EOY and marriage

When H7 made his vow to marry Elizabeth, why didn't Richard simply
marry her to one of his trusted,lower ranking men? I cannot see him
allowing her to marry anyone of consequence due to her proximity to
the throne, princes alive or not. H7 did this very neat and tidy when
he forced Margaret of Salisbury to marry Sir Richard Pole, a loyal
servant to Henry.Any thoughts?

Rhonda

When Henry made his vow to marry Elizabeth, she --
along with her mother and siblings -- were in
sanctuary. Elizabeth Woodville made one of the
conditions of leaving sanctuary a promise by Richard
that he would not disparage her daughters, i.e., marry
them off meanly.

Why was that? It could be that Elizabeth Woodville had
bargained with Richard -- swear to treat my children
properly and I won't cause you a PR headache by
contesting Titulus Regius from Sanctuary. It could be
that Richard was a decent human being who had human
feelings for his disinherited niblings. It could be a
combination of the two. Or it could be something else
entirely.

Off the top of my head, I recall the chronology of
these events as being:

Henry's vow to marry Elizabeth: Christmas 1483 or
thereabouts
Act of Parliament with Titulus Regius: January 1484
Emergence from Sanctuary of Elizabeth Woodville and
her daughters: February 1484.

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

> When H7 made his vow to marry Elizabeth, why didn't
> Richard simply
> marry her to one of his trusted,lower ranking men? I
> cannot see him
> allowing her to marry anyone of consequence due to
> her proximity to
> the throne, princes alive or not. H7 did this very
> neat and tidy when
> he forced Margaret of Salisbury to marry Sir Richard
> Pole, a loyal
> servant to Henry.Any thoughts?
>
> Rhonda
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>

Laura,
Thanks for the chronology and comments. Had it been me, EOY would have had a wedding ring on her finger before being packed off to Sheriff Hutton.I would not consider a knight in good standing with the king as a mean marriage for a bastard daughter of EIV.But, of course she was also the daughter of Elizabeth Woodville. Guess I'm the ruthlessly practical type. lol.
--- In , Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>
> When Henry made his vow to marry Elizabeth, she --
> along with her mother and siblings -- were in
> sanctuary. Elizabeth Woodville made one of the
> conditions of leaving sanctuary a promise by Richard
> that he would not disparage her daughters, i.e., marry
> them off meanly.
>
> Why was that? It could be that Elizabeth Woodville had
> bargained with Richard -- swear to treat my children
> properly and I won't cause you a PR headache by
> contesting Titulus Regius from Sanctuary. It could be
> that Richard was a decent human being who had human
> feelings for his disinherited niblings. It could be a
> combination of the two. Or it could be something else
> entirely.
>
> Off the top of my head, I recall the chronology of
> these events as being:
>
> Henry's vow to marry Elizabeth: Christmas 1483 or
> thereabouts
> Act of Parliament with Titulus Regius: January 1484
> Emergence from Sanctuary of Elizabeth Woodville and
> her daughters: February 1484.
>
> --- Rhonda metrlt@s... wrote:
>
> > When H7 made his vow to marry Elizabeth, why didn't
> > Richard simply
> > marry her to one of his trusted,lower ranking men? I
> > cannot see him
> > allowing her to marry anyone of consequence due to
> > her proximity to
> > the throne, princes alive or not. H7 did this very
> > neat and tidy when
> > he forced Margaret of Salisbury to marry Sir Richard
> > Pole, a loyal
> > servant to Henry.Any thoughts?
> >
> > Rhonda
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as disparaging for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort, illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and the Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than James I of Scots.

If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers would be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among the peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey were all already married in 1483-84.

Ann


Rhonda <metrlt@...> wrote:
Laura,
Thanks for the chronology and comments. Had it been me, EOY would have had a wedding ring on her finger before being packed off to Sheriff Hutton.I would not consider a knight in good standing with the king as a mean marriage for a bastard daughter of EIV.But, of course she was also the daughter of Elizabeth Woodville. Guess I'm the ruthlessly practical type. lol.

It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but many years later after the death of at least one elder brother. (This marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)

I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a gentleman's for that matter.

I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.

Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: EOY and marriage



I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as disparaging for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort, illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and the Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than James I of Scots.

If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers would be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among the peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey were all already married in 1483-84.

Ann

elizabeth wayte/lucy m. thomas lord lumley. the son of a baron, their issue were also inheritors of the barony.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=royal_lineage&id=I227121

also noted in this thread is the word disparage. the root word is parage, from which the word peerage evolved.

roslyn

Brian Wainwright <Brian@...> wrote:
It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but many years later after the death of at least one elder brother. (This marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)

I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a gentleman's for that matter.

I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.

Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: EOY and marriage



I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as disparaging for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort, illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and the Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than James I of Scots.

If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers would be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among the peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey were all already married in 1483-84.

Ann







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.


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

Brian,
Are you thinking of Mistress Grace, EIV's recognized natural daughter who tended Elizabeth Woodville during the Queen's final days? I do not know who, or if, she married,but half sister Cecily was married to a man of very modest station, retired in disgrace from Tudor's court to the Isle of Wight, supposedly a love match.Drat, still cannot find a name for the husband.Found this info in SKP.

Rhonda Tirone

--- In , "Brian Wainwright" <Brian@g...> wrote:
>
> It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but many years later after the death of at least one elder brother. (This marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)
>
> I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a gentleman's for that matter.
>
> I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.
>
> Brian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A LYON
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
>
>
>
> I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as disparaging for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort, illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and the Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than James I of Scots.
>
> If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers would be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among the peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey were all already married in 1483-84.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>

Cecilia married Mr. John Welles, later created a Viscount. I have an
article about her line somewhere and will have to post it.
Note his original status as a commoner, like Mr. Richard Pole. This
reinforces the general view that Richard wouldn't treat his nieces
this way. After all, Henry was Mr. Tudor, the Earldom of Richmond
having been forfeited.
As Titulus Regius 1484 rendered her illegitimate, her dynastic threat
depended upon the security of this legislation.

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Brian,
> Are you thinking of Mistress Grace, EIV's recognized natural
daughter who tended Elizabeth Woodville during the Queen's final
days? I do not know who, or if, she married,but half sister Cecily
was married to a man of very modest station, retired in disgrace from
Tudor's court to the Isle of Wight, supposedly a love match.Drat,
still cannot find a name for the husband.Found this info in SKP.
>
> Rhonda Tirone
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@g...> wrote:
> >
> > It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for
Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but
many years later after the death of at least one elder brother. (This
marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)
> >
> > I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry
them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a
squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a
gentleman's for that matter.
> >
> > I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate
daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: A LYON
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
> >
> >
> >
> > I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I
think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as disparaging
for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort,
illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st Earl
of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and the
Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than James
I of Scots.
> >
> > If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers would
be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick
marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among the
peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey were
all already married in 1483-84.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The very lowly marriage was Cecily's second (or third, if you count
Scrope). Welles was Margaret Beaufort's half-brother. Apparently she
had been promised free choice next time round, so she took the King
at her word and married one - Thomas Kyme, I think his name was -
without royal licence. Henry was furious, and Cecily took sanctuary
with Margaret Beaufort, who was much more sympathetic.

Richard was of course negotiating a marriage for Elizabeth with the
Duke of Beja when he died.

I suppose it's possible Richard might have though about a marriage
between Elizabeth and his own son, but there would have been seeral
drawbacks:-
1) The age difference. I see no reason to doubt Rous on Edward's age,
and so he was probably not even eight years old Therefore the
marriage could not have been consummated for many years
2) It would have involved telling Elizabeth and her mother that both
the princes were dead. Unless Richard had a very good explanation, it
wouldn't have boded well for getting consent from either of them. I
know Hicks argues that Elizabeth Woodville coming out of sanctuary
shows she then knew her sons were definitely dead and she had no
further hope, but I do (as a mother) find this one of his less
rational arguments. We are supposed to believe that her response to
confirmation that Richard had murdered both her young sons was to
give him all her daughters as well, and persuade her surviving son by
her first marriage to come back to Richard too? Would she logically
have given up hope of the Tudor marriage in those circumstances?
No, if Elizabeth Woodville had heard something new, it wasn't that
Richard had killed both the Princes - that had been announced months
before. So if Richard had confirmed their deaths, his explanation
must have exonerated him from blame.

Marie



--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Cecilia married Mr. John Welles, later created a Viscount. I have
an
> article about her line somewhere and will have to post it.
> Note his original status as a commoner, like Mr. Richard Pole. This
> reinforces the general view that Richard wouldn't treat his nieces
> this way. After all, Henry was Mr. Tudor, the Earldom of Richmond
> having been forfeited.
> As Titulus Regius 1484 rendered her illegitimate, her dynastic
threat
> depended upon the security of this legislation.
>
> --- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> > Are you thinking of Mistress Grace, EIV's recognized natural
> daughter who tended Elizabeth Woodville during the Queen's final
> days? I do not know who, or if, she married,but half sister Cecily
> was married to a man of very modest station, retired in disgrace
from
> Tudor's court to the Isle of Wight, supposedly a love match.Drat,
> still cannot find a name for the husband.Found this info in SKP.
> >
> > Rhonda Tirone
> >
> > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for
> Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but
> many years later after the death of at least one elder brother.
(This
> marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)
> > >
> > > I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry
> them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a
> squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a
> gentleman's for that matter.
> > >
> > > I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate
> daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: A LYON
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I
> think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as
disparaging
> for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort,
> illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st
Earl
> of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and
the
> Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than
James
> I of Scots.
> > >
> > > If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers
would
> be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick
> marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among
the
> peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey
were
> all already married in 1483-84.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

One of the many things that puzzles me is that Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary and brought her daughters with her to Richard's court when she knew for certain that Richard was ultimately responsible (I'm phrasing this rather carefully) for the execution of her son Richard Grey. Never mind Edward V and the Duke of York and whatever had happened to them - to me it suggests a rather callous attitude to the offspring of her first marriage.

