Young princes, various
Young princes, various
2006-01-24 01:34:58
Hi all,
Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
children of their own?
2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
it maybe needs to be):
a) Edward IV died
b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
coronation
c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
Edward V's planned movements
d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
element
e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
normally.
g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
divulges precontract story
h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
June 13th
i) Gloucester claims crown
j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
strictly contempory records don't say
l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
of York
m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
eascape to richard, and brought back
o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
together with her sisters
q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
Elizabeth
r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
(whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
captured or raped
s) Henry marries Elizabeth
t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
the King
u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
death except the approximate date from IPMs.
I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
(of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
Marie
Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
children of their own?
2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
it maybe needs to be):
a) Edward IV died
b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
coronation
c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
Edward V's planned movements
d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
element
e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
normally.
g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
divulges precontract story
h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
June 13th
i) Gloucester claims crown
j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
strictly contempory records don't say
l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
of York
m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
eascape to richard, and brought back
o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
together with her sisters
q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
Elizabeth
r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
(whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
captured or raped
s) Henry marries Elizabeth
t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
the King
u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
death except the approximate date from IPMs.
I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
(of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
Marie
Re: Young princes, various
2006-01-24 03:50:31
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. Croyland,
of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
Croyland, in his sanctimonious way, may also have been trying to make a
connection between Bad Edward IV and Bad Richard III (through his
son...sins of the father are visited upon the son, and all that) by
linking their times of their deaths, thus exaggerating the closeness of
the date by his vagueness.
The Medieval conventional thought was big on the significance of
numbers/dates and repetition, maybe reflected in the Wheel of Fortune.
There was the Unlucky Day, which was what? the day of the month on
which Easter fell the previous year? Something like that. Edward IV
shocked people by doing something on the Unlucky Day. (Help,
someone!) And it was considered saintly to die on your birthday.
Elizabeth of York managed that one.
Katy
<marie@r...> wrote:
>> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. Croyland,
of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
Croyland, in his sanctimonious way, may also have been trying to make a
connection between Bad Edward IV and Bad Richard III (through his
son...sins of the father are visited upon the son, and all that) by
linking their times of their deaths, thus exaggerating the closeness of
the date by his vagueness.
The Medieval conventional thought was big on the significance of
numbers/dates and repetition, maybe reflected in the Wheel of Fortune.
There was the Unlucky Day, which was what? the day of the month on
which Easter fell the previous year? Something like that. Edward IV
shocked people by doing something on the Unlucky Day. (Help,
someone!) And it was considered saintly to die on your birthday.
Elizabeth of York managed that one.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-24 05:33:35
Not sure whether you're referring to me as 'other lister'. In any event,
I have two daughters and one grandchild (with one on the way).
If you are referring to me, I did not mean to imply that Elizabeth
Woodville was unfeeling. I was simply making the point that, regardless
of her own personal predispositions, she had to make some tough,
pragmatic decisions concerning the future both for her and her
daughters, regardless of what she knew or felt about the deaths of the
princes. One can both feel deeply and continue to act in one's own best
interests. Indeed, one's survival depends on the ability to do both.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
>
> 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> children of their own?
>
> 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> it maybe needs to be):
> a) Edward IV died
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> coronation
> c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> Edward V's planned movements
> d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> element
> e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> normally.
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> i) Gloucester claims crown
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth
> r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> captured or raped
> s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> the King
> u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> death except the approximate date from IPMs.
>
> I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 have two daughters and one grandchild (with one on the way).
If you are referring to me, I did not mean to imply that Elizabeth
Woodville was unfeeling. I was simply making the point that, regardless
of her own personal predispositions, she had to make some tough,
pragmatic decisions concerning the future both for her and her
daughters, regardless of what she knew or felt about the deaths of the
princes. One can both feel deeply and continue to act in one's own best
interests. Indeed, one's survival depends on the ability to do both.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
>
> 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> children of their own?
>
> 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> it maybe needs to be):
> a) Edward IV died
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> coronation
> c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> Edward V's planned movements
> d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> element
> e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> normally.
