On yeah and another thing

I think Richard really, really loved her (and little Ned too (obviously))!

Eileen

But what evidence is there?

And can we have a moritorium on sentimental references to 'little Ned'.

Ann

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
I think Richard really, really loved her (and little Ned too (obviously))!

Eileen





SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

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


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

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
> But what evidence is there?
>
> And can we have a moritorium on sentimental references to 'little Ned'.
>
> Ann
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> I think Richard really, really loved her (and little Ned too (obviously))!

Moritorium- Moritorium??!! (I think the word, Ann. is actually moratorium - but I digress)
This is 2006 you know, a simple "Stop" or even "Lay off" would have sufficed. Is it any
wonder some forum members are nervous of messaging if they are going to get responses
such as this??
Yes maybe I am sentimental - is there something wrong with that?? If my (sentimental)
postings are going to annoy/offend you, simply dont read them. Oh yes & I will decide
what or what not I am going to say in my postings, thank you very much.


>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I believe that there's precious little evidence of
Richard "really, really loving" Anne -- one reference
to "our much beloved consort" in some unexpected place
(I think it was an order for fabric). On the other
hand, there's precious little evidence of him not
loving her, either. There's simply precious little
evidence.

I know that some folks derive a great deal of
enjoyment from imaginative reconstructions of the
emotional lives of people in the distant past who've
left little evidence. It's not my personal cup of tea,
and I'd just as lief never read another story about
the tragic but doomed couple and their frail little
son. But I think that, as long as we're reasonably
civil to one another, both the imaginative dreamers
and the "just the facts" history types should be able
to get along, even if some in each group privately
think the other to be either heartless or sappy.



--- A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:

> But what evidence is there?
>
> And can we have a moritorium on sentimental
> references to 'little Ned'.
>
> Ann
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> I think Richard really, really loved her (and
> little Ned too (obviously))!
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen

I am a bit surprised at your response to my post as you admit yourself (in your message headed 'Anne Neville') that there is very little information on what Anne Neville was actually like.

What you have to say about sentimentality deserves a reasoned answer.

To my mind, what the Richard III Society and this forum are trying to do is not to 'rehabilitate' Richard III in any simplistic fashion, but to go back beyond the 'traditional' portrait derived from Shakespeare and other Tudor period writers and to establish, as far as is possible given the paucity of strictly contemporary sources for his reign, what he was actually like as man and ruler. In addition to the 'Tudor' view, in getting back to the 'real' Richard, we also have to go back beyond the views propounded by fiction writers favourable to Richard. When you start looking at the contemporary sources, you find that standard motifs in fiction - such as Richard and Anne's being 'childhood sweethearts' and their marriage being a love match - are not backed by historical record. This is something you allude to yourself, though using the example of Anne Neville's health.

Yes, the Croyland Chronicler' says that Richard and Anne were 'mad with grief' after their son's death, but does that say anything about the state of their marriage? Surely they could be shocked/horrified/devastated at the boy's apparently sudden death without being madly in love with one another. I think we should also bear in mind that Croyland, like most writers of the day, does not simply report what happened, but puts a gloss on what he reports based on the moral points he was seeking to make. And this is the only direct allusion we have to Richard and Anne's feelings for one another, and for their son.

As to 'little Ned' I will admit to a powerful dislike of anybody older than infancy being referred to as 'little'. Edward of Middleham may have been as old as 11 when he died - based on the earliest possible date of early 1472 for his parents' marriage. But there is a deeper point here. From the age of 7-8 he would have come under the tutelage of men rather than women, which seems to me as an important watershed not only in the practicalities of upbringing but in the way a boy was viewed by the world - and even under the latest likely date of birth (1476) he would have been 7 or 8 at his death. I would note that in traditional societies in Africa and elsewhere seven seems to be or have been the age when a young person ceases to be a 'child' living among women (mother, aunts etc) and becomes a boy or girl under the tutelage of adults of the same sex and learning skills and roles appropriate to man or woman. (I am not an anthropologist so any input from someone more expert would help
on this point!) An extreme case, though not from a traditional society, comes from pre-1918 Prussia, where princes of the royal house were put under the tutelage of military governors at seven, and commissioned into the Prussian Guard at ten!

