False Fleeting Perjured Clarence

All this talk of alcohol brings to mind Clarence. I have a question regarding George. Why
did he join Warwick in rebellion? - is it known for certain why he did or is it only
speculation. Did Warwick promise him the crown? And if so why did Clarence still stay
with Warwick after Warwick had allied with Margaret and promised to put Henry back on
the throne? I would have thought George's future would have been rather bleak with a
Lancastrian king on the throne. If only George could have been satisfied, as Richard was,
with the prestige of being the kings brother instead of continually stirring things up he
would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!

Another thing - the abduction and murder of Ankarette Twynho - what was that all about?
Has anyone any theories on that because the accusation that she poisoned Isobel just does
not seem credible to me. Why on earth would anyone wanted to have murdered Isobel -
what would anyone have gained from that? Except maybe Clarence himself.

best wishes Eileen

On Jul 21, 2005, at 23:41, eileen wrote:

> If only George could have been satisfied, as Richard was,
> with the prestige of being the kings brother instead of continually
> stirring things up he
> would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!

which of course he did not! Do not confuse history and legend.
Paul

you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 23:41, eileen wrote:
>
> > If only George could have been satisfied, as Richard was,
> > with the prestige of being the kings brother instead of continually
> > stirring things up he
> > would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!
>
> which of course he did not! Do not confuse history and legend.
> Paul

Well, I did one time believe it was meant as a joke but now I am not so sure. I have read
that when the bones thought to be Clarences were examined (I presume these are the
bones that are on display in Tewkesbury Abbey in a glass case behind the high alter with
Isobels) there were no signs of decapitation. But my main reason for my change of mind is
that I have recently found out that Clarences daughter Margaret wore a little barrel
ornament on her bracelet in memory of her father (I have just checked and this shows up
clearly in the well known portrait of her). Now why would she have chosen to wear such a
token if it were not true Clarence had been executed in this fashion. I would have
thought close members of the family would have been informed of the method
ofexecution.
A butt was equal to 2 hogsheads - adequate to drown a man, you would only have to hold
his head down anyway, and apparently the fumes from an open barrel would be sufficient
to render a man unconscious. Maybe Clarence, when he knew his death was imminent
requested this method - maybe out of sheer bravado.
Croyland Cronicle states 'the execution, WHATEVER FORM IT TOOK, was carried out
secretly' - which I find strange. Why not just give out the info that he had been beheaded,
the usual form of execution for the nobility. why be so secretive?
Of course, you could be correct in saying it is just a myth but I dont think we can be 100%
adamant and I am certainly keeping an open mind on this one. best wishes Eileen

On Jul 22, 2005, at 14:12, eileen wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2005, at 23:41, eileen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If only George could have been satisfied, as Richard was,
>>> with the prestige of being the kings brother instead of continually
>>> stirring things up he
>>> would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!
>>>
>>
>> which of course he did not! Do not confuse history and legend.
>> Paul
>>
>
> Well, I did one time believe it was meant as a joke but now I am
> not so sure. I have read
> that when the bones thought to be Clarences were examined (I
> presume these are the
> bones that are on display in Tewkesbury Abbey in a glass case
> behind the high alter with
> Isobels) there were no signs of decapitation.
fist of all these bones have now been declared not to be those of
George and Isobel. Nobody knows where the real ones are.

> But my main reason for my change of mind is
> that I have recently found out that Clarences daughter Margaret
> wore a little barrel
> ornament on her bracelet in memory of her father (I have just
> checked and this shows up
> clearly in the well known portrait of her). Now why would she have
> chosen to wear such a
> token if it were not true Clarence had been executed in this
> fashion. I would have
> thought close members of the family would have been informed of
> the method
> ofexecution.
I would suggest as a reminder of the legend for her, or for the
viewer to identify her. Butts were also commonly used as coffins, so
that may be another possibility. And finally 'he drowned in malmsey'
was simply someone commenting on his lifestyle, which is the one I go
for.
> A butt was equal to 2 hogsheads - adequate to drown a man, you
> would only have to hold
> his head down anyway, and apparently the fumes from an open barrel
> would be sufficient
> to render a man unconscious. Maybe Clarence, when he knew his
> death was imminent
> requested this method - maybe out of sheer bravado.
Drowning is not a comfortable way to die and I cannot imagine anyone
wanting to be drowned, no matter how the bravado was. Unless he were
drunk at the time :-)!