Ann

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:

The very lowly marriage was Cecily's second (or third, if you count
Scrope). Welles was Margaret Beaufort's half-brother. Apparently she
had been promised free choice next time round, so she took the King
at her word and married one - Thomas Kyme, I think his name was -
without royal licence. Henry was furious, and Cecily took sanctuary
with Margaret Beaufort, who was much more sympathetic.

Richard was of course negotiating a marriage for Elizabeth with the
Duke of Beja when he died.

I suppose it's possible Richard might have though about a marriage
between Elizabeth and his own son, but there would have been seeral
drawbacks:-
1) The age difference. I see no reason to doubt Rous on Edward's age,
and so he was probably not even eight years old Therefore the
marriage could not have been consummated for many years
2) It would have involved telling Elizabeth and her mother that both
the princes were dead. Unless Richard had a very good explanation, it
wouldn't have boded well for getting consent from either of them. I
know Hicks argues that Elizabeth Woodville coming out of sanctuary
shows she then knew her sons were definitely dead and she had no
further hope, but I do (as a mother) find this one of his less
rational arguments. We are supposed to believe that her response to
confirmation that Richard had murdered both her young sons was to
give him all her daughters as well, and persuade her surviving son by
her first marriage to come back to Richard too? Would she logically
have given up hope of the Tudor marriage in those circumstances?
No, if Elizabeth Woodville had heard something new, it wasn't that
Richard had killed both the Princes - that had been announced months
before. So if Richard had confirmed their deaths, his explanation
must have exonerated him from blame.

Marie



--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Cecilia married Mr. John Welles, later created a Viscount. I have
an
> article about her line somewhere and will have to post it.
> Note his original status as a commoner, like Mr. Richard Pole. This
> reinforces the general view that Richard wouldn't treat his nieces
> this way. After all, Henry was Mr. Tudor, the Earldom of Richmond
> having been forfeited.
> As Titulus Regius 1484 rendered her illegitimate, her dynastic
threat
> depended upon the security of this legislation.
>
> --- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> > Are you thinking of Mistress Grace, EIV's recognized natural
> daughter who tended Elizabeth Woodville during the Queen's final
> days? I do not know who, or if, she married,but half sister Cecily
> was married to a man of very modest station, retired in disgrace
from
> Tudor's court to the Isle of Wight, supposedly a love match.Drat,
> still cannot find a name for the husband.Found this info in SKP.
> >
> > Rhonda Tirone
> >
> > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for
> Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but
> many years later after the death of at least one elder brother.
(This
> marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)
> > >
> > > I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry
> them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a
> squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a
> gentleman's for that matter.
> > >
> > > I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate
> daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: A LYON
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I
> think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as
disparaging
> for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort,
> illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st
Earl
> of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and
the
> Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than
James
> I of Scots.
> > >
> > > If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers
would
> be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick
> marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among
the
> peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey
were
> all already married in 1483-84.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>






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


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

Yes, but previously, **during Richard III's reign** Cecily was married to a Scrope, a young man, from whom she had to be detached in order that she could marry Welles.

The facts about this have been mentioned at least twice in the _Ricardian_ ; I think the main evidence is a reference to the "divorce" case in the York Consistory records.

Subsequently, after becoming a widow, Cecily married a third time to someone whose name I recall as KYME, an obscure gentleman. Anyway, he was NQOCD and I believe Henry VII (and possibly Elizabeth of York) were rather cross.

Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: EOY and marriage


Cecilia married Mr. John Welles, later created a Viscount. I have an
article about her line somewhere and will have to post it.
Note his original status as a commoner, like Mr. Richard Pole. This
reinforces the general view that Richard wouldn't treat his nieces
this way. After all, Henry was Mr. Tudor, the Earldom of Richmond
having been forfeited.
As Titulus Regius 1484 rendered her illegitimate, her dynastic threat
depended upon the security of this legislation.

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Brian,
> Are you thinking of Mistress Grace, EIV's recognized natural
daughter who tended Elizabeth Woodville during the Queen's final
days? I do not know who, or if, she married,but half sister Cecily
was married to a man of very modest station, retired in disgrace from
Tudor's court to the Isle of Wight, supposedly a love match.Drat,
still cannot find a name for the husband.Found this info in SKP.
>
> Rhonda Tirone
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@g...> wrote:
> >
> > It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for
Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but
many years later after the death of at least one elder brother. (This
marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)
> >
> > I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would marry
them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even a
squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a
gentleman's for that matter.
> >
> > I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged illegitimate
daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: A LYON
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
> >
> >
> >
> > I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I
think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as disparaging
for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort,
illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st Earl
of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and the
Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than James
I of Scots.
> >
> > If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers would
be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick
marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among the
peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey were
all already married in 1483-84.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






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

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

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

> One of the many things that puzzles me is that
> Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary and
> brought her daughters with her to Richard's court
> when she knew for certain that Richard was
> ultimately responsible (I'm phrasing this rather
> carefully) for the execution of her son Richard
> Grey. Never mind Edward V and the Duke of York and
> whatever had happened to them - to me it suggests a
> rather callous attitude to the offspring of her
> first marriage.
>

I think we have to be careful about ascribing our
twenty-first century family sensibilities to the
actions of the fifteenth century royalty and nobility
of the period. Many of them seem to have accepted the
death in battle, execution, etc. of family members and
to make a kind of peace with those responsible for the
deaths in order to move forward. It's a hard concept
for me to get my mind around, but it seems to have
happened with regularity in fifteenth century England.

I won't argue with that as a piece of reasoning, as it seems eminently sensible to me. However, the death of Richard Grey means that the argument put forward by some Ricardians that the fact that Elizabeth Woodville allowed her daughters to go to court means that Richard cannot possibly have killed her younger sons is bunkum.
Regards

Ann


I think we have to be careful about ascribing our
twenty-first century family sensibilities to the
actions of the fifteenth century royalty and nobility
of the period. Many of them seem to have accepted the
death in battle, execution, etc. of family members and
to make a kind of peace with those responsible for the
deaths in order to move forward. It's a hard concept
for me to get my mind around, but it seems to have
happened with regularity in fifteenth century England.



---------------------------------
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:
>
> I won't argue with that as a piece of reasoning, as it seems
eminently sensible to me. However, the death of Richard Grey means
that the argument put forward by some Ricardians that the fact that
Elizabeth Woodville allowed her daughters to go to court means that
Richard cannot possibly have killed her younger sons is bunkum.
> Regards
>
> Ann

Well, that's strong. I beg to differ, however. There was a huge
difference with an adult son executed after conviction for treason.
The Woodvilles had gambled and lost in the summer of 1483, but I do
think they were up to something. As I say, there's a huge difference
between that and the murder of children guilty of no crime.
Not only would that be unforgivable for any mother, but it would have
made Richard totally untrustworthy - if he had done that, then
Elizabeth Woodville couldn't have imagined she and her family could
live safely with him merely by playing by the rules.

There are, besides, plenty of instances of 15th century people who
could not forgive and who held a long grudge - notably the sons of
the Lancastrian nobles killed at the first battle of St Albans. Also
the Earl of Oxford. The linking factor with these is that they saw
their father's deaths as having been outside the rules, as murder.
There was no war ongoing when Warwick charged the barricades in St
Albans. The Earl of Oxford who died in 1461 was very likely innocent
of treason himself, though the son who died with him may not have
been.
Translate that to a 12-yr-old and a 9yr old and how do you expect
their mother to react? Here I am not talking about culturally induced
responses, but plain nature - there is actually a gene that makes
mothers bond with their children. Read Elizabeth Woodville's will if
you don't think she was a fond mother.

Marie






>
>
> I think we have to be careful about ascribing our
> twenty-first century family sensibilities to the
> actions of the fifteenth century royalty and nobility
> of the period. Many of them seem to have accepted the
> death in battle, execution, etc. of family members and
> to make a kind of peace with those responsible for the
> deaths in order to move forward. It's a hard concept
> for me to get my mind around, but it seems to have
> happened with regularity in fifteenth century England.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, that's strong. I beg to differ, however. There was a huge
difference with an adult son executed after conviction for treason.
The Woodvilles had gambled and lost in the summer of 1483, but I do
think they were up to something. As I say, there's a huge difference
between that and the murder of children guilty of no crime.
Not only would that be unforgivable for any mother, but it would have
made Richard totally untrustworthy - if he had done that, then
Elizabeth Woodville couldn't have imagined she and her family could
live safely with him merely by playing by the rules.

I have to disagree. Richard Grey's trial and execution were legally dubious. The Statute of Treasons doesn't cover otherwise treasonable acts when done against a Protector, but only against a monarch. This could have been dealt with by Act of Attainder, as was quite usual at this time when the actions complained of were not within the strict scope of the Statute (which is actually quite narrow in its terms), but this didn't happen. On that basis, a 'devoted' mother would surely have been strongly hostile towards - and quite possibly very fearful of and reluctant to trust - the man who brought about the death of her adult son.

There are, besides, plenty of instances of 15th century people who
could not forgive and who held a long grudge - notably the sons of
the Lancastrian nobles killed at the first battle of St Albans. Also
the Earl of Oxford. The linking factor with these is that they saw
their father's deaths as having been outside the rules, as murder.

Now that point I do agree with, but the mere fact that something is 'within the rules' would not somehow make everything 'all right' as far as their relations were concerned. That seems to me to be rationalising the human element out of it. Doubtless many families would make the best of a bad job and seek an accommodation with the regime once the initial emotion had had time to calm down, but Elizabeth Woodville was remarkably quick to do this, since Richard Grey had been dead little more than six months when she came out of sanctuary.

Translate that to a 12-yr-old and a 9yr old and how do you expect
their mother to react? Here I am not talking about culturally induced
responses, but plain nature - there is actually a gene that makes
mothers bond with their children.

I'm afraid you will think me very cynical and unnatural, but I am not at all convinced that maternal devotion is as natural and universal as all that. There are just too many cases where mothers are physically neglectful of their offspring to an extreme degree, or fail to protect them from abuse by the mother's boyfriend - this 'bonding' gene must be very easily upset. And does maternal devotion suddenly disappear once the child is adult? In my experience parents remain fond of their adult offspring and I can think of plenty of instances of their being devastated at the death of a young adult son or daughter (the affection may be different in tenor, but it doesn't cease to exist). And Edward V (though not the Duke of York) must have been a virtual stranger to Elizabeth Woodville, since he had been apart from her since infancy.