As to 'Ned' (little or otherwise), we do have the problem of a glut of Edwards at this time, but we have absolutely no idea what Edward of Middleham was actually called by those close to him (Edward IV, Richard and Clarence all had sons named Edward, after all). This seems to me reson enough to refer to him by his baptismal name (who knows, he may himself have insisted on being called Edward!)

Ann

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
This is 2006 you know, a simple "Stop" or even "Lay off" would have sufficed. Is it any
wonder some forum members are nervous of messaging if they are going to get responses
such as this??
Yes maybe I am sentimental - is there something wrong with that?? If my (sentimental)
postings are going to annoy/offend you, simply dont read them. Oh yes & I will decide
what or what not I am going to say in my postings, thank you very much.


>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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! 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.


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

--- In , Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...>
wrote:
>

>
> I know that some folks derive a great deal of
> enjoyment from imaginative reconstructions of the
> emotional lives of people in the distant past who've
> left little evidence. It's not my personal cup of tea,
> and I'd just as lief never read another story about
> the tragic but doomed couple and their frail little
> son. But I think that, as long as we're reasonably
> civil to one another, both the imaginative dreamers
> and the "just the facts" history types should be able
> to get along, even if some in each group privately
> think the other to be either heartless or sappy.
>

I hope I havent come across as a 'Mills and Boone' type (although I must own up to being a
Piscean) in actual fact I hardly ever read fiction. But casting that aside this is a discussion
forum and of course you are not going to agree with other peoples views all the time - but
you should be able to post messages without getting snotty replies.

Eileen
>
>
> --- A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
> > But what evidence is there?
> >
> > And can we have a moritorium on sentimental
> > references to 'little Ned'.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> > I think Richard really, really loved her (and
> > little Ned too (obviously))!
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> > flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> > kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> > kingdom vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, there!



I don't want to see anyone's feelings hurt, but I would like to say that I
certainly think that a reference to someone as "Little Ned" is not anything
that should offend anyone, and it certainly doesn't break any rule of
Netiquette, so I just think it was going a bit far to call for a moratorium
on something that really shouldn't have offended anyone.



Just my $.02.



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Email - <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of eileen
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: On yeah and another thing



--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
> But what evidence is there?
>
> And can we have a moritorium on sentimental references to 'little Ned'.
>
> Ann
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> I think Richard really, really loved her (and little Ned too
(obviously))!

Moritorium- Moritorium??!! (I think the word, Ann. is actually moratorium
- but I digress)
This is 2006 you know, a simple "Stop" or even "Lay off" would have
sufficed. Is it any
wonder some forum members are nervous of messaging if they are going to get
responses
such as this??
Yes maybe I am sentimental - is there something wrong with that?? If my
(sentimental)
postings are going to annoy/offend you, simply dont read them. Oh yes & I
will decide
what or what not I am going to say in my postings, thank you very much.