> Croyland Cronicle states 'the execution, WHATEVER FORM IT TOOK, was
> carried out
> secretly' - which I find strange. Why not just give out the info
> that he had been beheaded,
> the usual form of execution for the nobility. why be so secretive?
> Of course, you could be correct in saying it is just a myth but I
> dont think we can be 100%
> adamant and I am certainly keeping an open mind on this one. best
> wishes Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

On Jul 22, 2005, at 14:12, eileen wrote:

> Of course, you could be correct in saying it is just a myth but I
> dont think we can be 100%
> adamant and I am certainly keeping an open mind on this one.


so why did you say
>> instead of continually stirring things up he
>> would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!
???? Eh? :-)
Paul

you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2005, at 14:12, eileen wrote:
>
> > Of course, you could be correct in saying it is just a myth but I
> > dont think we can be 100%
> > adamant and I am certainly keeping an open mind on this one.
>
>
> so why did you say
> >> instead of continually stirring things up he
> >> would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!
> ???? Eh? :-)
> Paul
>

Just a feeble attempt to be light-hearted really, I suppose!

best wishes Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2005, at 14:12, eileen wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, you could be correct in saying it is just a myth
but I
> > > dont think we can be 100%
> > > adamant and I am certainly keeping an open mind on this one.
> >
> >
> > so why did you say
> > >> instead of continually stirring things up he
> > >> would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of
wine!


Speaking of the butt of malmsey business, when did that story first
appear, anyway? Was it with Shakespeare's play?

I have wondered if this is another instance of a figure of speech
having come loose from its original meaning and coming to be taken
literally. The circumlocutions, puns, code phrases, understood
hyperbole, and so on are often clearly comprehended in one era and
taken wrong in subsequent ones. For example, the description of
fighting men as "naked" that we see in Medieval writings does not
mean that they had no clothes on; it means they were not arrayed in
battle gear. Similarly, reading that men were "in harness" does not
mean that they were decked out in horsecollars and reins; it means
they were fitted for battle. When Hamlet told Ophelia "Get thee to a
nunnery!" he was not suggesting that she enter a religious order.

In contemporary terms, saying someone is "sleeping with the fishes"
does not mean he is napping in an aquarium, nor does saying that
someone "got up on his high horse" mean he mounted a tall equine.

In the days before refrigeration, bodies were sometimes preserved for
shipment home inside a barrel of spirits. Lord Nelson returned to
England in a barrel of rum after his death at the Battle of
Trafalgar. It is an easy jump of wry hyperbole from the preservation
of a corpse in a barrel of spirits to the saying that the late
departed was drinking, fell in and drowned in the brew.

Whether Clarence was literally sent on his last journey, to his
grave, pickled in a barrel of booze or not, the story that he was
drowned in a butt of malmsey (a sweet wine not often put up in
anything larger than a cask, by the way, because it would spoil due
to the high sugar content) may simply be an arch way of saying that
he entered the Tower and left it dead.

We may know what people in past centuries said (i.e. wrote) but it is
often harder to be sure exactly what they meant.

Katy

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2005, at 14:12, eileen wrote:
>
> > Of course, you could be correct in saying it is just a myth but I
> > dont think we can be 100%
> > adamant and I am certainly keeping an open mind on this one.
>
>
> so why did you say
> >> instead of continually stirring things up he
> >> would not have ended up where he did, headfirst in a butt of wine!
> ???? Eh? :-)
> Paul

So why did you say "which, of course, he did not", Paul?