As to Elizabeth's Woodville's will (which I will, indded, have to read) one could argue that wills, like most other documents, may simply be couched in conventional terms and therefore say little or nothing about the testator's affections for his or her family. The counter-argument is of course that wills in those days were only made when death was near and a person facing eternity would have good reason to be truthful. Just the same points arise as did when we discussed Richard's documentary references to Anne Neville.



Ann

I personally agree that it is not a defensible
argument. There is ample precedent to the contrary.

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

> I won't argue with that as a piece of reasoning,
> as it seems eminently sensible to me. However, the
> death of Richard Grey means that the argument put
> forward by some Ricardians that the fact that
> Elizabeth Woodville allowed her daughters to go to
> court means that Richard cannot possibly have killed
> her younger sons is bunkum.
> Regards
>
> Ann
>
>
> I think we have to be careful about ascribing our
> twenty-first century family sensibilities to the
> actions of the fifteenth century royalty and
> nobility
> of the period. Many of them seem to have accepted
> the
> death in battle, execution, etc. of family members
> and
> to make a kind of peace with those responsible for
> the
> deaths in order to move forward. It's a hard concept
> for me to get my mind around, but it seems to have
> happened with regularity in fifteenth century
> England.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@g...> wrote:
>
> Yes, but previously, **during Richard III's reign** Cecily was
married to a Scrope, a young man, from whom she had to be detached in
order that she could marry Welles.
>
> The facts about this have been mentioned at least twice in the
_Ricardian_ ; I think the main evidence is a reference to
the "divorce" case in the York Consistory records.
>
> Subsequently, after becoming a widow, Cecily married a third time
to someone whose name I recall as KYME, an obscure gentleman. Anyway,
he was NQOCD and I believe Henry VII (and possibly Elizabeth of York)
were rather cross.
>
> Brian
>
OK Brian, have a little look at the latest file!

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
>
>
> Cecilia married Mr. John Welles, later created a Viscount. I have
an
> article about her line somewhere and will have to post it.
> Note his original status as a commoner, like Mr. Richard Pole.
This
> reinforces the general view that Richard wouldn't treat his
nieces
> this way. After all, Henry was Mr. Tudor, the Earldom of Richmond
> having been forfeited.
> As Titulus Regius 1484 rendered her illegitimate, her dynastic
threat
> depended upon the security of this legislation.
>
> --- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Brian,
> > Are you thinking of Mistress Grace, EIV's recognized natural
> daughter who tended Elizabeth Woodville during the Queen's final
> days? I do not know who, or if, she married,but half sister
Cecily
> was married to a man of very modest station, retired in disgrace
from
> Tudor's court to the Isle of Wight, supposedly a love match.Drat,
> still cannot find a name for the husband.Found this info in SKP.
> >
> > Rhonda Tirone
> >
> > --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> <Brian@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's worth remembering, that Richard did find a husband for
> Cecily, a junior Scrope who eventually succeeded to the title but
> many years later after the death of at least one elder brother.
(This
> marriage was dissolved so Cecily could marry Lord Welles.)
> > >
> > > I seem to recall that Richard's promise was that he would
marry
> them to "gentlemen born" which gave him considerable scope. Even
a
> squire's younger son would be covered by that definition. Or a
> gentleman's for that matter.
> > >
> > > I wish I could remember whom Edward's acknowledged
illegitimate
> daughter married, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a peer.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: A LYON
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: EOY and marriage
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I too am ruthlessly practical. The point is arguable, but I
> think that anything less than a peer would be regarded as
disparaging
> for an illegitimate king's daughter. Remember that Joan Beaufort,
> illegitimate granddaughter of a king, married Ralph Neville, 1st
Earl
> of Westmorland (I think before the Beauforts' legitimation), and
the
> Joan Beaufort of the next generation got no less a person than
James
> I of Scots.
> > >
> > > If this was the case than a shortage of unmarried peers
would
> be an obvious reason for Richard's failure to organise a quick
> marriage for Elizabeth. Of Richard's best-known supporters among
the
> peerage, Francis Lovell, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey
were
> all already married in 1483-84.
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>

As Princess Anne memorably said "Children are a risk of marriage". I
rather suspect this was Elizabeth Woodville's attitude. She had more
than fulfilled her part of the bargain as far as producing children
was concerned. Whilst I don't think for one minute that she had much
to do with their upbringing, her children mostly survived too.

Whatever her reasons for coming to an agremeent with Richard,
realistically what other choice did she have? There was talk of
forcing her to leave sanctuary, which in any case was not supposed to
be for ever. Sooner or later she had to leave, either of her own free
will or not. She may have been relatively safe where she was, but she
and her daughters were out of view and she may well have feared that
they could "disappear" along with her two boys. Perhaps she felt she
could do more to protect them all if she was in the public gaze.

Incidentally, wouldn't she have also felt resentment at the loss of
Rivers? Possibly more for him than any of the others.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> One of the many things that puzzles me is that Elizabeth Woodville
came out of sanctuary and brought her daughters with her to Richard's
court when she knew for certain that Richard was ultimately responsible
(I'm phrasing this rather carefully) for the execution of her son
Richard Grey. Never mind Edward V and the Duke of York and whatever had
happened to them - to me it suggests a rather callous attitude to the
offspring of her first marriage.


Don't forget that she advised her older son, Thomas, Earl of Dorset, to
come back after he had taken off to sea with some of the raoyal
treasury after the death of Edward IV. Evidently Richard III promised
not to execute him for it. And he didn't...Dorset died in 1501. Maybe
that was callousnress, too, but maybe it was that she felt she could
trust Richard's word.

Katy

Katy,
All true, except Dorset never made it back to England during Richard's reign. He was at the exiled Tudor "court" in France, made an unsuccessful attempt to escape, but was caught and "persuaded" to return.In fact, he was left behind as a hostage to assure repayment of monies borrowed from the French crown , when Henry left for Bosworth.

Rhonda Tirone


--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON A.Lyon1@b...
> wrote:
> >
> > One of the many things that puzzles me is that Elizabeth Woodville
> came out of sanctuary and brought her daughters with her to Richard's
> court when she knew for certain that Richard was ultimately responsible
> (I'm phrasing this rather carefully) for the execution of her son
> Richard Grey. Never mind Edward V and the Duke of York and whatever had
> happened to them - to me it suggests a rather callous attitude to the
> offspring of her first marriage.
>
>
> Don't forget that she advised her older son, Thomas, Earl of Dorset, to
> come back after he had taken off to sea with some of the raoyal
> treasury after the death of Edward IV. Evidently Richard III promised
> not to execute him for it. And he didn't...Dorset died in 1501. Maybe
> that was callousnress, too, but maybe it was that she felt she could
> trust Richard's word.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Katy,
> All true, except Dorset never made it back to England during
Richard's reign. He was at the exiled Tudor "court" in France, made
an unsuccessful attempt to escape, but was caught and "persuaded" to
return.In fact, he was left behind as a hostage to assure repayment
of monies borrowed from the French crown , when Henry left for
Bosworth.


Um. Well, again I vow to check my "facts" before posting, except
that if I did, I'd never have time to post anything.

Maybe my point was half-apt. (Watch your pronunciation, there.)
Woodville did urge him to return, it seems. Maybe that indicates she
trusted R III, but maybe it could be argued that she was under duress
to get help get him and the treasure back.

Katy

dixonian2004 <sally-turfrey@...> wrote: As Princess Anne memorably said "Children are a risk of marriage". I
rather suspect this was Elizabeth Woodville's attitude. She had more
than fulfilled her part of the bargain as far as producing children
was concerned.
I would go alone with that. She strikes me as a bit cold-blooded and calculating - the same could be said of a good many of the medieval nobilty.


Whatever her reasons for coming to an agremeent with Richard,
realistically what other choice did she have? There was talk of
forcing her to leave sanctuary, which in any case was not supposed to
be for ever. Sooner or later she had to leave, either of her own free
will or not. She may have been relatively safe where she was, but she
and her daughters were out of view and she may well have feared that
they could "disappear" along with her two boys. Perhaps she felt she
could do more to protect them all if she was in the public gaze.

All that seems entirely plausible.

Incidentally, wouldn't she have also felt resentment at the loss of
Rivers? Possibly more for him than any of the others.

I've wondered about that too. Any evidence that this brother and sister were actively fond of one another? They are usually portrayed as being so in historical novels, but did contemporaries have anything to say? And even if they were not that pally, brothers and sisters do tend to present a united front against outsiders - such as in-laws.

Ann








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 would think that Elizabeth Woodville would certainly have an emotional
reaction to the fate of her brother, and to the suspicion that her sons
were dead, but we must remember that she was a major player in an
incredibly high stakes game. She was a gameswoman who knew the rules.
Further, she did not have the luxury of letting her enemies see her
break a sweat. She cut the best deal she could, and it was a pretty good
one, given her circumstances. She actually seems to have made Richard
sweat for awhile.

I would not like to have gone toe-to-toe with her and the other
Woodville/Greys. Theirs was truly a page out of Machiavelli.


A LYON wrote:

>
>
> dixonian2004 <sally-turfrey@...> wrote: As Princess Anne
> memorably said "Children are a risk of marriage". I
> rather suspect this was Elizabeth Woodville's attitude. She had more
> than fulfilled her part of the bargain as far as producing children
> was concerned.
> I would go alone with that. She strikes me as a bit cold-blooded
> and calculating - the same could be said of a good many of the
> medieval nobilty.
>
>
> Whatever her reasons for coming to an agremeent with Richard,
> realistically what other choice did she have? There was talk of
> forcing her to leave sanctuary, which in any case was not supposed to
> be for ever. Sooner or later she had to leave, either of her own free
> will or not. She may have been relatively safe where she was, but she
> and her daughters were out of view and she may well have feared that
> they could "disappear" along with her two boys. Perhaps she felt she
> could do more to protect them all if she was in the public gaze.
>
> All that seems entirely plausible.
>
> Incidentally, wouldn't she have also felt resentment at the loss of
> Rivers? Possibly more for him than any of the others.
>
> I've wondered about that too. Any evidence that this brother and
> sister were actively fond of one another? They are usually portrayed
> as being so in historical novels, but did contemporaries have anything
> to say? And even if they were not that pally, brothers and sisters do
> tend to present a united front against outsiders - such as in-laws.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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


>
> Incidentally, wouldn't she have also felt resentment at the loss of
> Rivers? Possibly more for him than any of the others.
>
> I've wondered about that too. Any evidence that this brother and
sister were actively fond of one another? They are usually portrayed
as being so in historical novels, but did contemporaries have
anything to say? And even if they were not that pally, brothers and
sisters do tend to present a united front against outsiders - such as
in-laws.