I agree with you here. A romanticised view of Richard is s
unbalanced as the view that he was the devil incarnate.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> I am a bit surprised at your response to my post as you admit
yourself (in your message headed 'Anne Neville') that there is very
little information on what Anne Neville was actually like.
>
> What you have to say about sentimentality deserves a reasoned
answer.
>
> To my mind, what the Richard III Society and this forum are
trying to do is not to 'rehabilitate' Richard III in any simplistic
fashion, but to go back beyond the 'traditional' portrait derived
from Shakespeare and other Tudor period writers and to establish, as
far as is possible given the paucity of strictly contemporary sources
for his reign, what he was actually like as man and ruler. In
addition to the 'Tudor' view, in getting back to the 'real' Richard,
we also have to go back beyond the views propounded by fiction
writers favourable to Richard. When you start looking at the
contemporary sources, you find that standard motifs in fiction - such
as Richard and Anne's being 'childhood sweethearts' and their
marriage being a love match - are not backed by historical record.
This is something you allude to yourself, though using the example of
Anne Neville's health.
>
> Yes, the Croyland Chronicler' says that Richard and Anne
were 'mad with grief' after their son's death, but does that say
anything about the state of their marriage? Surely they could be
shocked/horrified/devastated at the boy's apparently sudden death
without being madly in love with one another. I think we should also
bear in mind that Croyland, like most writers of the day, does not
simply report what happened, but puts a gloss on what he reports
based on the moral points he was seeking to make. And this is the
only direct allusion we have to Richard and Anne's feelings for one
another, and for their son.
>
> As to 'little Ned' I will admit to a powerful dislike of anybody
older than infancy being referred to as 'little'. Edward of Middleham
may have been as old as 11 when he died - based on the earliest
possible date of early 1472 for his parents' marriage. But there is a
deeper point here. From the age of 7-8 he would have come under the
tutelage of men rather than women, which seems to me as an important
watershed not only in the practicalities of upbringing but in the way
a boy was viewed by the world - and even under the latest likely date
of birth (1476) he would have been 7 or 8 at his death. I would note
that in traditional societies in Africa and elsewhere seven seems to
be or have been the age when a young person ceases to be a 'child'
living among women (mother, aunts etc) and becomes a boy or girl
under the tutelage of adults of the same sex and learning skills and
roles appropriate to man or woman. (I am not an anthropologist so any
input from someone more expert would help
> on this point!) An extreme case, though not from a traditional
society, comes from pre-1918 Prussia, where princes of the royal
house were put under the tutelage of military governors at seven, and
commissioned into the Prussian Guard at ten!
>
> As to 'Ned' (little or otherwise), we do have the problem of a
glut of Edwards at this time, but we have absolutely no idea what
Edward of Middleham was actually called by those close to him (Edward
IV, Richard and Clarence all had sons named Edward, after all). This
seems to me reson enough to refer to him by his baptismal name (who
knows, he may himself have insisted on being called Edward!)
>
> Ann
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> This is 2006 you know, a simple "Stop" or even "Lay off" would
have sufficed. Is it any
> wonder some forum members are nervous of messaging if they are
going to get responses
> such as this??
> Yes maybe I am sentimental - is there something wrong with that??
If my (sentimental)
> postings are going to annoy/offend you, simply dont read them. Oh
yes & I will decide
> what or what not I am going to say in my postings, thank you very
much.
>
>
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom
vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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! 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I try to think that he had a happy marriage, but I hardly see him as some kind of swoon-worthy romantic hero.

richardrichardrobert <richardrichardrobert@...> wrote:
I agree with you here. A romanticised view of Richard is s
unbalanced as the view that he was the devil incarnate.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> I am a bit surprised at your response to my post as you admit
yourself (in your message headed 'Anne Neville') that there is very
little information on what Anne Neville was actually like.
>
> What you have to say about sentimentality deserves a reasoned
answer.
>
> To my mind, what the Richard III Society and this forum are
trying to do is not to 'rehabilitate' Richard III in any simplistic
fashion, but to go back beyond the 'traditional' portrait derived
from Shakespeare and other Tudor period writers and to establish, as
far as is possible given the paucity of strictly contemporary sources
for his reign, what he was actually like as man and ruler. In
addition to the 'Tudor' view, in getting back to the 'real' Richard,
we also have to go back beyond the views propounded by fiction
writers favourable to Richard. When you start looking at the
contemporary sources, you find that standard motifs in fiction - such
as Richard and Anne's being 'childhood sweethearts' and their
marriage being a love match - are not backed by historical record.
This is something you allude to yourself, though using the example of
Anne Neville's health.
>
> Yes, the Croyland Chronicler' says that Richard and Anne
were 'mad with grief' after their son's death, but does that say
anything about the state of their marriage? Surely they could be
shocked/horrified/devastated at the boy's apparently sudden death
without being madly in love with one another. I think we should also
bear in mind that Croyland, like most writers of the day, does not
simply report what happened, but puts a gloss on what he reports
based on the moral points he was seeking to make. And this is the
only direct allusion we have to Richard and Anne's feelings for one
another, and for their son.
>
> As to 'little Ned' I will admit to a powerful dislike of anybody
older than infancy being referred to as 'little'. Edward of Middleham
may have been as old as 11 when he died - based on the earliest
possible date of early 1472 for his parents' marriage. But there is a
deeper point here. From the age of 7-8 he would have come under the
tutelage of men rather than women, which seems to me as an important
watershed not only in the practicalities of upbringing but in the way
a boy was viewed by the world - and even under the latest likely date
of birth (1476) he would have been 7 or 8 at his death. I would note
that in traditional societies in Africa and elsewhere seven seems to
be or have been the age when a young person ceases to be a 'child'
living among women (mother, aunts etc) and becomes a boy or girl
under the tutelage of adults of the same sex and learning skills and
roles appropriate to man or woman. (I am not an anthropologist so any
input from someone more expert would help
> on this point!) An extreme case, though not from a traditional
society, comes from pre-1918 Prussia, where princes of the royal
house were put under the tutelage of military governors at seven, and
commissioned into the Prussian Guard at ten!
>
> As to 'Ned' (little or otherwise), we do have the problem of a
glut of Edwards at this time, but we have absolutely no idea what
Edward of Middleham was actually called by those close to him (Edward
IV, Richard and Clarence all had sons named Edward, after all). This
seems to me reson enough to refer to him by his baptismal name (who
knows, he may himself have insisted on being called Edward!)
>
> Ann
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> This is 2006 you know, a simple "Stop" or even "Lay off" would
have sufficed. Is it any
> wonder some forum members are nervous of messaging if they are
going to get responses
> such as this??
> Yes maybe I am sentimental - is there something wrong with that??
If my (sentimental)
> postings are going to annoy/offend you, simply dont read them. Oh
yes & I will decide
> what or what not I am going to say in my postings, thank you very
much.
>
>
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom
> United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom
vacation
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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! 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! 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.