I totally concur with Eileen's posts - Margaret of Salisbury's talisman
does suggest that the story is likely to be true, even if it does not
prove it. It does suggest something more than post-mortem pickling.
Also, Nelson was p.m.p.'ed because died at sea, but I can't see any
reason why Clarence would need to have been embalmed in this way.

Re Katy's post - I know nothing of the way different medieval wines
were packaged, but sugar is a preservative so I wonder about the need
for keeping in small quantities. I would assume off top of head that
Malmsey kept better than normal wines, just as today a sweet sherry
keeps longer than a dry.

Incidentally, could imbibing Malmsey been a comforting habit Clarence
learned at his mother's knee? In her will Cecily left to one Anne
Pinchebek (along with a lot of other items) a "Malmesey pott with a
cover, silver and part gilt"

Marie
>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams

Frpm the cause that launched a thousand ships . . .

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> I totally concur with Eileen's posts - Margaret of Salisbury's
talisman
> does suggest that the story is likely to be true, even if it does not
> prove it. It does suggest something more than post-mortem pickling.
> Also, Nelson was p.m.p.'ed because died at sea, but I can't see any
> reason why Clarence would need to have been embalmed in this way.

I didn't intend to suggest that he was. As you say, there would have
been no reason to do so. I was suggesting that the "drowned in a butt
of malmsey" story may have been a euphemism for "ended up going home
dead."

If we are to take the "drowned in a butt of Malmsey" story literally,
it just seems to me to be such a messy, difficult, and bizarre a method
of execution that it's hard for me to see the point of it. Why would
it have been chosen? It seems a waste of good wine -- why not drown
him in water?

Katy

Speaking of the butt of malmsey business, when did that story first
> appear, anyway? Was it with Shakespeare's play?
The story must have been around long before Shakespeare's time as Margaret was
wearing the little barrel on her bracelet. Now as corpses were pickled in barrels if they
died a long way from home, Marie mentions Nelson as an example, also Henry V was
brought home in this way after dying in France, we can be fairly certain Margaret was not
wearing the barrel as a token of the receptacle her dad was buried in. In any case I can't
see Cecily allowing it (George being buried in a barrel that is!)
Therefore why would Margaret choose this token? Surely not because it was doing the
rounds as a kind of joke or someone simply getting the story wrong. 'Margaret there is a
story going around that your dad ended up drowned in a butt of wine'- Margaret 'Wot a
funny joke - I think I will have a barrel made to wear on my bracelet' - I dont think so!
Re the expense - just say George had requested this manner of execution - I do not think
he would have thought at the time ooooh it wont hurt as much (I wouldnt have him down
as a coward)- although he had probably seen a few botched beheadings in his time - I
think he may well have requested this manner of death because he was simply being
Clarence, full of bravado & defiance right up until the end - maybe it was his way of saying
up yours to Edward & the Woodvilles. Who knows? As Clarence was immensly wealthy &
the brother of a king I dont think the expense of wasting the Malmsey would have come in
to it (if that had been his wish). Anyway you wouldnt have needed a huge barrel (even
accounting for the size of George's large head).
Well that is my thoughts folks - I just feel it cannot be said with absolute certainty
Clarence dying in this way is pure legend.
best wishes Eileen

>














> I have wondered if this is another instance of a figure of speech
> having come loose from its original meaning and coming to be taken
> literally. The circumlocutions, puns, code phrases, understood
> hyperbole, and so on are often clearly comprehended in one era and
> taken wrong in subsequent ones. For example, the description of
> fighting men as "naked" that we see in Medieval writings does not
> mean that they had no clothes on; it means they were not arrayed in
> battle gear. Similarly, reading that men were "in harness" does not
> mean that they were decked out in horsecollars and reins; it means
> they were fitted for battle. When Hamlet told Ophelia "Get thee to a
> nunnery!" he was not suggesting that she enter a religious order.
>
> In contemporary terms, saying someone is "sleeping with the fishes"
> does not mean he is napping in an aquarium, nor does saying that
> someone "got up on his high horse" mean he mounted a tall equine.
>
> In the days before refrigeration, bodies were sometimes preserved for
> shipment home inside a barrel of spirits. Lord Nelson returned to
> England in a barrel of rum after his death at the Battle of
> Trafalgar. It is an easy jump of wry hyperbole from the preservation
> of a corpse in a barrel of spirits to the saying that the late
> departed was drinking, fell in and drowned in the brew.
>
> Whether Clarence was literally sent on his last journey, to his
> grave, pickled in a barrel of booze or not, the story that he was
> drowned in a butt of malmsey (a sweet wine not often put up in
> anything larger than a cask, by the way, because it would spoil due
> to the high sugar content) may simply be an arch way of saying that
> he entered the Tower and left it dead.
>
> We may know what people in past centuries said (i.e. wrote) but it is
> often harder to be sure exactly what they meant.
>
> Katy