Elizabeth and Richard Woodville were two of sixteen children, all of
whom, I believed, lived to adulthood. (Is Jacquetta of Luxembourg's
brood some sort of record for one woman, I wonder?)

I don't know how close they were in age (but I'm sure someone here
does) -- if they were many years apart they may not have been
emotionally close at all. Even if they were relatively close in age,
the conventions of the times may well have separated them relatively
young. The brothers and sisters often didn't live together as
nuclear families such as we have now -- boys would go off into
apprenticeship or page/squire positions in other families in mid-
childhood.

Speaking of which, and thinking of that sentimental painting of
the "princes in the Tower" as two blond moppets in white nightshirts,
standing clutching each other's hands in the omimously dark stone
corridor -- those two would have been virtually strangers to each
other when young Richard was sent to keep his brother company in the
Tower. They had been separated since Richard was a toddler, when
Edward went off to Ludlow.

Katy

The same holds true for Richard and Edward IV. Their ages and
upbringings were so radically different that one was considered to be
'midland'/'southern' while the other was considered to be 'northern'.
I'm skeptical of insinuations that there was a strong bond of filial
devotion between these men. I think that Richard saw loyalty to Edward
as being in his own best interest, and that he disapproved of much that
Edward did. Richard's advancement in the world had more to do with his
own tenaciousness than it did with Edward's largesse.

And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong bond of
affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly large
difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by Clarence's
death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over lands
and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.

oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Incidentally, wouldn't she have also felt resentment at the loss of
> > Rivers? Possibly more for him than any of the others.
> >
> > I've wondered about that too. Any evidence that this brother and
> sister were actively fond of one another? They are usually portrayed
> as being so in historical novels, but did contemporaries have
> anything to say? And even if they were not that pally, brothers and
> sisters do tend to present a united front against outsiders - such as
> in-laws.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth and Richard Woodville were two of sixteen children, all of
> whom, I believed, lived to adulthood. (Is Jacquetta of Luxembourg's
> brood some sort of record for one woman, I wonder?)
>
> I don't know how close they were in age (but I'm sure someone here
> does) -- if they were many years apart they may not have been
> emotionally close at all. Even if they were relatively close in age,
> the conventions of the times may well have separated them relatively
> young. The brothers and sisters often didn't live together as
> nuclear families such as we have now -- boys would go off into
> apprenticeship or page/squire positions in other families in mid-
> childhood.
>
> Speaking of which, and thinking of that sentimental painting of
> the "princes in the Tower" as two blond moppets in white nightshirts,
> standing clutching each other's hands in the omimously dark stone
> corridor -- those two would have been virtually strangers to each
> other when young Richard was sent to keep his brother company in the
> Tower. They had been separated since Richard was a toddler, when
> Edward went off to Ludlow.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

On Behalf Of William Barber

And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong bond of

affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly large
difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by Clarence's

death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over lands
and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
=============================================

There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between Richard and
George: there weren't that many years between them: George was born in
1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only members of
their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond which may
or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.

Maria
elena@...

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> ->
>>
> Speaking of which, and thinking of that sentimental painting of
> the "princes in the Tower" as two blond moppets in white nightshirts,
> standing clutching each other's hands in the omimously dark stone
> corridor -- > Katy
>
You may know this already Katy, but re that painting which was painted by Millais, his two
daughters were the models for the 2 princes -
Eileen

Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.

Maria T wrote:

> On Behalf Of William Barber
>
> And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong bond of
>
> affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly large
> difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by Clarence's
>
> death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over lands
> and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
> 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> =============================================
>
> There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between Richard and
> George: there weren't that many years between them: George was born in
> 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
> shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only members of
> their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond which may
> or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.
>
> Maria T wrote:
>
> > On Behalf Of William Barber
> >
> > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
bond of
> >
> > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
large
> > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
Clarence's
> >
> > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
lands
> > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to
his
> > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > =============================================
> >
> > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
Richard and
> > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
born in
> > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition,
they
> > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
members of
> > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
which may
> > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.



The dividing up of real estate, titles, and income amongst brothers,
and the marrying in pursuit of all the above, may have served to
throw cold water on sibling affection in many cases.

It still does today, as many people who have been through probate of
a parent's estate can attest.

Katy

Tell me about it. I'm from a large, blended family of forty-five years
standing, and things can still be quite interesting at times.

oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.
> >
> > Maria T wrote:
> >
> > > On Behalf Of William Barber
> > >
> > > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
> bond of
> > >
> > > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
> large
> > > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
> Clarence's
> > >
> > > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
> lands
> > > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to
> his
> > > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > > =============================================
> > >
> > > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
> Richard and
> > > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
> born in
> > > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition,
> they
> > > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
> members of
> > > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
> which may
> > > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
>
>
> The dividing up of real estate, titles, and income amongst brothers,
> and the marrying in pursuit of all the above, may have served to
> throw cold water on sibling affection in many cases.
>
> It still does today, as many people who have been through probate of
> a parent's estate can attest.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

i come from a traditional family, no blending etc. my parents split up about five years before my mother passed on. all of us were young adults at the time of the divorice.

my sibs and i were always goaded into competition with each other growing up.. ergo, we didn't fight..we went to war. this tradition is rampant in my paternal family.

one sib was the exec of my mother's estate, and the probate was a mess..i was the one who got the least fair treatment. assets were "not listed"/hidden and quietly disbursed to those in favoured positions within the family.

my father's estate was even worse. he died intestate. i had to bring in a court ordered independent admin (i used my mother's botched probate to prove the need for independent admin)

i also know, if this was 500 years ago....my sibs would have had me offed at some point in time prior to my father's demise, or shortly thereafter...money and power are important items in my birth family. i have no interest in having contact with my sibs ever again. i still am in contact with their children tho, but i don't completely trust them.

my father and his only sister fought in the same manner. as did my grandfather and his sibs.

c'est la vie

roslyn



William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
Tell me about it. I'm from a large, blended family of forty-five years
standing, and things can still be quite interesting at times.

oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.
> >
> > Maria T wrote:
> >
> > > On Behalf Of William Barber
> > >
> > > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
> bond of
> > >
> > > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
> large
> > > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
> Clarence's
> > >
> > > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
> lands
> > > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to
> his
> > > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > > =============================================
> > >
> > > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
> Richard and
> > > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
> born in
> > > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition,
> they
> > > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
> members of
> > > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
> which may
> > > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
>
>
> The dividing up of real estate, titles, and income amongst brothers,
> and the marrying in pursuit of all the above, may have served to
> throw cold water on sibling affection in many cases.
>
> It still does today, as many people who have been through probate of
> a parent's estate can attest.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







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


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

The older I get, the more I wonder if there is such a thing as a truly
functional family. Certainly none of the royals, past or present.

fayre rose wrote:

> i come from a traditional family, no blending etc. my parents split up
> about five years before my mother passed on. all of us were young
> adults at the time of the divorice.
>
> my sibs and i were always goaded into competition with each other
> growing up.. ergo, we didn't fight..we went to war. this tradition is
> rampant in my paternal family.
>
> one sib was the exec of my mother's estate, and the probate was a
> mess..i was the one who got the least fair treatment. assets were "not
> listed"/hidden and quietly disbursed to those in favoured positions
> within the family.
>
> my father's estate was even worse. he died intestate. i had to bring
> in a court ordered independent admin (i used my mother's botched
> probate to prove the need for independent admin)
>
> i also know, if this was 500 years ago....my sibs would have had me
> offed at some point in time prior to my father's demise, or shortly
> thereafter...money and power are important items in my birth family. i
> have no interest in having contact with my sibs ever again. i still am
> in contact with their children tho, but i don't completely trust them.
>
> my father and his only sister fought in the same manner. as did my
> grandfather and his sibs.
>
> c'est la vie
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> Tell me about it. I'm from a large, blended family of forty-five years
> standing, and things can still be quite interesting at times.
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.
> > >
> > > Maria T wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Behalf Of William Barber
> > > >
> > > > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
> > bond of
> > > >
> > > > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
> > large
> > > > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
> > Clarence's
> > > >
> > > > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
> > lands
> > > > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to
> > his
> > > > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > > > =============================================
> > > >
> > > > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
> > Richard and
> > > > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
> > born in
> > > > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition,
> > they
> > > > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
> > members of
> > > > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
> > which may
> > > > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
> >
> >
> >
> > The dividing up of real estate, titles, and income amongst brothers,
> > and the marrying in pursuit of all the above, may have served to
> > throw cold water on sibling affection in many cases.
> >
> > It still does today, as many people who have been through probate of
> > a parent's estate can attest.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
> i come from a traditional family, no blending etc. my parents split
up about five years before my mother passed on. all of us were young
adults at the time of the divorice.

> my father and his only sister fought in the same manner. as did my
grandfather and his sibs.