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

--- richardrichardrobert
<richardrichardrobert@...> (or possibly
Alyons; the attribution is murky now that I've edited
for brevity) wrote:

> >
> > As to 'Ned' (little or otherwise), we do have
> the problem of a
> glut of Edwards at this time, but we have absolutely
> no idea what
> Edward of Middleham was actually called by those
> close to him (Edward
> IV, Richard and Clarence all had sons named Edward,
> after all). This
> seems to me reson enough to refer to him by his
> baptismal name (who
> knows, he may himself have insisted on being called
> Edward!)
> >

A. J. Pollard gave a paper at Kalamazoo in 1998 with a
hilarious if irreverent preface that I captured in
RealAudio (see
http://www.r3.org/wood/papers/pollard.html ). In that
paper he argued that there was some evidence in the
Middleham accounts to indicate that he was younger
rather than older. I believe he subsequently published
this paper in, among other places, his volume of
collected Ricahrd III essays.

--- Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
wrote:

> I try to think that he had a happy marriage, but I
> hardly see him as some kind of swoon-worthy romantic
> hero.
>

I know the film thread has about run its course and I
didn't read any of it, but if you want swoon-worthy,
consider that Johnny Depp once remarked that the only
Shakespearean charaacter he ever wanted to play was
Richard III...

I'd make an exception for him. On top of being gorgeous he's an excellent actor. He'd make us forget.

Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:

--- Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
wrote:

> I try to think that he had a happy marriage, but I
> hardly see him as some kind of swoon-worthy romantic
> hero.
>

I know the film thread has about run its course and I
didn't read any of it, but if you want swoon-worthy,
consider that Johnny Depp once remarked that the only
Shakespearean charaacter he ever wanted to play was
Richard III...


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


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

Hi.

I thought I might just add a couple o throw-ins, if no one minds. I
hope I can remember all the points I wanted to pick up.

I'm somewhat between two stools on this one. I'm very keen that we
base any reconstruction of events/character/motives on evidence. BUT
I don't see the point in any of it if we aren't interested in the
human beings involved and how individual humam problems and needs
impact on political events. My position is partly a reaction against
the fashionable status quo I was battling against in trying to take
the academic route in my youth- everything was Constitutional
History, Trends and denial of the impact of the individual. The "If
it hadn't been James Watt it would have been someboy else" school of
history (John Who, perhaps?). There's a lot to be said for it, of
course, but it went too far. And it totally excluded the intuitive
female contribution, that ability to see through to the human
psychology underlying the decisions of the great and powerful.

Having got that off my chest, I do have a beef with Ricardian fiction
because, as someone has recently argued in the Bulletin, a lot of it
is not doing what good historical fiction should do, which is to
demonstrate the psychological good sense of the author's
interpretation of events. Instead, we have developed a set of
Ricardian cliches which in many cases bear no more relationship to
the known facts than the traditionalist cliche, and don't really make
for a compelling and convincing narrative. When that's the case, you
know something's gone wrong somewhere.
Anyway, Edward is always blond, Clarence also tall and blond. Ann and
her mother and sister always weeak and wilting. . . . Whereas in fact
there is good reason to suspect Edward may have had dark brown hair,
Clarence may have been titchy, and the Countess of Warwick a bit of a
virago. I would even venture to suggest we may have a little evidence
of Anne's firmness of character. In Anne's case, I think her
novelistc crimes are twofold: firstly, to have died young (and,
according to Buck, from consumption); secondly, to have got off to a
bad start in some early, anti-Ricardian, novels (and, after that
first scene, Shakespeare) as the passive and innocent suffering wife
of the Creature from Hell (not to be blamed, you see, for having
been, in the eyes of these authors, illegally crowned Queen).