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>. But my main reason for my change of mind is
> that I have recently found out that Clarences daughter Margaret
wore a little barrel
> ornament on her bracelet in memory of her father (I have just
checked and this shows up
> clearly in the well known portrait of her). Now why would she have
chosen to wear such a
> token if it were not true Clarence had been executed in this
fashion. I would have
> thought close members of the family would have been informed of
the method
> ofexecution.


Do you know of a web site that shows this portrait?

Originally I thought that Clarence's being drowned in malmsey was so
unlikely that it must have been a joke, misunderstood figure of
speech, or some such. But the little cask charm is very persuasive.
Especially since it is not a matter of there being a story that she
wore such a token -- it is, you say, visibe in her portrait.
History, like character, is often revealed in the small things.

Speaking of portraits, how many times have we read that the fact that
Richard is touching one of his rings in one of his portraits is
evidence that he was fidgety and nervous, no doubt out of guilt?
Never mind that the official portrait of Henry the Weasel shows him
also touching a ring. and he had more to feel guilty and paranoid
about. It seems clear that it's symbolism, probably of dominion.

Katy

There's a picture on the site below. It's hard to make out, but Margaret does seem to have a bracelet with a barrel on it.


www.marileecody.com

Susan Higginbotham

Do you know of a web site that shows this portrait?

>
> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Date: 2005/08/01 Mon PM 09:19:33 EDT
> To:
> Subject: Re: False Fleeting Perjured Clarence
>
>

Actually, try this one.

http://www.marileecody.com/temporary/images.html

Or Google under Google pictures for Margaret Salisbury and you'll see it.
>
> From: <boswellbaxter@...>
> Date: 2005/08/01 Mon PM 09:40:15 EDT
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: False Fleeting Perjured Clarence
>
>

--- In , <boswellbaxter@b...>
wrote:
> Actually, try this one.
>
> http://www.marileecody.com/temporary/images.html
>
> Or Google under Google pictures for Margaret Salisbury and you'll
see it.
> >
> > From: <boswellbaxter@b...>
> > Date: 2005/08/01 Mon PM 09:40:15 EDT
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: False Fleeting
Perjured Clarence
> >
> >
I like the portrait. If anyone wishes to see the original, it is on
the cover of Hazel Pierce's biography and in the Clarence volume of
de Ruvigny, along with some of her senior descendants.
Sadly, the site has confused her marital surname (just like Tompsett)
and called her one of the last Plantagenet heirs. From the strict
surname point of view it is correctr because she was married by 1492
when Montagu was born. Otherwise, her descendants up to the present
Earl of Loudoun are Plantagenet heirs.

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> Do you know of a web site that shows this portrait?
>
> Originally I thought that Clarence's being drowned in malmsey was so
> unlikely that it must have been a joke, misunderstood figure of
> speech, or some such. But the little cask charm is very persuasive.
> Especially since it is not a matter of there being a story that she
> wore such a token -- it is, you say, visibe in her portrait.
> History, like character, is often revealed in the small things.
> > Katy

I think the little cask charm is a massive clue for us.