As you said, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Katy

having worked with victims of domestic violence since the early 1980's. i can assuredly state...60 percent of north american homes are dysfunctional to greater or lesser degrees. it reaches all levels of social and ecomonic status.

roslyn

William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
The older I get, the more I wonder if there is such a thing as a truly
functional family. Certainly none of the royals, past or present.

fayre rose wrote:

> i come from a traditional family, no blending etc. my parents split up
> about five years before my mother passed on. all of us were young
> adults at the time of the divorice.
>
> my sibs and i were always goaded into competition with each other
> growing up.. ergo, we didn't fight..we went to war. this tradition is
> rampant in my paternal family.
>
> one sib was the exec of my mother's estate, and the probate was a
> mess..i was the one who got the least fair treatment. assets were "not
> listed"/hidden and quietly disbursed to those in favoured positions
> within the family.
>
> my father's estate was even worse. he died intestate. i had to bring
> in a court ordered independent admin (i used my mother's botched
> probate to prove the need for independent admin)
>
> i also know, if this was 500 years ago....my sibs would have had me
> offed at some point in time prior to my father's demise, or shortly
> thereafter...money and power are important items in my birth family. i
> have no interest in having contact with my sibs ever again. i still am
> in contact with their children tho, but i don't completely trust them.
>
> my father and his only sister fought in the same manner. as did my
> grandfather and his sibs.
>
> c'est la vie
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> Tell me about it. I'm from a large, blended family of forty-five years
> standing, and things can still be quite interesting at times.
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.
> > >
> > > Maria T wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Behalf Of William Barber
> > > >
> > > > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
> > bond of
> > > >
> > > > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
> > large
> > > > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
> > Clarence's
> > > >
> > > > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
> > lands
> > > > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to
> > his
> > > > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > > > =============================================
> > > >
> > > > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
> > Richard and
> > > > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
> > born in
> > > > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition,
> > they
> > > > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
> > members of
> > > > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
> > which may
> > > > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
> >
> >
> >
> > The dividing up of real estate, titles, and income amongst brothers,
> > and the marrying in pursuit of all the above, may have served to
> > throw cold water on sibling affection in many cases.
> >
> > It still does today, as many people who have been through probate of
> > a parent's estate can attest.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







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


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

The only evidence of "closeness" between the Woodville clan is that they all enjoyed the largesse( did I spell that correctly?) of EIV through their sister. That would seem to be reason enough to hang together during this acquisitive era.Loving, well that is another matter.To paraphrase our former president, it depends on what ya'll mean by the word "love."

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
>
>
> dixonian2004 sally-turfrey@h... wrote: As Princess Anne memorably said "Children are a risk of marriage". I
> rather suspect this was Elizabeth Woodville's attitude. She had more
> than fulfilled her part of the bargain as far as producing children
> was concerned.
> I would go alone with that. She strikes me as a bit cold-blooded and calculating - the same could be said of a good many of the medieval nobilty.
>
>
> Whatever her reasons for coming to an agremeent with Richard,
> realistically what other choice did she have? There was talk of
> forcing her to leave sanctuary, which in any case was not supposed to
> be for ever. Sooner or later she had to leave, either of her own free
> will or not. She may have been relatively safe where she was, but she
> and her daughters were out of view and she may well have feared that
> they could "disappear" along with her two boys. Perhaps she felt she
> could do more to protect them all if she was in the public gaze.
>
> All that seems entirely plausible.
>
> Incidentally, wouldn't she have also felt resentment at the loss of
> Rivers? Possibly more for him than any of the others.
>
> I've wondered about that too. Any evidence that this brother and sister were actively fond of one another? They are usually portrayed as being so in historical novels, but did contemporaries have anything to say? And even if they were not that pally, brothers and sisters do tend to present a united front against outsiders - such as in-laws.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 , fayre rose <fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
>>
> my sibs and i were always goaded into competition with each other growing up.. ergo,
we didn't fight..we went to war. this tradition is rampant in my paternal family.
>
> one sib was the exec of my mother's estate, and the probate was a mess..i was the one
who got the least fair treatment. assets were "not listed"/hidden and quietly disbursed to
those in favoured positions within the family.
>
> my father's estate was even worse. he died intestate. i had to bring in a court ordered
independent admin (i used my mother's botched probate to prove the need for
independent admin)
>
> i also know, if this was 500 years ago....my sibs would have had me offed at some
point in time prior to my father's demise, or shortly thereafter...money and power are
important items in my birth family. i have no interest in having contact with my sibs ever
again. i still am in contact with their children tho, but i don't completely trust them.
>
> my father and his only sister fought in the same manner. as did my grandfather and
his sibs.
>
> c'est la vie
>
> roslyn
>
Its absolutely true some people are absolutely vile, & it is worse when it happens in a
family - I dont think there are many people who have not heard or had something like this
happening in their family - myself, after a most terrible argument I did not speak to my
sister for 8 years, I was so angry at what had taken place - but - deep down, I never
stopped actually loving her and would never have wished harm on her. The point I am
making is that although Richard & George had quarrelled massively at one time, when
push came to shove, maybe Richard, who had been getting on with his life up North,
maybe he never wished death upon George. Possibly he could have felt it abhorrant one
brother being instrumental in the death of another brother (albeit George had been
pushing his luck for some time). It would appear Richard kept in contact with his mother,
he certainly wrote her affectionate letters. Maybe Cicily even appealed to Richard to try
to do something and save George from the chop/barrel. Cicely seemed to have preferred
George to Edward, I would have thought she would be climbing the walls with the
realisation Edward was going to out George (maybe!).
Eileen
>
> William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> Tell me about it. I'm from a large, blended family of forty-five years
> standing, and things can still be quite interesting at times.
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly. I'm just thinking of the rows they had in the 1470s.
> > >
> > > Maria T wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Behalf Of William Barber
> > > >
> > > > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
> > bond of
> > > >
> > > > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
> > large
> > > > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
> > Clarence's
> > > >
> > > > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
> > lands
> > > > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to
> > his
> > > > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > > > =============================================
> > > >
> > > > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
> > Richard and
> > > > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
> > born in
> > > > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition,
> > they
> > > > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
> > members of
> > > > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
> > which may
> > > > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
> >
> >
> >
> > The dividing up of real estate, titles, and income amongst brothers,
> > and the marrying in pursuit of all the above, may have served to
> > throw cold water on sibling affection in many cases.
> >
> > It still does today, as many people who have been through probate of
> > a parent's estate can attest.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, boy!



I am not pretending to be knowledgeable enough to comment specifically about
Richard's case . . . but, I would like to note that I would disagree with
the point that Richard's relationship with either Edward or George was not
close simply because they were older than he was. Certainly, at the least,
it would not be unusual for a much younger son to "hero worship" an older
brother. In addition, I kind of suspect that bonds of kinship in that era
might have had an importance maybe more like that common in the Arab world
than in the West today. In that case, "Loyaulte me lie" would have been true
words indeed for young Richard.



Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the nephews
could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor supporters, leaving
Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve himself of
guilt for the crime??



Best,



Johanne



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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

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





_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria T
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville



On Behalf Of William Barber

And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong bond of

affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly large
difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by Clarence's

death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over lands
and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
=============================================

There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between Richard and
George: there weren't that many years between them: George was born in
1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only members of
their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond which may
or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.

Maria
elena@...

>Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the nephews
>could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor supporters, leaving
>Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
>blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve himself of
>guilt for the crime??

>Best,

>Johanne
===============================

Ooh, that's an interesting idea. My guess is, though, that Richard's initial response would be an all-points bulletin, similar to the ones he sent before the coronation and for "Buckingham's Rebellion", and/or and all-out search, such as he conducted for Anne Neville, and might even have capitilized on on the situation to condemn the wrong-doers, as he does in the summonses. Richard seemed to respond very quickly and decisively (perhaps sometimes impulsively?) to actions done against him and his, and I believe that if the boys were taken out of his hands, he would have plunged into action.

Maria
elena@...

--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@n...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, boy!
>
>
>
> I am not pretending to be knowledgeable enough to comment specifically about
> Richard's case . . . but, I would like to note that I would disagree with
> the point that Richard's relationship with either Edward or George was not
> close simply because they were older than he was. Certainly, at the least,
> it would not be unusual for a much younger son to "hero worship" an older
> brother. In addition, I kind of suspect that bonds of kinship in that era
> might have had an importance maybe more like that common in the Arab world
> than in the West today. In that case, "Loyaulte me lie" would have been true
> words indeed for young Richard.

I totally agree with you. And vice versa, an older sibling can be extremely fond/protective
of a much younger sibling.

Eileen


>
>
>
> Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the nephews
> could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor supporters, leaving
> Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
> blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve himself of
> guilt for the crime??
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier@n...> jltournier@n...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria T
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
>
>
>
> On Behalf Of William Barber
>
> And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong bond of
>
> affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly large
> difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by Clarence's
>
> death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over lands
> and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
> 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> =============================================
>
> There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between Richard and
> George: there weren't that many years between them: George was born in
> 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
> shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only members of
> their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond which may
> or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
> Maria
> elena@p...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Did you see the drama-documentary on Perkin Warbeck? It suggested
that Margaret Beaufort (whose husband Lord Stanley was in control of
the Tower) had kept the boys locked up in a dungeon all this
time 'till they went mad and feral.
If you smell a Tudor conspiracy you'll usually find this lady at the
bottom of it. I once thought of compiling a list of the "real rulers
of England". During the reign of Henry VII his mother would
certainly qualify as the real power in the land, as having pushed
Elizabeth of York into the background she certainly seems to have
dominated her milk-sop son.

--- In , "Johanne Tournier"
<jltournier@n...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, boy!
>
>
>
> I am not pretending to be knowledgeable enough to comment
specifically about
> Richard's case . . . but, I would like to note that I would
disagree with
> the point that Richard's relationship with either Edward or George
was not
> close simply because they were older than he was. Certainly, at the
least,
> it would not be unusual for a much younger son to "hero worship" an
older
> brother. In addition, I kind of suspect that bonds of kinship in
that era
> might have had an importance maybe more like that common in the
Arab world
> than in the West today. In that case, "Loyaulte me lie" would have
been true
> words indeed for young Richard.
>
>
>
> Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the
nephews
> could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor
supporters, leaving
> Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
> blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve
himself of
> guilt for the crime??
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier@n...> jltournier@n...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria T
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
>
>
>
> On Behalf Of William Barber
>
> And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
bond of
>
> affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
large
> difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
Clarence's
>
> death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
lands
> and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
> 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> =============================================
>
> There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
Richard and
> George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
born in
> 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
> shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
members of
> their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
which may
> or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
> Maria
> elena@p...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's a good point, too, Maria! But I wonder if Richard might have been
feeling everything "closing in around him," you might say, by then. I recall
(and believe me, it's been a long time since I have read anything about
Richard, having been obsessing about Tolkien for the last couple of years!
LOL!) reading that Richard was having bad dreams the night before Bosworth.
I think the Tudor view was that he was feeling guilty about all of his
crimes - but given the dreams and his "all-out" desperate charge for Henry
at Bosworth, I wondered if he had felt himself in a box and was just
relieved that at Bosworth it would all be over, one way or the other. If
that is the case, just perhaps, if the boys suddenly went missing, his usual
knack of acting decisively may have deserted him. Perhaps he saw no good way
out of the situation?? Perhaps if the boys were in his safekeeping (they
were, weren't they?) he would have been responsible for their disappearance
whether he himself was personally responsible or not.