The Countess of Warwick I just don't see as a wimp. This seems to me
to be a version based entirely on lack of research. From sanctuary,
she harangued and harangued. Deprived of servants, apparently she
took up the pen herself, wrote to the King, the Duchess of York,
anybody she could think of, complaining about her terrible, terrible
treatment - and the lack of a secretary. Bear in mind that noblewomen
were generally not taught to write, only to read. And she turned up
at Henry VII's first parliament demanding the repeal of the Act of
parliament depriving her in favour of her daughters. She had a long
petition which was thrown out (it was eventually passed - when it
suited Henry - in 1487). She was probably also the mastermind behind
the Beauchamp Pageant.
Ann herself makes a couple of appearances in Harley 433. I can't
remember the wording of it, but I recall that Richard gave a licence
to an Italian merchant to import jewels provided he gave him first
refusal on the goods - possibly for his wife, I don't quite recall -
I could look it up if anyone particularly wants me to - anyway, that
might be the source of the reference to his beloved consort.

Richard's references to his wife do, I seem to recall, contain
expressions of affection. This was conventional, but equally it was
not obligatory, and the lack of the same may speak volumes. I have,
for instance, noted a dearth of such expressions connected with
Richard's references (as King) to Edward IV. There are also a couple
of places in Harley 433 where Ann's personal wishes may be coming
through. One is in a request from Richard to Louis XI to allow his
emissary to purchase wine whilst he was over there, for himself and
his consort Anne (sorry, can't recall the wording or if she was his
dear consort). Another is the grant of the Bohun lands (I think) to
Buckingham, where Richard specifically excludes a manor or two that
were of the inheritance of his dear wife. Also, just after Anne
arrived in London in June 1483 we see Richard making a couple of
commands to redress the grievances of one or two insignificant
Yorkshire folk - one old boy whose annuity hadn't been paid, for
instance. And have any novelists ever considered how soon after
Anne's arrival on 5th June the apparently smooth running of the
Protectorate and the build-up to Edward V's coronation started to
collapse in scenes of deadly mutual distrust?

I think it would be lovely if some novelists took up the challenge
and really wrung the little evidence we have for its juices and came
up with a properly rounded Anne - daughter of the Kingmaker and Anne
Beauchamp the Virago - existing and surviving life in her own right
and not JUST as either the besotted lover or helpless victim of
Richard of Gloucester*. Which is not, of course, to say that she
wouldn't have had a view on Richard - quite the reverse. Okay, so she
was only 14 & 16 at the time of her marriages, but speaking as the
parent of a teenage daughter I would not consider this any reason at
all to deprive her of firm views! Indeed, is one ever so sure about
everything ever again?
The problem is, isn't it, that the system of the day put women in a
passive legal position and so has deprived us of most of the sorts of
evidence we have of their husbands' actions and opinions. However, we
shouldn't confuse legal passivity with a passive personality. Often,
like the Countess of Warwick and the Duchess of York, they came out
from under the woodwork once they were widowed. I'm thinking also of
Miles Metcalf's wife Matilda, whose maiden surname we don't even know
and who appears in no records until after his death. Passive, timid
wife of hard-bidden Yorkshire lawyer? Well, no; the York city records
show that in her widowhood she got into a violent dispute with a
neighbour and the two women had to be restrained from doing each
other injury. Her will is also far from being that of a passive
flower; in fact it appears to show a dispute with her daughter, who
got only a best set of clothes and the threat that, if she complained
about it, she would get nothing at all.

Marie

* Not your novelistic "feisty" though, please - it's so patronising.

. And have any novelists ever considered how soon after
Anne's arrival on 5th June the apparently smooth running of the
Protectorate and the build-up to Edward V's coronation started to
collapse in scenes of deadly mutual distrust?


Marie

====================
This playwright has definitely noticed it, and run with it.

Maria
elena@...

