2006. Hicks has also written a book on Richard which I have never read. Could
anyone tell me if this authors books are worth buying/reading. I must say I am a little
surprised anyone has been able to gather enough information to write a book on Anne
best wishes Eileen




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3





---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Murron Wallace <middleham04@...> wrote:

> Hick's books on Richard are not very kind. I know
> the Foundation had an article on Anne in one of
> their publications that was quite lengthy and
> focused entirely on Anne, but I can't see where
> Hicks would do a whole book on her. I would assume
> it would bring in the politics of the period and
> other people to fill up the pages.
>

If memory serves, Michael Hicks has done considerable
work on the Neville family over the course of a long
career, with several seminal essays over and above his
monograph on Warwick the Kingmaker. I would expect
that -- despite many Ricardians' disagreement with
many of Hicks's conclusions -- we would find it useful
to review what he has marshalled in the way of sources
that can illuminate the life of Anne Neville.

I also suspect that no matter how much material Hicks
brings to bear on the topic, it will continue to be
much more difficult to discern her personality than it
is to discern Richard III's, and that's difficult
enough.

I don't have a complete set of indices to The
Ricardian handy, and I yearn for such a thing to be
published, preferably electronically to make it easily
searchable. I'm reasonably sure there's a long list of
entries on Anne Neville in that publication's
forty-some years of existence.

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>
>
> --- Murron Wallace <middleham04@y...> wrote:
>
> > Hick's books on Richard are not very kind. I know
> > the Foundation had an article on Anne in one of
> > their publications that was quite lengthy and
> > focused entirely on Anne, but I can't see where
> > Hicks would do a whole book on her. I would assume
> > it would bring in the politics of the period and
> > other people to fill up the pages.
> >
>
> If memory serves, Michael Hicks has done considerable
> work on the Neville family over the course of a long
> career, with several seminal essays over and above his
> monograph on Warwick the Kingmaker. I would expect
> that -- despite many Ricardians' disagreement with
> many of Hicks's conclusions -- we would find it useful
> to review what he has marshalled in the way of sources
> that can illuminate the life of Anne Neville.
>
> I also suspect that no matter how much material Hicks
> brings to bear on the topic, it will continue to be
> much more difficult to discern her personality than it
> is to discern Richard III's, and that's difficult
> enough.
>
> I don't have a complete set of indices to The
> Ricardian handy, and I yearn for such a thing to be
> published, preferably electronically to make it easily
> searchable. I'm reasonably sure there's a long list of
> entries on Anne Neville in that publication's
> forty-some years of existence.


Hopefully, Hicks will forego the tiresome drone of Anne's
supposed life long frailness.I have always been skeptical of this
considering the rather adventurous life she was forced to live.
Growing up in the wilderness of the north, forced across the
channel as a marriage pawn in her father's schemes, attending her
poor sister during the stillbirth at sea,Warwick slain at Barnet,
and a widow while in her teens. Then, of course, the Clarence
business of holding her captive.Hardly the life of a wilting rose!

--- Rhonda <metrlt@...> wrote:

[brevity snip]

>
> Hopefully, Hicks will forego the tiresome drone
> of Anne's
> supposed life long frailness.I have always been
> skeptical of this
> considering the rather adventurous life she was
> forced to live.

[additional snippage]

I've never understood where that "frailness"
reputation came from -- her death at a young age, I
suppose, and a relative lack of fecundity compared to
her stout-bodied Aunt Cecily. Of course, we have the
"frail" Richard III as well, and sad to say we have
the otherwise praiseworthy Paul Murray Kendall to
thank for that.

Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs did a fine job of
debunking a number of myths about Elizabeth Woodville
in the early 90s, and I understand Arlene Okerlund is
continuing that useful work in her recent book. I am
hoping that Michael Hicks sorts out some of the myths
about Anne Neville in similar fashion.