Also regarding this portrait, I have compared it to the drawing of Margaret as a young girl
in the Rous Roll. It is clear that Rous' drawing is a very good likeness of Margaret as you
can see it is one and the same person as the later portrait of Margaret. Especially around
the eyes, slightly slanting. I wonder if Margaret took after her mum, Isobel?

Eileen

When was the portrait painted, and how does the cask bracelet prove
that "Clarence's death in a cask of malmsey" was anything more than a
rumour? perhaps the cask was painted on later, like Richard's
shoulder in his portrait, or else by the time the portrait was
painted the story was current, as a comment on his life?
And then again it could mean something else entirely?
Proof? No. Yet another question? Definitely.
Paul


On Aug 2, 2005, at 02:19, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
>> . But my main reason for my change of mind is
>> that I have recently found out that Clarences daughter Margaret
>>
> wore a little barrel
>
>> ornament on her bracelet in memory of her father (I have just
>>
> checked and this shows up
>
>> clearly in the well known portrait of her). Now why would she have
>>
> chosen to wear such a
>
>> token if it were not true Clarence had been executed in this
>>
> fashion. I would have
>
>> thought close members of the family would have been informed of
>>
> the method
>
>> ofexecution.
>>
>
>
> Do you know of a web site that shows this portrait?
>
> Originally I thought that Clarence's being drowned in malmsey was so
> unlikely that it must have been a joke, misunderstood figure of
> speech, or some such. But the little cask charm is very persuasive.
> Especially since it is not a matter of there being a story that she
> wore such a token -- it is, you say, visibe in her portrait.
> History, like character, is often revealed in the small things.
>
> Speaking of portraits, how many times have we read that the fact that
> Richard is touching one of his rings in one of his portraits is
> evidence that he was fidgety and nervous, no doubt out of guilt?
> Never mind that the official portrait of Henry the Weasel shows him
> also touching a ring. and he had more to feel guilty and paranoid
> about. It seems clear that it's symbolism, probably of dominion.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/
> SIG=12h16a1ga/M=362335.6886444.7839734.2575449/D=groups/
> S=1705297333:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1122952778/A=2894362/R=0/SIG=138c78jl6/
> *http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/arts_culture/?
> source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/">What would our
> lives be like without music, dance, and theater?Donate or volunteer
> in the arts today at Network for Good</a>.</font>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

Then again of course maybe Margaret had a drink problem! :-)
Paul

On Aug 2, 2005, at 02:45, <boswellbaxter@...>
<boswellbaxter@...> wrote:

> Actually, try this one.
>
> http://www.marileecody.com/temporary/images.html
>
> Or Google under Google pictures for Margaret Salisbury and you'll
> see it.
>
>>
>> From: <boswellbaxter@...>
>> Date: 2005/08/01 Mon PM 09:40:15 EDT
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: Re: False Fleeting
>> Perjured Clarence
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/
> SIG=12hg94v78/M=362335.6886444.7839734.2575449/D=groups/
> S=1705297333:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1122954320/A=2894362/R=0/SIG=138c78jl6/
> *http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/arts_culture/?
> source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/">What would our
> lives be like without music, dance, and theater?Donate or volunteer
> in the arts today at Network for Good</a>.</font>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> When was the portrait painted, and how does the cask bracelet
prove
> that "Clarence's death in a cask of malmsey" was anything more
than a
> rumour? perhaps the cask was painted on later, like Richard's
> shoulder in his portrait, or else by the time the portrait was
> painted the story was current, as a comment on his life?
> And then again it could mean something else entirely?
> Proof? No. Yet another question? Definitely.
> Paul
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2005, at 02:19, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> >
> >> . But my main reason for my change of mind is
> >> that I have recently found out that Clarences daughter Margaret
> >>
> > wore a little barrel
> >
> >> ornament on her bracelet in memory of her father (I have just
> >>
> > checked and this shows up
> >
> >> clearly in the well known portrait of her). Now why would she
have
> >>
> > chosen to wear such a
> >
> >> token if it were not true Clarence had been executed in this
> >>
> > fashion. I would have
> >
> >> thought close members of the family would have been informed of
> >>
> > the method
> >
> >> ofexecution.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Do you know of a web site that shows this portrait?
> >
> > Originally I thought that Clarence's being drowned in malmsey
was so
> > unlikely that it must have been a joke, misunderstood figure of
> > speech, or some such. But the little cask charm is very
persuasive.
> > Especially since it is not a matter of there being a story that
she
> > wore such a token -- it is, you say, visibe in her portrait.
> > History, like character, is often revealed in the small things.
> >
> > Speaking of portraits, how many times have we read that the fact
that
> > Richard is touching one of his rings in one of his portraits is
> > evidence that he was fidgety and nervous, no doubt out of guilt?
> > Never mind that the official portrait of Henry the Weasel shows
him
> > also touching a ring. and he had more to feel guilty and paranoid
> > about. It seems clear that it's symbolism, probably of dominion.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ------------------
--
> > ~-->
> > <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/
> > SIG=12h16a1ga/M=362335.6886444.7839734.2575449/D=groups/
> >
S=1705297333:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1122952778/A=2894362/R=0/SIG=138c78jl6/
> > *http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/arts_culture/?
> > source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/">What would
our
> > lives be like without music, dance, and theater?Donate or
volunteer
> > in the arts today at Network for Good</a>.</font>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams


Paul, I agree with you. If real, the little cask could also have
been a gift from a Yorkist sympathizer to remind Lady Salisbury of
her father's demise, per the story circulating.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> When was the portrait painted, and how does the cask bracelet
prove
> that "Clarence's death in a cask of malmsey" was anything more than
a
> rumour? perhaps the cask was painted on later, like Richard's
> shoulder in his portrait, or else by the time the portrait was
> painted the story was current, as a comment on his life?
> And then again it could mean something else entirely?
> Proof? No. Yet another question? Definitely.

What an excellent suggestion! Maybe someone took Margaret's portrait
at some point in time and painted the little cask on, possibly to
mock or defame the Yorkists.

How can we be sure that wasn't done to every portrait in the Middle
Ages? Maybe Henry V did not really wear that dorky hat and Three
Stooges haircut. Maybe all those beards and mustaches were painted
onto the Edwards. Maybe the animal in the Ermine Portrait of
Elizabeth I was really a snake. The possibilities are endless!

Katy

Since Clarence is the popular subject at the moment I have a couple of questions.

1. When was the first recorded story of the malmsbury wine?
Incidently Margaret, I imagine, would had been in the dark concerning her father's death, she was only a small child when he died. I can't imagine anyone sitting her down and telling her how it was, certainly not her uncle Edward.

2. Forgetting the wine, does anyone know what Clarence was like in running his lands?

There were a few quiet years before he started up again after his wife's death. Mmm wonder if his wife was a calming influence on him. Complete conjecture that since we don't know anything about her character.

By the way I always dislike it when in some novels they make Clarence cruel to his wife and a womaniser. There is no evidence for that whatever his other failings were.

Helen

---------------------------------
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.


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



Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Unless I'm very much mistaken (those with more indepth knowledge will
be able to fill in details and correct me if I'm wrong), Clarence was
a very good manager of his estates. I'm almost certain there are
scholarly works published to that effect - meaning that there have to
be some primary sources around somewhere.

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> Since Clarence is the popular subject at the moment I have a couple
of questions.
>

> 2. Forgetting the wine, does anyone know what Clarence was like in
running his lands?
>

Michael Hicks does have something to say about Clarence's lands - but would he have managed them himself or had professional administrators to do it for him?

Ann

meenivettle <meenivettle@...> wrote:
Unless I'm very much mistaken (those with more indepth knowledge will
be able to fill in details and correct me if I'm wrong), Clarence was
a very good manager of his estates. I'm almost certain there are
scholarly works published to that effect - meaning that there have to
be some primary sources around somewhere.