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> i) Gloucester claims crown
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth
> r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> captured or raped
> s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> the King
> u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> death except the approximate date from IPMs.
>
> I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-24 09:34:20
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Not sure whether you're referring to me as 'other lister'. In any
event,
> I have two daughters and one grandchild (with one on the way).
>
> If you are referring to me, I did not mean to imply that Elizabeth
> Woodville was unfeeling. I was simply making the point that,
regardless
> of her own personal predispositions, she had to make some tough,
> pragmatic decisions concerning the future both for her and her
> daughters, regardless of what she knew or felt about the deaths of
the
> princes. One can both feel deeply and continue to act in one's own
best
> interests. Indeed, one's survival depends on the ability to do both.
I'm not sure whether I meant you either. My point is that the timing
of Elizabeth Woodville's defection, indeed the timing of Dorset's
attempted defection, don't for my money fit such a scenario.
Nor does the distance which appears to have been maintained between
Elizabeth Woodville & Dorset and Henry VII. Dorset having secret
meetings with traitors? Come, now, what's that all about?
Why, after all those months, when the Tudor invasion was believed to
be approaching, would EW have suddenly given Richard the persons and
marriages of all her daughters? Her expectation can only have been
that Richard would marry Elizabeth off pretty quickly and put paid to
all her hopes of Tudor rescue. That she'd suddenly learnt for sure
that Richard had definitely murdered both her sons does not provide
an explanation. If the Woodvilles had been unsure before, then why
had they gone along with Tudor's offer of marrying Elizabeth to make
her his queen? That would have been a death sentence for either of
her brothers still alive. Learning that Richard had definitely
murdered both of them was the news Elizabeth Woodville needed in
order to proceed with the Tudor option, not the news to make her
dispense with it. That is why I say Hicks' analysis is illogical.
And I can't see the human likelihood of Richard approaching Elizabeth
Woodville with a Modest Proposal: I've killed both your little boys
stone dead, but don't fret. If your eldest daughter marries my little
boy and waits for him to grow up, then she can be crowned instead.
Marie
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Not sure whether you're referring to me as 'other lister'. In any
event,
> I have two daughters and one grandchild (with one on the way).
>
> If you are referring to me, I did not mean to imply that Elizabeth
> Woodville was unfeeling. I was simply making the point that,
regardless
> of her own personal predispositions, she had to make some tough,
> pragmatic decisions concerning the future both for her and her
> daughters, regardless of what she knew or felt about the deaths of
the
> princes. One can both feel deeply and continue to act in one's own
best
> interests. Indeed, one's survival depends on the ability to do both.
I'm not sure whether I meant you either. My point is that the timing
of Elizabeth Woodville's defection, indeed the timing of Dorset's
attempted defection, don't for my money fit such a scenario.
Nor does the distance which appears to have been maintained between
Elizabeth Woodville & Dorset and Henry VII. Dorset having secret
meetings with traitors? Come, now, what's that all about?
Why, after all those months, when the Tudor invasion was believed to
be approaching, would EW have suddenly given Richard the persons and
marriages of all her daughters? Her expectation can only have been
that Richard would marry Elizabeth off pretty quickly and put paid to
all her hopes of Tudor rescue. That she'd suddenly learnt for sure
that Richard had definitely murdered both her sons does not provide
an explanation. If the Woodvilles had been unsure before, then why
had they gone along with Tudor's offer of marrying Elizabeth to make
her his queen? That would have been a death sentence for either of
her brothers still alive. Learning that Richard had definitely
murdered both of them was the news Elizabeth Woodville needed in
order to proceed with the Tudor option, not the news to make her
dispense with it. That is why I say Hicks' analysis is illogical.
And I can't see the human likelihood of Richard approaching Elizabeth
Woodville with a Modest Proposal: I've killed both your little boys
stone dead, but don't fret. If your eldest daughter marries my little
boy and waits for him to grow up, then she can be crowned instead.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-24 10:48:40
--- In , William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Not sure whether you're referring to me as 'other lister'. In any event,
> I have two daughters and one grandchild (with one on the way).