I wonder how much influence the Victorian period had on creating Anne to be a frail helpless woman. Novelists are quick to add this to their description of Anne. However, considering her tenacity, it is difficult to envision anyone in her predictament could be frail. She would have had to have backbone. Additionally, the north of England still remember her father, and Warwick's retainers gave Richard their support because of Anne until he proved himself. It is puzzling why they didn't come to her aid.
--- Rhonda <metrlt@...> wrote:

[brevity snip]

>
> Hopefully, Hicks will forego the tiresome drone
> of Anne's
> supposed life long frailness.I have always been
> skeptical of this
> considering the rather adventurous life she was
> forced to live.

[additional snippage]

I've never understood where that "frailness"
reputation came from -- her death at a young age, I
suppose, and a relative lack of fecundity compared to
her stout-bodied Aunt Cecily. Of course, we have the
"frail" Richard III as well, and sad to say we have
the otherwise praiseworthy Paul Murray Kendall to
thank for that.

Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs did a fine job of
debunking a number of myths about Elizabeth Woodville
in the early 90s, and I understand Arlene Okerlund is
continuing that useful work in her recent book. I am
hoping that Michael Hicks sorts out some of the myths
about Anne Neville in similar fashion.


---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

On Jul 6, 2005, at 00:09, Rhonda wrote:

> Hardly the life of a wilting rose!

Yes, but is is "romantic" isn't it? :-)
Paul

you're never too old to launch your dreams

I hope I am not the only one to remember that today is the
anniversary of the coronation of Richard and Anne.
A happy day to recall and celebrate!
Paul Trevor Bale


you're never too old to launch your dreams

No, Paul, you're not the only one -- but as usual
you're the first with a formal commemoration. What
would we do without you?

--- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
wrote:

> I hope I am not the only one to remember that today
> is the
> anniversary of the coronation of Richard and Anne.
> A happy day to recall and celebrate!
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>

--- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
wrote:

>
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 00:09, Rhonda wrote:
>
> > Hardly the life of a wilting rose!
>
> Yes, but is is "romantic" isn't it? :-)
> Paul
>

Definitely true. I think that most of us have
constructed our own idea of what these people were
like, and that most of us have a good grasp of the
ways in which, for example, "my" Richard is based on
but not identical to the rather shadowy historical
figure. We know him by his public actions, of course,
but we know little of his interior landscape.

I remembered and blessed their memory. Thanks Paul.
Lark

-------Original Message-------

From: Laura Blanchard
Date: 07/06/05 07:41:36
To:
Subject: Re: Coronation

No, Paul, you're not the only one -- but as usual
you're the first with a formal commemoration. What
would we do without you?

--- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
wrote:

> I hope I am not the only one to remember that today
> is the
> anniversary of the coronation of Richard and Anne.
> A happy day to recall and celebrate!
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

This reminds me - there used to be a photograph of my grandfather (who was born in the 1880s) 'in petticoats' as it was called. Even at that time, boys were only put into trousers when they reached a certain age. Unfortunately the photo got lost!

What age were Richard and Anne Neville when they attended the inauguration feast of George Neville as Archbishop of York? That might give us a clue, as Anne in particular would be quite young.

Brian



----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Coronation


i would suspect any child past "breeching" age of 5 to 7 years would be considered eligible to attend a "grown up" party. breeching is when children went from unisex long gowns to wearing smaller versions of adult clothing and into formalised training according to their societal rank. breeching was considered a milestone in a child's life from at least the medieval era onwards.

i suspect it probably had something to do with toilet training. look at the hoopla we go through when one of our own no longer needs to wear diapers i.e. the tv ad (wow! i'm a big kid now) that sells pull up diapers.

some "experts" advise that we shouldn't "force" our children to "toilet" until they are ready. given medieval floor coverings vs ours..i can "see" toilet accidents as being of little concern during that era, but a certain welcome relief when the little one gained control of bowel and bladder.