Helen, I found a reference regarding the demise of Clarence in
Charles Ross, Edward IV, published 1974. He states that Olivier de
la Marche, a contemporary Burgundian chronicler,recorded that
Clarence met his end in a bath.Thus Mancini, 63, apparently repeats
this, according to Ross. The only contemporary English source to
mention the affair, CC,562. is curiously guarded, and speaks only
of "the execution, whatever its manner may have been".Otherwise the
story of the malmsey does not appear in English sources until early
Tudor times, e.g. Polydore Vergil, English History,167,;
More,Richard III,7.<p>
Whether there are more updated explanations, I do not recall.<p>
Also, I was always under the impression that the duke was faithful,
though just pure speculation on my part. Anyone know of any Clarence
bastards?

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> Since Clarence is the popular subject at the moment I have a
couple of questions.
>
> 1. When was the first recorded story of the malmsbury wine?
> Incidently Margaret, I imagine, would had been in the dark
concerning her father's death, she was only a small child when he
died. I can't imagine anyone sitting her down and telling her how it
was, certainly not her uncle Edward.
>
> 2. Forgetting the wine, does anyone know what Clarence was like in
running his lands?
>
> There were a few quiet years before he started up again after his
wife's death. Mmm wonder if his wife was a calming influence on him.
Complete conjecture that since we don't know anything about her
character.
>
> By the way I always dislike it when in some novels they make
Clarence cruel to his wife and a womaniser. There is no evidence for
that whatever his other failings were.
>
> Helen
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:

> Also, I was always under the impression that the duke was faithful,
> though just pure speculation on my part. Anyone know of any Clarence
> bastards?


I was interested in that very subject in connection with a pet theory
of mine. My research and inquiries failed to turn up any and my
theory was deflated.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, I was always under the impression that the duke was
faithful,
> > though just pure speculation on my part. Anyone know of any
Clarence
> > bastards?
>
>
> I was interested in that very subject in connection with a pet
theory
> of mine. My research and inquiries failed to turn up any and my
> theory was deflated.
>
> Katy


Katy,
Were you thinking that perhaps a male bastard child of Clarence may
have been the pretender Perkin Warbeck? Just curious, and intrigued,
if you do.More York era tidbits that make me go hmmm.

--- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...> wrote:
Anyone know of any
> Clarence
> > > bastards?
> >
> >
> > I was interested in that very subject in connection with a pet
> theory
> > of mine. My research and inquiries failed to turn up any and
my
> > theory was deflated.

>
>
> Katy,
> Were you thinking that perhaps a male bastard child of Clarence
may
> have been the pretender Perkin Warbeck?

Even more far-out than that, actually.

Katy

--- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...> wrote:
Anyone know of any
> Clarence
> > > bastards?
> >
> >
> > I was interested in that very subject in connection with a pet
> theory
> > of mine. My research and inquiries failed to turn up any and
my
> > theory was deflated.

>
>
> Katy,
> Were you thinking that perhaps a male bastard child of Clarence
may
> have been the pretender Perkin Warbeck?

Even more far-out than that, actually.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Rhonda"
> <metrlt@s...> wrote:
> Anyone know of any
> > Clarence
> > > > bastards?
> > >
> > >
> > > I was interested in that very subject in connection with a pet
> > theory
> > > of mine. My research and inquiries failed to turn up any and
> my
> > > theory was deflated.
>
> >
> >
> > Katy,
> > Were you thinking that perhaps a male bastard child of Clarence
> may
> > have been the pretender Perkin Warbeck?
>
> Even more far-out than that, actually.

Oh Katy do tell, please dont keep us in suspenders??!!
Eileen
>
> Katy

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:

> > > Katy,
> > > Were you thinking that perhaps a male bastard child of Clarence
> > may
> > > have been the pretender Perkin Warbeck?
> >
> > Even more far-out than that, actually.
>
> Oh Katy do tell, please dont keep us in suspenders??!!


I dare not. It's so far-fetched that it would bring all sorts of scorn
upon me. And besides, I may use it in a work of fiction oe of these
days.