>
> If you are referring to me, I did not mean to imply that Elizabeth
> Woodville was unfeeling. I was simply making the point that, regardless
> of her own personal predispositions, she had to make some tough,
> pragmatic decisions concerning the future both for her and her
> daughters, regardless of what she knew or felt about the deaths of the
> princes. One can both feel deeply and continue to act in one's own best
> interests. Indeed, one's survival depends on the ability to do both.
>
What I think happened is this - Elizabeth came out of santuary because Richard had
revealed to her that her young sons were alive and well. Of course she had reason to fear
him, she and her family had taken a massive gamble and lost. She fully understood the
implications of what they had been up to - hence she insisted on Richard making a
promise that he would let no harm come to her or her daughers (which he kept) She would
have understood only too wellthe reason why her oldest son lost his life was because of
her and her families plotting/greed. They wanted it all. Lucky for her she didnt live in the
times of the later Tudors who had no qualms about executing women for much less -
Warwicks daughter Margaret being a good example of that. My point that she knew her 2
youngest sons had survived - hence her involvement in the Lambert Simnel* uprising - for
which she paid the price by being incarcerated in Bermondsey Abbey. Why would she, the
Queen's mother, have risked all if she had thought hers young sons dead.
Obviously she could not remain in Sanctuary infinitum, I understand that, but if she had
believed Richard had the blood of her two younger sons on his hands its a bit beyond
belief to think she would allow her oldest daughters attend the court revelries nor surely
would they have wished to. But no, Croyland tells us about young Elizabeth dressed
sumptuously and having a good time at Christmas at court in the same room as the man
who had just a short while ago had her two younger brothers murdered!!! She also writes
to her surviving old son, Dorset, urging him to return. I just cant believe these are the
actions of a mother who believed her two young sons had been murdered. I cant I cant I
cant - It just simply beggers belief.
> *Lambert Simnel was an obvious fake, a test case, Perkin Warbeck was the real thing -
why would they have smashed his face to a pulp before his execution??
Eileen
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
> >
> > 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> > woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> > young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> > children of their own?
> >
> > 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> > neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> > an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> > successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> > reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> > The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> > Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> > murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> > Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> > expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> > for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> > rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> > mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> > it maybe needs to be):
> > a) Edward IV died
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> > coronation
> > c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> > Edward V's planned movements
> > d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> > element
> > e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> > sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> > f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> > normally.
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> > parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> > Elizabeth
> > r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> > second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> > the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> > (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> > how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> > eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> > for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> > captured or raped
> > s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> > t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> > Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> > dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> > the King
> > u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> > pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> > children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> > purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> > that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> > no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> > without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> > v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> > turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> > none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> > and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> > much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> > Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> > vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> > also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> > authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> > death except the approximate date from IPMs.
> >
> > I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> > having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> > And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> > having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Not sure whether you're referring to me as 'other lister'. In any event,
> I have two daughters and one grandchild (with one on the way).
>
> If you are referring to me, I did not mean to imply that Elizabeth
> Woodville was unfeeling. I was simply making the point that, regardless
> of her own personal predispositions, she had to make some tough,
> pragmatic decisions concerning the future both for her and her
> daughters, regardless of what she knew or felt about the deaths of the
> princes. One can both feel deeply and continue to act in one's own best
> interests. Indeed, one's survival depends on the ability to do both.
>
What I think happened is this - Elizabeth came out of santuary because Richard had
revealed to her that her young sons were alive and well. Of course she had reason to fear
him, she and her family had taken a massive gamble and lost. She fully understood the
implications of what they had been up to - hence she insisted on Richard making a
promise that he would let no harm come to her or her daughers (which he kept) She would
have understood only too wellthe reason why her oldest son lost his life was because of
her and her families plotting/greed. They wanted it all. Lucky for her she didnt live in the
times of the later Tudors who had no qualms about executing women for much less -
Warwicks daughter Margaret being a good example of that. My point that she knew her 2
youngest sons had survived - hence her involvement in the Lambert Simnel* uprising - for
which she paid the price by being incarcerated in Bermondsey Abbey. Why would she, the
Queen's mother, have risked all if she had thought hers young sons dead.