in our more "modern" times, think of when little boys went from short pants to long pants, and little girls went from short dresses with pantaloons exposed to longer dresses. in our era, this usually occurred as a child approached the teenage years..which is also the age that medieval teens could accept or reject an arranged marriage. girls age 12, boys age 14.

roslyn

mrm_bell <[email protected]> wrote:
Out of interest I'm trying to work out who would have been present at
the coronation
banquet. Would any/all of the children below have been there
considering they're high ranking children of nobles? What age would
have been too young to attend?
Edward De la Pole 19
Edmunch De la Pole 12
Elizabeth De la Pole 10
John of Gloucester 13?
Katherine Plantagenet 13?
Henry Lord Morley 17
Edward of Middleham?? 10
Edward Stafford 10?
Thomas Howard 10


---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.

Thanks that's really interesting. ..It's just that I've been writing a
script for awhile and I prefer to the give even the characters with no
speaking parts real names of the people who were actually there.
Certainly there were alot of children in the plantagenet family! I guess
it wouldn't have been so odd as we might think if the princes were
actually there?!

Can I ask one more thing...who would have been responsible for each of
these children? I expect that the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk would have
been sitting with the King and Queen at the banquet so where would their
children have been sitting?


--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> This reminds me - there used to be a photograph of my grandfather (who
was born in the 1880s) 'in petticoats' as it was called. Even at that
time, boys were only put into trousers when they reached a certain age.
Unfortunately the photo got lost!
>
> What age were Richard and Anne Neville when they attended the
inauguration feast of George Neville as Archbishop of York? That might
give us a clue, as Anne in particular would be quite young.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Coronation
>
>
> i would suspect any child past "breeching" age of 5 to 7 years would
be considered eligible to attend a "grown up" party. breeching is when
children went from unisex long gowns to wearing smaller versions of
adult clothing and into formalised training according to their societal
rank. breeching was considered a milestone in a child's life from at
least the medieval era onwards.
>
> i suspect it probably had something to do with toilet training. look
at the hoopla we go through when one of our own no longer needs to wear
diapers i.e. the tv ad (wow! i'm a big kid now) that sells pull up
diapers.
>
> some "experts" advise that we shouldn't "force" our children to
"toilet" until they are ready. given medieval floor coverings vs ours..i
can "see" toilet accidents as being of little concern during that era,
but a certain welcome relief when the little one gained control of bowel
and bladder.
>
> in our more "modern" times, think of when little boys went from short
pants to long pants, and little girls went from short dresses with
pantaloons exposed to longer dresses. in our era, this usually occurred
as a child approached the teenage years..which is also the age that
medieval teens could accept or reject an arranged marriage. girls age
12, boys age 14.
>
> roslyn
>
> mrm_bell [email protected] wrote:
> Out of interest I'm trying to work out who would have been present at
> the coronation
> banquet. Would any/all of the children below have been there
> considering they're high ranking children of nobles? What age would
> have been too young to attend?
> Edward De la Pole 19
> Edmund De la Pole 12
> Elizabeth De la Pole 10
> John of Gloucester 13?
> Katherine Plantagenet 13?
> Henry Lord Morley 17
> Edward of Middleham?? 10
> Edward Stafford 10?
> Thomas Howard 10
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo!
Mail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

at the kiddie table in the corner?..:-))
actually, i'd hazard a guess possibly with godparents. everything was done by social standing/rank in those days, especially at formal occassions.
the king and queen were not waited upon by "servants" they were waited upon by high ranking officals/nobles. who in turn were waited upon by lower ranking nobles..and so on and so on.

the younger royal/noble children would have been "supervised" served by a noble of suitable rank, possibly even an older sibling. these people were all one big "happy" backstabbing family always jockeying for "favoured" position.