As was noted a long time ago by Josephine Tey, the one who actually
benefitted from the boys' disappearance was Henry, not Richard.



Best,



Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

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







_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:10 PM
To: ;

Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville



>Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the nephews
>could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor supporters,
leaving
>Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
>blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve himself of
>guilt for the crime??

>Best,

>Johanne
===============================

Ooh, that's an interesting idea. My guess is, though, that Richard's
initial response would be an all-points bulletin, similar to the ones he
sent before the coronation and for "Buckingham's Rebellion", and/or and
all-out search, such as he conducted for Anne Neville, and might even have
capitilized on on the situation to condemn the wrong-doers, as he does in
the summonses. Richard seemed to respond very quickly and decisively
(perhaps sometimes impulsively?) to actions done against him and his, and I
believe that if the boys were taken out of his hands, he would have plunged
into action.

Maria
elena@...

I agree. At some point you just can't stand to 'fight it' any more, and
you simply desire some kind of decisive resolution.

Johanne Tournier wrote:

>
>
>
>
> That's a good point, too, Maria! But I wonder if Richard might have been
> feeling everything "closing in around him," you might say, by then. I
> recall
> (and believe me, it's been a long time since I have read anything about
> Richard, having been obsessing about Tolkien for the last couple of years!
> LOL!) reading that Richard was having bad dreams the night before
> Bosworth.
> I think the Tudor view was that he was feeling guilty about all of his
> crimes - but given the dreams and his "all-out" desperate charge for Henry
> at Bosworth, I wondered if he had felt himself in a box and was just
> relieved that at Bosworth it would all be over, one way or the other. If
> that is the case, just perhaps, if the boys suddenly went missing, his
> usual
> knack of acting decisively may have deserted him. Perhaps he saw no
> good way
> out of the situation?? Perhaps if the boys were in his safekeeping (they
> were, weren't they?) he would have been responsible for their
> disappearance
> whether he himself was personally responsible or not.
>
>
>
> As was noted a long time ago by Josephine Tey, the one who actually
> benefitted from the boys' disappearance was Henry, not Richard.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:10 PM
> To: ;
>
> Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
>
>
>
> >Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the
> nephews
> >could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor supporters,
> leaving
> >Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
> >blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve himself of
> >guilt for the crime??
>
> >Best,
>
> >Johanne
> ===============================
>
> Ooh, that's an interesting idea. My guess is, though, that Richard's
> initial response would be an all-points bulletin, similar to the ones he
> sent before the coronation and for "Buckingham's Rebellion", and/or and
> all-out search, such as he conducted for Anne Neville, and might even have
> capitilized on on the situation to condemn the wrong-doers, as he does in
> the summonses. Richard seemed to respond very quickly and decisively
> (perhaps sometimes impulsively?) to actions done against him and his,
> and I
> believe that if the boys were taken out of his hands, he would have
> plunged
> into action.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Ah, see, I was thinking the proposed abductions would have taken place around about the time of "Buckingham's Rebellion" (either directly before or after, which would either feed into the rumored conspiracy to "rescue" the kids from the Tower, or would more or less coincide with Mancini's statement that soon after the Rebellion would have been the last time anyone really saw them). During this time (summer - winter 1483), Richard would have had plenty of energy and incentive to take aggressive action. I grant you that by late 1484, he may have been going downhill emotionally, and may or may not have been more able to take immedate action (though note his quick response to the rumors about his marrying Elizabeth of York and in summoning troops for Bosworth).

Maria
elena@...

-------------------------------------
>From: William Barber <bbarber@...>

>I agree. At some point you just can't stand to 'fight it' any more, and
>you simply desire some kind of decisive resolution.
>
>Johanne Tournier wrote:

>> That's a good point, too, Maria! But I wonder if Richard might have been
>> feeling everything "closing in around him," you might say, by then...

--- In , "Johanne Tournier"
<jltournier@n...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, boy!
>
>
>
> I am not pretending to be knowledgeable enough to comment
specifically about
> Richard's case . . . but, I would like to note that I would
disagree with
> the point that Richard's relationship with either Edward or George
was not
> close simply because they were older than he was. Certainly, at the
least,
> it would not be unusual for a much younger son to "hero worship" an
older
> brother. In addition, I kind of suspect that bonds of kinship in
that era
> might have had an importance maybe more like that common in the
Arab world
> than in the West today. In that case, "Loyaulte me lie" would have
been true
> words indeed for young Richard.
>
>
>
> Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the
nephews
> could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor
supporters, leaving
> Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
> blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve
himself of
> guilt for the crime??
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johanne

It certainly looks to me as if between Christmas 1483 and the time
she let her daughters out of sanctuary Elizabeth Woodville had
learned something which made Richard look like the lesser of two
evils. Either at least one of her sons was still alive, or her new
Tudor friends turned out to have been responsible for their deaths,
whether deliberately or as part of a bungled escape attempt.

I don't think Richard would put out the equivalent of wanted posters
and made a public search for the boys if they disappeared at the
start of the rebellion. If the rebels didn't actually have them, he
would be letting them know that they could pretend to. This would
have given the 1483 rebellion a much more dangerous edge. If the
public search failed to turn them up, people would assume Richard had
killed them himself and Henry Tudor's claim would also become much
more dangerous.
I think that, because people couldn't write freely about the Princes
during either Richard's or Henry's reigns, we probably assume that
the fact of their deaths seemed much more certain at the time than
was actually the case. The only source I have ever read which claimed
to report public opinion in England during Richard's reign (in May
1484 as it happens) was Von Poppelau, who said opiniopeople were
divided as to whether they were dead or Richard had them stashed away
in some secret place. He said he himself was of the latter opinion.
If Henry didn't already know for certain of the boys' deaths, I bet
he made a big secret search for them after Bosworth. There were many
messengers galloping north, supposedly hunting northern supporters of
Richard's, half of whom were actually dead themselves - these men
could well have had a dual mission, and I bet the same sort of thing
was happening in other parts. This could explain Henry's initial
reluctance to claim his bride, and even his delay in leaving
Leicester and entering London.

I've no firm opinion yet on whether either of the princes survived
Richard's reign, but there is, I feel sure, some clue to it all in
the Woodvilles' behaviour.

Marie


>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier@n...> jltournier@n...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria T
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
>
>
>
> On Behalf Of William Barber
>
> And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
bond of
>
> affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
large
> difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
Clarence's
>
> death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
lands
> and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
> 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> =============================================
>
> There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
Richard and
> George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
born in
> 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
> shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
members of
> their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
which may
> or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
> Maria
> elena@p...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

does anyone know the whereabouts of katherine woodville after the nov 1483 death of her husband, henry stafford, d of buckingham and her marriage to jaspar tudor in nov. 1485?

this is certainly an interesting alliance. the dowager queen's sis marries her new son-in-laws uncle, and the sis's former hubby may have played a role in the disappearence and/or death of the princes.

roslyn
Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
Ah, see, I was thinking the proposed abductions would have taken place around about the time of "Buckingham's Rebellion" (either directly before or after, which would either feed into the rumored conspiracy to "rescue" the kids from the Tower, or would more or less coincide with Mancini's statement that soon after the Rebellion would have been the last time anyone really saw them). During this time (summer - winter 1483), Richard would have had plenty of energy and incentive to take aggressive action. I grant you that by late 1484, he may have been going downhill emotionally, and may or may not have been more able to take immedate action (though note his quick response to the rumors about his marrying Elizabeth of York and in summoning troops for Bosworth).

Maria
elena@...

-------------------------------------
>From: William Barber <bbarber@...>

>I agree. At some point you just can't stand to 'fight it' any more, and
>you simply desire some kind of decisive resolution.
>
>Johanne Tournier wrote:

>> That's a good point, too, Maria! But I wonder if Richard might have been
>> feeling everything "closing in around him," you might say, by then...




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 am inclined to believe that Richard of Shrewsbury survived beyond 1483 although I am not sure what happened to him afterwards. Edward, however, probably died of natural causes during this time; just as Arthur, Edward VI, Henry Stuart, James II's sons and Anne's children all did, being descended from the boys' sister.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville


--- In , "Johanne Tournier"
<jltournier@n...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, boy!
>
>
>
> I am not pretending to be knowledgeable enough to comment
specifically about
> Richard's case . . . but, I would like to note that I would
disagree with
> the point that Richard's relationship with either Edward or George
was not
> close simply because they were older than he was. Certainly, at the
least,
> it would not be unusual for a much younger son to "hero worship" an
older
> brother. In addition, I kind of suspect that bonds of kinship in
that era
> might have had an importance maybe more like that common in the
Arab world
> than in the West today. In that case, "Loyaulte me lie" would have
been true
> words indeed for young Richard.
>
>
>
> Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the
nephews
> could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor
supporters, leaving
> Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
> blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve
himself of
> guilt for the crime??
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johanne

It certainly looks to me as if between Christmas 1483 and the time
she let her daughters out of sanctuary Elizabeth Woodville had
learned something which made Richard look like the lesser of two
evils. Either at least one of her sons was still alive, or her new
Tudor friends turned out to have been responsible for their deaths,
whether deliberately or as part of a bungled escape attempt.