--- In , Maria T <ejbronte@o...>
wrote:
>
> . And have any novelists ever considered how soon after
> Anne's arrival on 5th June the apparently smooth running of the
> Protectorate and the build-up to Edward V's coronation started to
> collapse in scenes of deadly mutual distrust?
>
>
> Marie
>
> ====================
> This playwright has definitely noticed it, and run with it.
>
> Maria
> elena@p...

Oh, good for you!

Marie

All this is very interesting. For what it's worth, I also see the Countess of Warwick as a fairly tough cookie, and quite possibly miffed at being required to marry beneath her - she, a Beauchamp, matched with a parvenu northerner!

You may well be right that the presence in documents of conventional expressions such as 'beloved' and 'dear' doesn't mean much but their absence is worth noting. Chroniclers also have conventional ways of depicting people; noble ladies are usually 'fair', if they are not their virtuous character makes up for this. Morality comes into it as well - writers are quite fond of pointing up contrasts between lovely appearance and less than lovely character. Young princes are usually handsome, virtuous, charming, and promising - there is an ambassador's description of Edward V shortly before his accession depicting him in just these terms (haven't got the reference to hand but I can track it down).

Regards

Ann

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
And have any novelists ever considered how soon after
Anne's arrival on 5th June the apparently smooth running of the
Protectorate and the build-up to Edward V's coronation started to
collapse in scenes of deadly mutual distrust?

I haven't got to that stage yet in my saga, but thanks for making this point. It is not impossible that Anne was passive most of the time but occasionally showed that she was not the Kingmaker's daughter for nothing!



I think it would be lovely if some novelists took up the challenge
and really wrung the little evidence we have for its juices and came
up with a properly rounded Anne - daughter of the Kingmaker and Anne
Beauchamp the Virago - existing and surviving life in her own right
and not JUST as either the besotted lover or helpless victim of
Richard of Gloucester*. Which is not, of course, to say that she
wouldn't have had a view on Richard - quite the reverse. Okay, so she
was only 14 & 16 at the time of her marriages, but speaking as the
parent of a teenage daughter I would not consider this any reason at
all to deprive her of firm views! Indeed, is one ever so sure about
everything ever again?

And we have to bear in mind that people grew up much faster then. After all, Edward IV fought his way to the throne at an age when lads nowadays are sitting their A levels, and was on campaign at 17, an age when, it is argued by some, 'children' should not be permitted to join the Armed Forces, even when there is no prospect of them being sent on active service.

Ann

Well, Richard Neville did not (as far as I know) have any lands of his
own, but he was far from being a mean match, even for a Beauchamp.
He was direct heir to the Earldom of Salisbury through his mother Alice
Montagu, and as a grandson of a Beaufort he had the Neville lands of
Penrith, Middleham and Sheriff Hutton to look forward to.
At the time of the marriage Henry VI was childless and looking to
promote his Beaufort relatives as possible successors, so this
connection was nothing for a mere countess to sniff at.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> All this is very interesting. For what it's worth, I also see the
Countess of Warwick as a fairly tough cookie, and quite possibly miffed
at being required to marry beneath her - she, a Beauchamp, matched with
a parvenu northerner!

True, but snobbery is not necessarily rational. One of my great-aunts, daughter of a brewery manager, was always complaining that she had married beneath her - her husband was an architect!

I have certainly read more than once that in the 15th century there was decided hostility and distrust on the part of southerners towards northerners. Desmond Seward (I know he's a bit suspect as a source but I think he makes a valid point here), notes that the speech of northerners and southerners was mutually unintelligible (having lived for over ten years among Geordies I can relate to that! I can just see a Beauchamp looking down her well-bred nose at an uncouth northernr with an accent to match.

What evidence have you that Henry VI was thinking of promoting his Beaufort relations into the succession at about the time of the Neville-Beauchamp marriage? This took place in 1435, but Henry was then still a minor and did not gain full powers as monarch until the end of 1437. Admittedly, there was a strong Beaufort influence over the council which ruled during his minority - particularly through Cardinal Beaufort. However, although Henry's uncle John Duke of Bedford died during 1435, his other surviving uncle, Humphrey of Gloucester, was still alive, and was presumably considered as his heir (as John of Gaunt was Richard II's heir under Edward III's succession charter). Though Henry was childless in 1435, he was, of course, only 13 (born December 1421), so there was presumably no reason to suppose that he would not in due course father sons - we know that Edward of Lancaster wasn't born until 1453, but nobody could know that then.