"getting close" to a higher born peer when they were young was an astute political move. it could possibly save your head one day, or even ensure the settlement of more lands/power on you or your family members.

edward de grey m. elizabeth talbot, neice of eleanor talbot/butler was aka baron d'lisle, and he was e5's master of horse.

margaret pole, countess of salisbury (daughter of the duke of clarence) was bloody mary tudor's godparent and governess. she often advocated for mary after h8 married anne bolyne. unfortunately, margaret's son reginald rebelled against h8 and brought his family down in the process.

mary would have supported reginald's catholic's opinions, had she been in power. margaret would have "won" royal favours because of her son's actions.

these were tricky times politically..power and contacts were what kept or lost your head. therefore, i think i'd position your children with people who did or could benefit most from an association with the child via that child's parent.

older children, i.e. teens would be at a "grown ups" table according to rank.

i don't know if they sat in family groups or strictly by rank. i'd say those seated farthest from the king were lower ranking nobles, or perhaps even the children of the nobles who were sitting with/near the king.

the exception possibly being the king's child/ren and immediate family. i.e. mom and the king's living sibs. it is possible, if there was a kiddies table, it would have a seating arrangement per rank just like the adult tables.

trusted close nobles regardless of rank would also be within "arms" reach of the king.
roslyn
mrm_bell <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks that's really interesting. ..It's just that I've been writing a
script for awhile and I prefer to the give even the characters with no
speaking parts real names of the people who were actually there.
Certainly there were alot of children in the plantagenet family! I guess
it wouldn't have been so odd as we might think if the princes were
actually there?!

Can I ask one more thing...who would have been responsible for each of
these children? I expect that the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk would have
been sitting with the King and Queen at the banquet so where would their
children have been sitting?

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> This reminds me - there used to be a photograph of my grandfather (who
was born in the 1880s) 'in petticoats' as it was called. Even at that
time, boys were only put into trousers when they reached a certain age.
Unfortunately the photo got lost!
>
> What age were Richard and Anne Neville when they attended the
inauguration feast of George Neville as Archbishop of York? That might
give us a clue, as Anne in particular would be quite young.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Coronation
>
>
> i would suspect any child past "breeching" age of 5 to 7 years would
be considered eligible to attend a "grown up" party. breeching is when
children went from unisex long gowns to wearing smaller versions of
adult clothing and into formalised training according to their societal
rank. breeching was considered a milestone in a child's life from at
least the medieval era onwards.
>
> i suspect it probably had something to do with toilet training. look
at the hoopla we go through when one of our own no longer needs to wear
diapers i.e. the tv ad (wow! i'm a big kid now) that sells pull up
diapers.
>
> some "experts" advise that we shouldn't "force" our children to
"toilet" until they are ready. given medieval floor coverings vs ours..i
can "see" toilet accidents as being of little concern during that era,
but a certain welcome relief when the little one gained control of bowel
and bladder.
>
> in our more "modern" times, think of when little boys went from short
pants to long pants, and little girls went from short dresses with
pantaloons exposed to longer dresses. in our era, this usually occurred
as a child approached the teenage years..which is also the age that
medieval teens could accept or reject an arranged marriage. girls age
12, boys age 14.
>
> roslyn
>
> mrm_bell [email protected] wrote:
> Out of interest I'm trying to work out who would have been present at
> the coronation
> banquet. Would any/all of the children below have been there
> considering they're high ranking children of nobles? What age would
> have been too young to attend?
> Edward De la Pole 19
> Edmund De la Pole 12
> Elizabeth De la Pole 10
> John of Gloucester 13?
> Katherine Plantagenet 13?
> Henry Lord Morley 17
> Edward of Middleham?? 10
> Edward Stafford 10?
> Thomas Howard 10
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo!
Mail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

I have read more than once that Edward of Middleham was not at his parents' coronation (or at any rate there is no record of his being there). This is cited as evidence that he was sickly.