I don't think Richard would put out the equivalent of wanted posters
and made a public search for the boys if they disappeared at the
start of the rebellion. If the rebels didn't actually have them, he
would be letting them know that they could pretend to. This would
have given the 1483 rebellion a much more dangerous edge. If the
public search failed to turn them up, people would assume Richard had
killed them himself and Henry Tudor's claim would also become much
more dangerous.
I think that, because people couldn't write freely about the Princes
during either Richard's or Henry's reigns, we probably assume that
the fact of their deaths seemed much more certain at the time than
was actually the case. The only source I have ever read which claimed
to report public opinion in England during Richard's reign (in May
1484 as it happens) was Von Poppelau, who said opiniopeople were
divided as to whether they were dead or Richard had them stashed away
in some secret place. He said he himself was of the latter opinion.
If Henry didn't already know for certain of the boys' deaths, I bet
he made a big secret search for them after Bosworth. There were many
messengers galloping north, supposedly hunting northern supporters of
Richard's, half of whom were actually dead themselves - these men
could well have had a dual mission, and I bet the same sort of thing
was happening in other parts. This could explain Henry's initial
reluctance to claim his bride, and even his delay in leaving
Leicester and entering London.

I've no firm opinion yet on whether either of the princes survived
Richard's reign, but there is, I feel sure, some clue to it all in
the Woodvilles' behaviour.

Marie


>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier@n...> jltournier@n...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria T
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
>
>
>
> On Behalf Of William Barber
>
> And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong
bond of
>
> affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly
large
> difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by
Clarence's
>
> death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over
lands
> and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
> 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> =============================================
>
> There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between
Richard and
> George: there weren't that many years between them: George was
born in
> 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
> shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only
members of
> their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond
which may
> or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
>
> Maria
> elena@p...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






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

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@n...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Changing the subject somewhat, it is possible, is it not, that the nephews
> > could have been abducted, done away with by secret Tudor supporters, leaving
> > Richard in the worst possible situation - with his hands evidently
> > blood-stained and unable to produce the boys and thus absolve himself of
> > guilt for the crime??
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
Well anything is possible but I believe that Henry (spit on his grave) never himself had a
clue as to the boys whereabouts. And I think it was a great pain to him that he never knew
because of the problems of 'pretenders' popping up. Certainly if he/his supporters had
ever got hold of the boys they would never have survived for long - Henry knew if the boys
were alive his chances of becoming king would have gone up in a puff of smoke - after all
he had to promise to marry their sister to strengthen his position. And if he had ordered
their deaths & this task carried out it would have been logical to leave their bodies where
they could be found knowing full well the blame would fall onto Richard as they were in
his care at the time of their deaths. if he had caused them to be done away with it would
have been a simple matter to produce their remains after Bosworth with the story that they
had been murdered on the command of Richard. Simple. This course of action would
have made life a lot more easier for Henry.
eileen
> >
t

> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Email - <mailto:jltournier@n...> jltournier@n...
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria T
> > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
> >
> >
> >
> > On Behalf Of William Barber
> >
> > And I'm also suspicious of any statement that there was a strong bond of
> >
> > affection between Richard and Clarence. Again, there was a fairly large
> > difference in age. The idea that Richard was overly shaken by Clarence's
> >
> > death just doesn't ring true, given the constant scrapping over lands
> > and offices. My guess is that Clarence was a bit of a bully to his
> > 'weaker' little brother, but that Richard gave as good as he got.
> > =============================================
> >
> > There may be a bit more of a case for a relationship between Richard and
> > George: there weren't that many years between them: George was born in
> > 1449, Richard in 1452. That's all of three years. In addition, they
> > shared a short exile in Burgundy in 1461. They were the only members of
> > their family there at the time, and it may have created a bond which may
> > or may not have left its mark over the next couple of decades.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@p...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

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

> Well anything is possible but I believe that Henry (spit on his
grave) never himself had a
> clue as to the boys whereabouts. And I think it was a great pain to
him that he never knew
> because of the problems of 'pretenders' popping up. Certainly if
he/his supporters had
> ever got hold of the boys they would never have survived for long -
Henry knew if the boys
> were alive his chances of becoming king would have gone up in a
puff of smoke - after all
> he had to promise to marry their sister to strengthen his
position. And if he had ordered
> their deaths & this task carried out it would have been logical to
leave their bodies where
> they could be found knowing full well the blame would fall onto
Richard as they were in
> his care at the time of their deaths. if he had caused them to be
done away with it would
> have been a simple matter to produce their remains after Bosworth
with the story that they
> had been murdered on the command of Richard. Simple. This course
of action would
> have made life a lot more easier for Henry.


Indeed. Whoever would have benefitted from the death of the boys
would only have really benefitted if they were known to be dead. If
Richard had wanted them dead, it would have been easy enough to do
away with them in some manner -- they were boating on the Thames and
the barge capsized, poor boys! or they caught a fever and died
despite the best nursing, poor boys! -- given them a nice funeral
with the bodies on display for the populace to pay their last
respects and have a good look to ascertain that it was really Edward
and Richard and they were dead, all right, and gotten on with his
reign.

Same with Henry the Weasel. Only leave a gap of time after doing
away with them while he pretends to search diligently to rescue them,
only to ostensibly find them already dead (perhaps starved to death
or left to die unattended by that evil Richard, poor boys!) since
it's hard to tell a corpse of a month from one of three months.

But neither Richard nor Henry ever produced the very handy little
corpses. And as a predictable result, pretenders popped up for the
next several decades.

I think neither Richard nor Henry ever really knew what had become of
the boys.

Katy

Does anyone know where the first occurance is of the tale that Elizabeth Woodville agreed to have her daughter Elizabeth marry Henry Tudor and become his queen? I don't dispute the attempt by the former queen to have Elizabeth marry Tudor, just the conclusion that it was a sign of Woodville's support for Tudor's claim to the throne. It would seem much more likely that the marriage would have been to tie Tudor to an attempt to restore Edward V.
It would also explain the questions some authors have had about how Woodville could have thrown her support to Tudor while knowing that if Elizabeth were legitimized, her sons would have been as well. And their legitimization would have placed them suarely in Tudor's path to the throne.
Conversely, if the marriage of Elizabeth and Tudor were simply that of the King's sister marrying one of the King's supporters there would be no danger to Edward V or the Duke of York.
Hope this makes sense -
Doug

--- In , "Douglas Eugene
Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know where the first occurance is of the tale that
Elizabeth Woodville agreed to have her daughter Elizabeth marry Henry
Tudor and become his queen? I don't dispute the attempt by the former
queen to have Elizabeth marry Tudor, just the conclusion that it was
a sign of Woodville's support for Tudor's claim to the throne. It
would seem much more likely that the marriage would have been to tie
Tudor to an attempt to restore Edward V.
> It would also explain the questions some authors have had about
how Woodville could have thrown her support to Tudor while knowing
that if Elizabeth were legitimized, her sons would have been as well.
And their legitimization would have placed them suarely in Tudor's
path to the throne.
> Conversely, if the marriage of Elizabeth and Tudor were simply
that of the King's sister marrying one of the King's supporters there
would be no danger to Edward V or the Duke of York.
> Hope this makes sense -
> Doug



It would also be useful to know if Tudor ever claimed that he was
bringing his forces to restore Edward V to the throne. Not that I
recall.

Katy

Elizabeth probably knew about Edwards other women including Eleanor Butler,could this partly explain her actions when he died, she must have known Richard would find out, also if she believed Richard was responsible for her sons disappearance, why did she leave snctuary and seem to have no fear for herself and the rest of her family, so much doesnt make any sense,

Hi Mo--
 
I'm glad to hear you voice this question-- certainly something that has nagged at me since I began my tour through this wonderfully intriguing piece of history.  Knowing what I have read about royal parents in the period, and their seemingly parenting-from-a-distance point of view, I know I have to separate my modern hands-on parenting fame of mind when considering Elizabeth Woodville.  But still--I can't wrap my mind around the idea that her two young sons could just 'disappear', and she goes on about her business without what seems, from this great distance, a 'it just doesn't matter' attitude.  I've often thought this 'proves', in the poorest use of the word, that the boys didn't vanish--but again, I may be imposing my modern attitude where it totally doesn't fit.
 
Margie

--- On Thu, 5/19/11, Mo Harris <moharris483@...> wrote:


From: Mo Harris <moharris483@...>
Subject: Elizabeth Woodville
To:
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 5:48 AM


 



Elizabeth probably knew about Edwards other women including Eleanor Butler,could this partly explain her actions when he died, she must have known Richard would find out, also if she believed Richard was responsible for her sons disappearance, why did she leave snctuary and seem to have no fear for herself and the rest of her family, so much doesnt make any sense,

The Stillington Article thread seems to have morphed into a thread about
Elizabeth Woodville. I suppose there's plenty about her amongst the old
messages on the group.

But I'll ask anyway, has anyone offered an explanation for her "banishment"
by Henry VII that does not involve Richard in some way?

A J

P S - I see I have David Baldwin's biography of Elizabeth, but since the
back jacket says

... and why did Richard III mount a campaign of vilification against her?


I'm not eager to pick this book up. Is it worth it?

A J


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> The Stillington Article thread seems to have morphed into a thread about
> Elizabeth Woodville. I suppose there's plenty about her amongst the old
> messages on the group.
>
> But I'll ask anyway, has anyone offered an explanation for her
> "banishment" by Henry VII that does not involve Richard in some way?
>
> A J
>

Baldwin's bio of Elizabeth is much more "traditionalist" than his later one of Richard. His views on R. seem to have softened between them....

To answer the original question, Starkey seems to think that the reason EW was banished was that MB didn't want her taking precedence - nothing more involved than that. You couldn't have an ex-Queen around when there was an ambitious never-had-been-Queen to take umbrage at her higher status.....which would also of course be a matter of dynastic pride: Henry could not bear the implied suggestion that he derived his right to the throne through his wife's higher-status family.
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 23/6/13, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, 23 June, 2013, 16:52
















 









P S - I see I have David Baldwin's biography of
Elizabeth, but since the

back jacket says



... and why did Richard III mount a campaign of vilification
against her?



I'm not eager to pick this book up. Is it worth it?



A J



On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
wrote:



> The Stillington Article thread seems to have morphed
into a thread about

> Elizabeth Woodville. I suppose there's plenty
about her amongst the old

> messages on the group.

>

> But I'll ask anyway, has anyone offered an
explanation for her

> "banishment" by Henry VII that does not
involve Richard in some way?

>

> A J

>

Ahh - so no need to imagine EW involved in the Simnel plot at all. Food
for thought, but certainly makes Henry & his mother even more unlikeable.