Obviously she could not remain in Sanctuary infinitum, I understand that, but if she had
believed Richard had the blood of her two younger sons on his hands its a bit beyond
belief to think she would allow her oldest daughters attend the court revelries nor surely
would they have wished to. But no, Croyland tells us about young Elizabeth dressed
sumptuously and having a good time at Christmas at court in the same room as the man
who had just a short while ago had her two younger brothers murdered!!! She also writes
to her surviving old son, Dorset, urging him to return. I just cant believe these are the
actions of a mother who believed her two young sons had been murdered. I cant I cant I
cant - It just simply beggers belief.
> *Lambert Simnel was an obvious fake, a test case, Perkin Warbeck was the real thing -
why would they have smashed his face to a pulp before his execution??
Eileen
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
> >
> > 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> > woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> > young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> > children of their own?
> >
> > 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> > neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> > an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> > successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> > reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> > The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> > Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> > murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> > Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> > expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> > for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> > rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> > mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> > it maybe needs to be):
> > a) Edward IV died
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> > coronation
> > c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> > Edward V's planned movements
> > d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> > element
> > e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> > sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> > f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> > normally.
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> > parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> > Elizabeth
> > r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> > second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> > the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> > (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> > how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> > eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> > for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> > captured or raped
> > s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> > t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> > Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> > dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> > the King
> > u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> > pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> > children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> > purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> > that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> > no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> > without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> > v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> > turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> > none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> > and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> > much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> > Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> > vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> > also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> > authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> > death except the approximate date from IPMs.
> >
> > I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> > having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> > And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> > having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Young princes, various
2006-01-24 11:46:28
I think the Unlucky Day was based on The Feast of the
Holy Innocents, December 28, and that Edward IV
shocked people by scheduling his coronation for June's
unlucky day.
--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Medieval conventional thought was big on the
> significance of
> numbers/dates and repetition, maybe reflected in the
> Wheel of Fortune.
> There was the Unlucky Day, which was what? the day
> of the month on
> which Easter fell the previous year? Something like
> that. Edward IV
> shocked people by doing something on the Unlucky
> Day. (Help,
> someone!) And it was considered saintly to die on
> your birthday.
> Elizabeth of York managed that one.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
Holy Innocents, December 28, and that Edward IV
shocked people by scheduling his coronation for June's
unlucky day.
--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Medieval conventional thought was big on the
> significance of
> numbers/dates and repetition, maybe reflected in the
> Wheel of Fortune.
> There was the Unlucky Day, which was what? the day
> of the month on
> which Easter fell the previous year? Something like
> that. Edward IV
> shocked people by doing something on the Unlucky
> Day. (Help,
> someone!) And it was considered saintly to die on
> your birthday.
> Elizabeth of York managed that one.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Young princes, various
2006-01-24 14:59:18
--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth.
Marie can you tell me why Tudor aka weasle face - required a papal dispensation to marry
Elizabeth?
Thanks
Eileen
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
>
> Marie
>
>
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth.
Marie can you tell me why Tudor aka weasle face - required a papal dispensation to marry
Elizabeth?
Thanks
Eileen
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
>
> Marie
>
Re: Young princes, various
2006-01-24 19:36:26
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now
know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth.
>
> Marie can you tell me why Tudor aka weasle face - required a papal
dispensation to marry
> Elizabeth?
> Thanks
> Eileen
You needed a dispensation to marry anyone who shared any ancestor
with you up to the level of great-great-grandparent. John of Gaunt
and Katherine Swynford were the great-great-grandparents of both
Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York.
There were limits, however - you couldn't under any circumstances,
for instance, get a dispensation to marry a person related to you in
the same line (eg parent & child, grandparent & grandchild).
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from
Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In
fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's
reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped
out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much
later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came
to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death
probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As
a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself
took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of
course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now
know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth.
>
> Marie can you tell me why Tudor aka weasle face - required a papal
dispensation to marry
> Elizabeth?
> Thanks
> Eileen
You needed a dispensation to marry anyone who shared any ancestor
with you up to the level of great-great-grandparent. John of Gaunt
and Katherine Swynford were the great-great-grandparents of both
Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York.