As to where the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk's offspring might be sitting at the banquet, my solution for scriptwriting purposes would be to put them with their governor and tutors (or an uncle or aunt on the Suffolk side, if there were any) - who would be responsible or making sure that they behaved properly - and at some distance from the top table. If Edward of Middleham were there I would put him on the top table, on the basis that he was heir apparent, but other children elsewhere, again with responsible adults to keep them in order. Anyone over 14 I would treat as an adult for this purpose, and leave anyone under 8 out of the banquet, and, indeed, the coronation service.

Just to cite a recent example, the present Queen and her sister Princess Margaret (aged 11 and 7) did attend their parents' coronation in 1937 in its entirety, in the company of their grandmother, Queen Mary, but Prince Charles and Princess Anne (aged 4 and 2), only made a very brief token appearance at the Queen's coronation in 1953. Henry VI, who succeeded to the throne aged 9 months, was not crowned until he was 8, presumably on the basis that he was too young to cope with the lengthy ceremonial until then. The future Kaiser Wilhelm II attended the wedding of his uncle, the future Edward VII, in 1863, when aged four, and demonstrated that it was asking for trouble to have him there by stabbing another uncle with the skean dhu (miniature dagger) which went with his kilt outfit, and biting a third (haemophiliac) uncle!

Hope this helps

Ann

mrm_bell <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks that's really interesting. ..It's just that I've been writing a
script for awhile and I prefer to the give even the characters with no
speaking parts real names of the people who were actually there.
Certainly there were alot of children in the plantagenet family! I guess
it wouldn't have been so odd as we might think if the princes were
actually there?!

Can I ask one more thing...who would have been responsible for each of
these children? I expect that the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk would have
been sitting with the King and Queen at the banquet so where would their
children have been sitting?

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> This reminds me - there used to be a photograph of my grandfather (who
was born in the 1880s) 'in petticoats' as it was called. Even at that
time, boys were only put into trousers when they reached a certain age.
Unfortunately the photo got lost!
>
> What age were Richard and Anne Neville when they attended the
inauguration feast of George Neville as Archbishop of York? That might
give us a clue, as Anne in particular would be quite young.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Coronation
>
>
> i would suspect any child past "breeching" age of 5 to 7 years would
be considered eligible to attend a "grown up" party. breeching is when
children went from unisex long gowns to wearing smaller versions of
adult clothing and into formalised training according to their societal
rank. breeching was considered a milestone in a child's life from at
least the medieval era onwards.
>
> i suspect it probably had something to do with toilet training. look
at the hoopla we go through when one of our own no longer needs to wear
diapers i.e. the tv ad (wow! i'm a big kid now) that sells pull up
diapers.
>
> some "experts" advise that we shouldn't "force" our children to
"toilet" until they are ready. given medieval floor coverings vs ours..i
can "see" toilet accidents as being of little concern during that era,
but a certain welcome relief when the little one gained control of bowel
and bladder.
>
> in our more "modern" times, think of when little boys went from short
pants to long pants, and little girls went from short dresses with
pantaloons exposed to longer dresses. in our era, this usually occurred
as a child approached the teenage years..which is also the age that
medieval teens could accept or reject an arranged marriage. girls age
12, boys age 14.
>
> roslyn
>
> mrm_bell [email protected] wrote:
> Out of interest I'm trying to work out who would have been present at
> the coronation
> banquet. Would any/all of the children below have been there
> considering they're high ranking children of nobles? What age would
> have been too young to attend?
> Edward De la Pole 19
> Edmund De la Pole 12
> Elizabeth De la Pole 10
> John of Gloucester 13?
> Katherine Plantagenet 13?
> Henry Lord Morley 17
> Edward of Middleham?? 10
> Edward Stafford 10?
> Thomas Howard 10
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo!
Mail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

thanks for your replies everyone! just in case you're interested,
fancy something to read, or can make any suggestions for changes
I've added a copy of my Screenplay to the files section of the
forum...been working on it for years but have decided it's time to
finally get this one (part 1) finished!

...have decided that Hayden Christensen would be great as Richard!