A J


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Baldwin's bio of Elizabeth is much more "traditionalist" than his later
> one of Richard. His views on R. seem to have softened between them....
>
> To answer the original question, Starkey seems to think that the reason EW
> was banished was that MB didn't want her taking precedence - nothing more
> involved than that. You couldn't have an ex-Queen around when there was an
> ambitious never-had-been-Queen to take umbrage at her higher
> status.....which would also of course be a matter of dynastic pride: Henry
> could not bear the implied suggestion that he derived his right to the
> throne through his wife's higher-status family.
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 23/6/13, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
> To: "" <
> >
> Date: Sunday, 23 June, 2013, 16:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P S - I see I have David Baldwin's biography of
> Elizabeth, but since the
>
> back jacket says
>
>
>
> ... and why did Richard III mount a campaign of vilification
> against her?
>
>
>
> I'm not eager to pick this book up. Is it worth it?
>
>
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Stillington Article thread seems to have morphed
> into a thread about
>
> > Elizabeth Woodville. I suppose there's plenty
> about her amongst the old
>
> > messages on the group.
>
> >
>
> > But I'll ask anyway, has anyone offered an
> explanation for her
>
> > "banishment" by Henry VII that does not
> involve Richard in some way?
>
> >
>
> > A J
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Ahh - so no need to imagine EW involved in the Simnel plot at all. Food for thought, but certainly makes Henry & his mother even more unlikeable.
>
> A J

Carol responds:

The problem with the Starkey theory is the timing of EW's removal, which immediately followed a council meeting focusing on the Simnel rising (if I'm not mistaken). Also, Starkey ignores Dorset's confinement to the Tower soon afterward and his release some time after the Battle of Stoke. Starkey, if you recall, firmly believes that Richard murdered the "Princes," which would give EW no reason for involvement in a Yorkist uprising against Tudor.

BTW, I find it interesting that Edward IV's mother-in-law, but not his mother, was at court, at least after 1478. After Bermondsey Abbey (late 1486), Henry had the opposite situation. Cicely, EoY's grandmother, stayed well away from court. I wonder if contact with *her* could have aroused Henry's suspicions (though I'm pretty sure that Cicely would have wanted little Warwick, not Edward ex-V, as the Yorkist candidate).

Carol

Carol writes:



The problem with the Starkey theory is the timing of
EW's removal, which immediately followed a council
meeting focusing on the Simnel rising (if I'm not
mistaken). Also, Starkey ignores Dorset's confinement to
the Tower soon afterward and his release some time after the
Battle of Stoke. Starkey, if you recall, firmly believes
that Richard murdered the "Princes," which would
give EW no reason for involvement in a Yorkist uprising
against Tudor.


Janet replies: Perhaps Henry felt that having a Yorkist m-i-l at court taking precedence over his OWN mother was particularly unhelpful when people were claiming to be Yorkist heirs? - It could draw attention to his status as a usurper/inferior claimant and rally support around a York claim even if Elizabeth gave no active support to Simnel. He just wanted the past neatly out of the way.

Just a thought......I don't know if I believe Starkey's theory or not, but it's one which allows a fight between EW and Henry without Richard being a factor.

Hi

That is the same line he takes in the TV documentary on the Tudors.
Elaine

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> Baldwin's bio of Elizabeth is much more "traditionalist" than his later one of Richard. His views on R. seem to have softened between them....
>
> To answer the original question, Starkey seems to think that the reason EW was banished was that MB didn't want her taking precedence - nothing more involved than that. You couldn't have an ex-Queen around when there was an ambitious never-had-been-Queen to take umbrage at her higher status.....which would also of course be a matter of dynastic pride: Henry could not bear the implied suggestion that he derived his right to the throne through his wife's higher-status family.
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 23/6/13, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville
> To: "" <>
> Date: Sunday, 23 June, 2013, 16:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P S - I see I have David Baldwin's biography of
> Elizabeth, but since the
>
> back jacket says
>
>
>
> ... and why did Richard III mount a campaign of vilification
> against her?
>
>
>
> I'm not eager to pick this book up. Is it worth it?
>
>
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Stillington Article thread seems to have morphed
> into a thread about
>
> > Elizabeth Woodville. I suppose there's plenty
> about her amongst the old
>
> > messages on the group.
>
> >
>
> > But I'll ask anyway, has anyone offered an
> explanation for her
>
> > "banishment" by Henry VII that does not
> involve Richard in some way?
>
> >
>
> > A J
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Janet wrote:

Perhaps Henry felt that having a Yorkist m-i-l at court taking precedence over his OWN mother was particularly unhelpful when people were claiming to be Yorkist heirs? - It could draw attention to his status as a usurper/inferior claimant and rally support around a York claim even if Elizabeth gave no active support to Simnel. He just wanted the past neatly out of the way.
>
> Just a thought......I don't know if I believe Starkey's theory or not, but it's one which allows a fight between EW and Henry without Richard being a factor.

Carol responds:

True, if you ignore the excuse about her coming to terms with Richard as the excuse for sending her there. But that explanation doesn't account for sending Dorset to the Tower. Being the half-brother of a deposed king who may or may not be alive is hardly a reason to imprison someone. Unless you're Henry, I suppose. "Here, Tom. You can keep little Warwick company till this blows over."

I prefer my theory, but I must admit that does sound like Henry. And he never allowed EW to return even though he did release Dorset from the Tower.

Carol

Hi Carol - re the Woodvilles and the CPR.
 
On 12 Jul 1461 Richard was given general pardon
On 23 Jul 1461 Anthony was given general pardon
 
On 10 Dec 1461 'Lord Ryvers' and his wife Jacquetta were given back all the lands belonging to John Duke of Bedford, her first husband. These amount to a page and a half of text (see p 169)
On 12 Dec Richard Wydevill, Lord of Ryvers was given for life the office of chief rider of the Forest of Saucy in Northants (must have been round Grafton Regis)  (see p 81)
 
That's as far as I've got so far, but Jacquetta's lands made them far from poor, as you can imagine considering Bedford was a King's brother. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 2:44
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville

 

Janet wrote:

Perhaps Henry felt that having a Yorkist m-i-l at court taking precedence over his OWN mother was particularly unhelpful when people were claiming to be Yorkist heirs? - It could draw attention to his status as a usurper/inferior claimant and rally support around a York claim even if Elizabeth gave no active support to Simnel. He just wanted the past neatly out of the way.
>
> Just a thought......I don't know if I believe Starkey's theory or not, but it's one which allows a fight between EW and Henry without Richard being a factor.

Carol responds:

True, if you ignore the excuse about her coming to terms with Richard as the excuse for sending her there. But that explanation doesn't account for sending Dorset to the Tower. Being the half-brother of a deposed king who may or may not be alive is hardly a reason to imprison someone. Unless you're Henry, I suppose. "Here, Tom. You can keep little Warwick company till this blows over."

I prefer my theory, but I must admit that does sound like Henry. And he never allowed EW to return even though he did release Dorset from the Tower.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Carol - re the Woodvilles and the CPR.
>  
> On 12 Jul 1461 Richard was given general pardon
> On 23 Jul 1461 Anthony was given general pardon
>  
> On 10 Dec 1461 'Lord Ryvers' and his wife Jacquetta were given back all the lands belonging to John Duke of Bedford, her first husband. These amount to a page and a half of text (see p 169)
> On 12 Dec Richard Wydevill, Lord of Ryvers was given for life the office of chief rider of the Forest of Saucy in Northants (must have been round Grafton Regis)  (see p 81)
>  
> That's as far as I've got so far, but Jacquetta's lands made them far from poor, as you can imagine considering Bedford was a King's brother. 
>
Carol responds:

That's very strange! But so much for the story of EW standing with a child holding each hand to beg for her lands back. Or wasn't her dead husband also pardoned?

What is the CPR? Obviously not cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Parliament Rolls of some sort, I'm guessing. Do you have a link?

But now the question is *why* Edward pardoned the Woodvilles and why Warwick didn't make a fuss at that time (as well as after the "marriage," which made a fool of him and opened the way for all those Woodville marriages to heirs and heiresses) over the upstart traitors getting their lands back.

What do you make of it, Hilary?

carol

The Calendar of Patent Rolls for Edward IV (from 1461) Carol which you can get online free as long as you're patient and they don't keep coming up with those for other monarchs. I downloaded it but it's difficult to search so bear with me whilst I try to find the link
 
What do I make of it? Edward was like JFK 'love your enemies'. He pardoned loads of folks (my lovely priest included) and tried to bring them over to him - but not Morton, a warrant was issued for his treasonable activities in York. Warwick didn't have the gift of foresight, how could he? I must admit I haven't looked for Sir John Grey - it's tedious work and no searchable index that works - but will do so. What's interesting is that some books say that EW's father wasn't made an Earl until after her marriage with Edward, but he clearly was one in 1461 and had lots and lots of lands inherited by his wife from her first marriage.
 
I have to ask why pardon Rivers if not Grey? Back to eyestrain!


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 18:50
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Woodville

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Carol - re the Woodvilles and the CPR.
>  
> On 12 Jul 1461 Richard was given general pardon
> On 23 Jul 1461 Anthony was given general pardon
>  
> On 10 Dec 1461 'Lord Ryvers' and his wife Jacquetta were given back all the lands belonging to John Duke of Bedford, her first husband. These amount to a page and a half of text (see p 169)
> On 12 Dec Richard Wydevill, Lord of Ryvers was given for life the office of chief rider of the Forest of Saucy in Northants (must have been round Grafton Regis)  (see p 81)
>  
> That's as far as I've got so far, but Jacquetta's lands made them far from poor, as you can imagine considering Bedford was a King's brother. 
>
Carol responds:

That's very strange! But so much for the story of EW standing with a child holding each hand to beg for her lands back. Or wasn't her dead husband also pardoned?

What is the CPR? Obviously not cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Parliament Rolls of some sort, I'm guessing. Do you have a link?

But now the question is *why* Edward pardoned the Woodvilles and why Warwick didn't make a fuss at that time (as well as after the "marriage," which made a fool of him and opened the way for all those Woodville marriages to heirs and heiresses) over the upstart traitors getting their lands back.

What do you make of it, Hilary?

carol