Ann



theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Well, Richard Neville did not (as far as I know) have any lands of his
own, but he was far from being a mean match, even for a Beauchamp.
He was direct heir to the Earldom of Salisbury through his mother Alice
Montagu, and as a grandson of a Beaufort he had the Neville lands of
Penrith, Middleham and Sheriff Hutton to look forward to.
At the time of the marriage Henry VI was childless and looking to
promote his Beaufort relatives as possible successors, so this
connection was nothing for a mere countess to sniff at.

one's occupation/education or income is not necessarily an indication of class/breeding.

in north america income and class are often confused.
there is upper income and upper class. nouveau riche vs old money.
very few people have "class" and money. many people have crass and money.

what is in your bank account is not indicative of your breeding.

the whole era we are discussing is about who is higher born, ergo more entitled to the reins of power/inheritance. many a king was in debt so he quite simply raised the taxes on the under classes.

often the merchant class had more money than people of noble birth. ergo one could marry for money or status, or both. someone of birth status marrying for money was marrying beneath themself.

the pastons and knyvett families are two i can think of who married up. as did e. woodville's father. she in turn married up, and then foisted her family on to the noble bloodlines.

consider even the "classist" attitude of nobles and minor nobles. landed gentry and gentle birth...ah the power of money..:-)) it can buy you a lot of things, but not your true heritage.

it's not right or wrong. it's just the way it is.

regards

roslyn

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
True, but snobbery is not necessarily rational. One of my great-aunts, daughter of a brewery manager, was always complaining that she had married beneath her - her husband was an architect!

I have certainly read more than once that in the 15th century there was decided hostility and distrust on the part of southerners towards northerners. Desmond Seward (I know he's a bit suspect as a source but I think he makes a valid point here), notes that the speech of northerners and southerners was mutually unintelligible (having lived for over ten years among Geordies I can relate to that! I can just see a Beauchamp looking down her well-bred nose at an uncouth northernr with an accent to match.

What evidence have you that Henry VI was thinking of promoting his Beaufort relations into the succession at about the time of the Neville-Beauchamp marriage? This took place in 1435, but Henry was then still a minor and did not gain full powers as monarch until the end of 1437. Admittedly, there was a strong Beaufort influence over the council which ruled during his minority - particularly through Cardinal Beaufort. However, although Henry's uncle John Duke of Bedford died during 1435, his other surviving uncle, Humphrey of Gloucester, was still alive, and was presumably considered as his heir (as John of Gaunt was Richard II's heir under Edward III's succession charter). Though Henry was childless in 1435, he was, of course, only 13 (born December 1421), so there was presumably no reason to suppose that he would not in due course father sons - we know that Edward of Lancaster wasn't born until 1453, but nobody could know that then.

Ann



theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Well, Richard Neville did not (as far as I know) have any lands of his
own, but he was far from being a mean match, even for a Beauchamp.
He was direct heir to the Earldom of Salisbury through his mother Alice
Montagu, and as a grandson of a Beaufort he had the Neville lands of
Penrith, Middleham and Sheriff Hutton to look forward to.
At the time of the marriage Henry VI was childless and looking to
promote his Beaufort relatives as possible successors, so this
connection was nothing for a mere countess to sniff at.






SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

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


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

How about the de la Poles? They really married up.

fayre rose wrote:

> one's occupation/education or income is not necessarily an indication
> of class/breeding.
>
> in north america income and class are often confused.
> there is upper income and upper class. nouveau riche vs old money.
> very few people have "class" and money. many people have crass and
> money.
>
> what is in your bank account is not indicative of your breeding.
>
> the whole era we are discussing is about who is higher born, ergo
> more entitled to the reins of power/inheritance. many a king was in
> debt so he quite simply raised the taxes on the under classes.
>
> often the merchant class had more money than people of noble
> birth. ergo one could marry for money or status, or both. someone of
> birth status marrying for money was marrying beneath themself.
>
> the pastons and knyvett families are two i can think of who married
> up. as did e. woodville's father. she in turn married up, and then
> foisted her family on to the noble bloodlines.
>
> consider even the "classist" attitude of nobles and minor nobles.
> landed gentry and gentle birth...ah the power of money..:-)) it can
> buy you a lot of things, but not your true heritage.
>
> it's not right or wrong. it's just the way it is.
>
> regards
>
> roslyn
>
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
> True, but snobbery is not necessarily rational. One of my
> great-aunts, daughter of a brewery manager, was always complaining
> that she had married beneath her - her husband was an architect!
>
> I have certainly read more than once that in the 15th century there
> was decided hostility and distrust on the part of southerners towards
> northerners. Desmond Seward (I know he's a bit suspect as a source but
> I think he makes a valid point here), notes that the speech of
> northerners and southerners was mutually unintelligible (having lived
> for over ten years among Geordies I can relate to that! I can just
> see a Beauchamp looking down her well-bred nose at an uncouth
> northernr with an accent to match.
>
> What evidence have you that Henry VI was thinking of promoting his
> Beaufort relations into the succession at about the time of the
> Neville-Beauchamp marriage? This took place in 1435, but Henry was
> then still a minor and did not gain full powers as monarch until the
> end of 1437. Admittedly, there was a strong Beaufort influence over
> the council which ruled during his minority - particularly through
> Cardinal Beaufort. However, although Henry's uncle John Duke of
> Bedford died during 1435, his other surviving uncle, Humphrey of
> Gloucester, was still alive, and was presumably considered as his heir
> (as John of Gaunt was Richard II's heir under Edward III's succession
> charter). Though Henry was childless in 1435, he was, of course, only
> 13 (born December 1421), so there was presumably no reason to suppose
> that he would not in due course father sons - we know that Edward of
> Lancaster wasn't born until 1453, but nobody could know that then.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Well, Richard Neville did not (as far as I know) have any lands of his
> own, but he was far from being a mean match, even for a Beauchamp.
> He was direct heir to the Earldom of Salisbury through his mother Alice
> Montagu, and as a grandson of a Beaufort he had the Neville lands of
> Penrith, Middleham and Sheriff Hutton to look forward to.
> At the time of the marriage Henry VI was childless and looking to
> promote his Beaufort relatives as possible successors, so this
> connection was nothing for a mere countess to sniff at.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom
> hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Actually, I didn't realise the Neville-Beauchamp marriage was this
early. Still, a Beaufort marriage was considered a Royal connection:
look at how Ralph Neville disinherited his senior heirs in favour of
the children by his Beaufort wife.
Another point here is that at the time of the marriage to Richard
Neville, Anne Beauchamp was not an heiress, as her brother the Duke
was still alive, and I think he had a daughter at some point as well.
I think a record dowry had to be payed to secure the match.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:

> What evidence have you that Henry VI was thinking of promoting
his Beaufort relations into the succession at about the time of the
Neville-Beauchamp marriage? This took place in 1435, but Henry was
then still a minor and did not gain full powers as monarch until the
end of 1437. Admittedly, there was a strong Beaufort influence over
the council which ruled during his minority - particularly through
Cardinal Beaufort. However, although Henry's uncle John Duke of
Bedford died during 1435, his other surviving uncle, Humphrey of
Gloucester, was still alive, and was presumably considered as his
heir (as John of Gaunt was Richard II's heir under Edward III's
succession charter). Though Henry was childless in 1435, he was, of
course, only 13 (born December 1421), so there was presumably no
reason to suppose that he would not in due course father sons - we
know that Edward of Lancaster wasn't born until 1453, but nobody
could know that then.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> Well, Richard Neville did not (as far as I know) have any lands
of his
> own, but he was far from being a mean match, even for a Beauchamp.
> He was direct heir to the Earldom of Salisbury through his mother
Alice
> Montagu, and as a grandson of a Beaufort he had the Neville lands
of
> Penrith, Middleham and Sheriff Hutton to look forward to.
> At the time of the marriage Henry VI was childless and looking to
> promote his Beaufort relatives as possible successors, so this
> connection was nothing for a mere countess to sniff at.
>
>
>
>

Certainly at the time of the marriage Anne Beauchamp had a brother, and he later had a daughter. I haven't got the necessary book to hand, but the daughter died as an infant within a year of her father, in 1448-49 if I remember correctly. In fact, Henry, Duke of Warwick married Richard Neville's sister Cecily - so Salisbury was presumably calculating that one of his offspring would benefit from the Beauchamp inheritance even if the other didn't!

Ann

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

Another point here is that at the time of the marriage to Richard
Neville, Anne Beauchamp was not an heiress, as her brother the Duke
was still alive, and I think he had a daughter at some point as well.
I think a record dowry had to be payed to secure the match.