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> at the kiddie table in the corner?..:-))
> actually, i'd hazard a guess possibly with godparents.
everything was done by social standing/rank in those days,
especially at formal occassions.
> the king and queen were not waited upon by "servants" they were
waited upon by high ranking officals/nobles. who in turn were waited
upon by lower ranking nobles..and so on and so on.
>
> the younger royal/noble children would have been "supervised"
served by a noble of suitable rank, possibly even an older sibling.
these people were all one big "happy" backstabbing family always
jockeying for "favoured" position.
>
> "getting close" to a higher born peer when they were young was
an astute political move. it could possibly save your head one day,
or even ensure the settlement of more lands/power on you or your
family members.
>
> edward de grey m. elizabeth talbot, neice of eleanor
talbot/butler was aka baron d'lisle, and he was e5's master of horse.
>
> margaret pole, countess of salisbury (daughter of the duke of
clarence) was bloody mary tudor's godparent and governess. she often
advocated for mary after h8 married anne bolyne. unfortunately,
margaret's son reginald rebelled against h8 and brought his family
down in the process.
>
> mary would have supported reginald's catholic's opinions, had
she been in power. margaret would have "won" royal favours because
of her son's actions.
>
> these were tricky times politically..power and contacts were
what kept or lost your head. therefore, i think i'd position your
children with people who did or could benefit most from an
association with the child via that child's parent.
>
> older children, i.e. teens would be at a "grown ups" table
according to rank.
>
> i don't know if they sat in family groups or strictly by rank.
i'd say those seated farthest from the king were lower ranking
nobles, or perhaps even the children of the nobles who were sitting
with/near the king.
>
> the exception possibly being the king's child/ren and immediate
family. i.e. mom and the king's living sibs. it is possible, if
there was a kiddies table, it would have a seating arrangement per
rank just like the adult tables.
>
> trusted close nobles regardless of rank would also be
within "arms" reach of the king.
> roslyn
> mrm_bell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks that's really interesting. ..It's just that I've been
writing a
> script for awhile and I prefer to the give even the characters
with no
> speaking parts real names of the people who were actually there.
> Certainly there were alot of children in the plantagenet family! I
guess
> it wouldn't have been so odd as we might think if the princes were
> actually there?!
>
> Can I ask one more thing...who would have been responsible for
each of
> these children? I expect that the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk
would have
> been sitting with the King and Queen at the banquet so where would
their
> children have been sitting?
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@> wrote:
> >
> > This reminds me - there used to be a photograph of my
grandfather (who
> was born in the 1880s) 'in petticoats' as it was called. Even at
that
> time, boys were only put into trousers when they reached a certain
age.
> Unfortunately the photo got lost!
> >
> > What age were Richard and Anne Neville when they attended the
> inauguration feast of George Neville as Archbishop of York? That
might
> give us a clue, as Anne in particular would be quite young.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: Coronation
> >
> >
> > i would suspect any child past "breeching" age of 5 to 7 years
would
> be considered eligible to attend a "grown up" party. breeching is
when
> children went from unisex long gowns to wearing smaller versions of
> adult clothing and into formalised training according to their
societal
> rank. breeching was considered a milestone in a child's life from
at
> least the medieval era onwards.
> >
> > i suspect it probably had something to do with toilet training.
look
> at the hoopla we go through when one of our own no longer needs to
wear
> diapers i.e. the tv ad (wow! i'm a big kid now) that sells pull up
> diapers.
> >
> > some "experts" advise that we shouldn't "force" our children to
> "toilet" until they are ready. given medieval floor coverings vs
ours..i
> can "see" toilet accidents as being of little concern during that
era,
> but a certain welcome relief when the little one gained control of
bowel
> and bladder.
> >
> > in our more "modern" times, think of when little boys went from
short
> pants to long pants, and little girls went from short dresses with
> pantaloons exposed to longer dresses. in our era, this usually
occurred
> as a child approached the teenage years..which is also the age that
> medieval teens could accept or reject an arranged marriage. girls
age
> 12, boys age 14.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > mrm_bell [email protected] wrote:
> > Out of interest I'm trying to work out who would have been
present at
> > the coronation
> > banquet. Would any/all of the children below have been there
> > considering they're high ranking children of nobles? What age
would
> > have been too young to attend?
> > Edward De la Pole 19
> > Edmund De la Pole 12
> > Elizabeth De la Pole 10
> > John of Gloucester 13?
> > Katherine Plantagenet 13?
> > Henry Lord Morley 17
> > Edward of Middleham?? 10
> > Edward Stafford 10?
> > Thomas Howard 10
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo!
> Mail.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> All new Yahoo! Mail
> ---------------------------------
> Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
>
>
>