Katy

Well, Katy, please let us know when your book is
published!!
Rene'

--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:


> I dare not. It's so far-fetched that it would bring
> all sorts of scorn
> upon me. And besides, I may use it in a work of
> fiction oe of these
> days.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>

--- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@y...> wrote:
> Well, Katy, please let us know when your book is
> published!!
> Rene'


Thank you, but don't hold your breath. My writing partner and I have
been batting ideas around for a long time. I have not given up my day
job.

But I appreciate the encouragement. I actually am a published writer
of several hundred thousand words over a span of 30 + years, but all
non-fiction. Fiction -- making it happen -- is a lot harder for me
than non-fiction -- telling what happened and how.

Katy

If you have not already done so, I recommend Clarence Hicks' book "False Fleeting
Perjured Clarence." It is very dry, but packed full of the kind of information you are
looking for. He contends that Clarence was not such a rotten guy as history has
made him, a good landlord and patron, and there is no record that he was mean to
his wife or a drunk. He contends that there is no evidence of any Clarence bastards or
mistresses.

I share your dislike of the way many novelists treat George.

- Margaret


--- In , Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@y...>
wrote:
> Since Clarence is the popular subject at the moment I have a couple of questions.
>
> 1. When was the first recorded story of the malmsbury wine?
> Incidently Margaret, I imagine, would had been in the dark concerning her father's
death, she was only a small child when he died. I can't imagine anyone sitting her
down and telling her how it was, certainly not her uncle Edward.
>
> 2. Forgetting the wine, does anyone know what Clarence was like in running his
lands?
>
> There were a few quiet years before he started up again after his wife's death.
Mmm wonder if his wife was a calming influence on him. Complete conjecture that
since we don't know anything about her character.
>
> By the way I always dislike it when in some novels they make Clarence cruel to his
wife and a womaniser. There is no evidence for that whatever his other failings were.
>
> Helen
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>

Hicks is rabidly anti Richard these days and Clarence has always been
his hero, so I never expected to see anything anti George from his
pen. Yes, his book is dry. It was his final thesis at University I
believe, where Charles Ross was his tutor and at the time living
hero. At time the book looks like a thesis, and Ross influence is clear.
Paul

On Aug 7, 2005, at 06:12, meandermay wrote:

> If you have not already done so, I recommend Clarence Hicks' book
> "False Fleeting
> Perjured Clarence." It is very dry, but packed full of the kind of
> information you are
> looking for. He contends that Clarence was not such a rotten guy
> as history has
> made him, a good landlord and patron, and there is no record that
> he was mean to
> his wife or a drunk. He contends that there is no evidence of any
> Clarence bastards or
> mistresses.
>
> I share your dislike of the way many novelists treat George.
>
> - Margaret
>
>
> --- In , Helen Rowe
> <sweethelly2003@y...>
> wrote:
>
>> Since Clarence is the popular subject at the moment I have a
>> couple of questions.
>>
>> 1. When was the first recorded story of the malmsbury wine?
>> Incidently Margaret, I imagine, would had been in the dark
>> concerning her father's
>>
> death, she was only a small child when he died. I can't imagine
> anyone sitting her
> down and telling her how it was, certainly not her uncle Edward.
>
>>
>> 2. Forgetting the wine, does anyone know what Clarence was like in
>> running his
>>
> lands?
>
>>
>> There were a few quiet years before he started up again after his
>> wife's death.
>>
> Mmm wonder if his wife was a calming influence on him. Complete
> conjecture that
> since we don't know anything about her character.
>
>>
>> By the way I always dislike it when in some novels they make
>> Clarence cruel to his
>>
> wife and a womaniser. There is no evidence for that whatever his
> other failings were.
>
>>
>> Helen
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://
>> au.messenger.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/
> SIG=12hlsajn9/M=362335.6886444.7839734.2575449/D=groups/
> S=1705297333:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123398770/A=2894362/R=0/SIG=138c78jl6/
> *http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/arts_culture/?
> source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/">What would our
> lives be like without music, dance, and theater?Donate or volunteer
> in the arts today at Network for Good</a>.</font>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

you're never too old to launch your dreams