On 24 Nov 2006, at 19:26, mrm_bell wrote:

> have decided that Hayden Christensen would be great as Richard!


Oh please!!!!!!!
Paul




"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , mrm_bell <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> >
> ...have decided that Hayden Christensen would be great as Richard!


who he??
>

Eileen
>
>> >
> > >
> >> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > All new Yahoo! Mail
> > ---------------------------------
> > Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
> >
> >
> >
>

personally, i think keanu reeves would make an awesome ric iii. keanu is a very talented actor. moreover, he has the build and colouring, as well as attractive features. contempories record richard as being an attractive man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keanu_Reeves

hayden might make a good young e4 tho, but not a richard. and as stated before, the fellow who plays peter pettigrew in the harry potter series is henry stafford, duke of buckingham.
roslyn

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:

On 24 Nov 2006, at 19:26, mrm_bell wrote:

> have decided that Hayden Christensen would be great as Richard!

Oh please!!!!!!!
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"






---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

hehe! guess you didn't like that suggestion! he's the actor that
plays Anakin in Star Wars. didn't like him at first to be honest but
he's really grown on me, and in 5-6 years time he'll be the right
age to play Richard!

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Nov 2006, at 19:26, mrm_bell wrote:
>
> > have decided that Hayden Christensen would be great as Richard!
>
>
> Oh please!!!!!!!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

--- In , mrm_bell <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> hehe! guess you didn't like that suggestion! he's the actor that
> plays Anakin in Star Wars.


Oh God! Noooooooooooo!! :-)

Eileen



didn't like him at first to be honest but
> he's really grown on me, and in 5-6 years time he'll be the right
> age to play Richard!
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 24 Nov 2006, at 19:26, mrm_bell wrote:
> >
> > > have decided that Hayden Christensen would be great as Richard!
> >
> >
> > Oh please!!!!!!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>

eeewwww, (no offense to the actor), but I just CANNOT
see "Peter Pettigrew" as Buckingham. I have always
imagined him as more of a dashing dastardly sort...

Rene'

fayre rose wrote:

>personally, i think keanu reeves would make an awesome ric iii. keanu is a very talented actor. moreover, he has the build and colouring, as well as attractive features. contempories record richard as being an attractive man.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keanu_Reeves
>
> hayden might make a good young e4 tho, but not a richard. and as stated before, the fellow who plays peter pettigrew in the harry potter series is henry stafford, duke of buckingham.
> roslyn
>
>

##Alas, my choice is now too old. But Martin Shaw in his 30's would have
made a perfect Richard, imo.

Gilda

dastardly-yes, dashing-no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%2C_2nd_Duke_of_Buckingham_Stafford
note the similarity of pettigrew/actor to the likeness of d. of buckingham.
roslyn

Stormysky <stormysky75@...> wrote:
eeewwww, (no offense to the actor), but I just CANNOT
see "Peter Pettigrew" as Buckingham. I have always
imagined him as more of a dashing dastardly sort...

Rene'





---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

wow, he DOES look like "Peter Pettigrew"!
Thanks for the link -
Rene'