There were limits, however - you couldn't under any circumstances,
for instance, get a dispensation to marry a person related to you in
the same line (eg parent & child, grandparent & grandchild).
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from
Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In
fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's
reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped
out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much
later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came
to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death
probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As
a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself
took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of
course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Young princes, various
2006-01-25 16:29:06
i have to wonder how difficult it would have been to get a dispensation for anyone with the correct connections and enough pieces of silver during the wars of the roses. this era of popes seem pretty darn corrupt.
pope innocent viii was in power during the transition between ric iii and h7. he was pretty much open to offers, if you know what i mean. he was followed by the borgia pope, alexander vi. alex's uncle, pope callistus iii (during the mid 1450's) appointed borgia as a cardinal, the rest as they say "is history".
by clicking on the preceded or suceded by links you can gain a potted history of the despots.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_innocentviii.htm
roslyn
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now
know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth.
>
> Marie can you tell me why Tudor aka weasle face - required a papal
dispensation to marry
> Elizabeth?
> Thanks
> Eileen
You needed a dispensation to marry anyone who shared any ancestor
with you up to the level of great-great-grandparent. John of Gaunt
and Katherine Swynford were the great-great-grandparents of both
Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York.
There were limits, however - you couldn't under any circumstances,
for instance, get a dispensation to marry a person related to you in
the same line (eg parent & child, grandparent & grandchild).
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from
Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In
fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's
reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped
out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much
later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came
to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death
probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As
a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself
took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of
course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
pope innocent viii was in power during the transition between ric iii and h7. he was pretty much open to offers, if you know what i mean. he was followed by the borgia pope, alexander vi. alex's uncle, pope callistus iii (during the mid 1450's) appointed borgia as a cardinal, the rest as they say "is history".
by clicking on the preceded or suceded by links you can gain a potted history of the despots.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_innocentviii.htm
roslyn
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now
know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth.
>
> Marie can you tell me why Tudor aka weasle face - required a papal
dispensation to marry
> Elizabeth?
> Thanks
> Eileen
You needed a dispensation to marry anyone who shared any ancestor
with you up to the level of great-great-grandparent. John of Gaunt
and Katherine Swynford were the great-great-grandparents of both
Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York.
There were limits, however - you couldn't under any circumstances,
for instance, get a dispensation to marry a person related to you in
the same line (eg parent & child, grandparent & grandchild).
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from
Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In
fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's
reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped
out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much
later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came
to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death
probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As
a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself
took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of
course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Young princes, various
2006-01-25 16:57:25
>From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>i have to wonder how difficult it would have been to get a dispensation for anyone with the correct connections and enough pieces of silver during the wars of the roses. this era of popes seem pretty darn corrupt.
>
> pope innocent viii was in power during the transition between ric iii and h7. he was pretty much open to offers, if you know what i mean. he was followed by the borgia pope, alexander vi. alex's uncle, pope callistus iii (during the mid 1450's) appointed borgia as a cardinal, the rest as they say "is history".
===============================
Juan II of Aragon could tell you getting one could be darned difficult if the Pope wasn't getting along with you: planning a hazardous marriage between Isabel and Fernando in 1469, Juan knew that a dispensation was needed for his son, Fernando, to marry cousin Isabel, and because Pope Paul II had differences with Juan (I don't remember what they were), no dispensation was forthcoming. Being the resourceful sort, and not labelled "The Aragonese Fox" for nothing, Juan forged a dispensation and handed it over to his son, who, braving dangers from the favorites of Enrique IV of Castile, crossed the border from Aragon to Castile, disguised as a mule-driver, with the falsified document in hand (they procured a legal one 1472).
Maria
elena@...
>i have to wonder how difficult it would have been to get a dispensation for anyone with the correct connections and enough pieces of silver during the wars of the roses. this era of popes seem pretty darn corrupt.
>
> pope innocent viii was in power during the transition between ric iii and h7. he was pretty much open to offers, if you know what i mean. he was followed by the borgia pope, alexander vi. alex's uncle, pope callistus iii (during the mid 1450's) appointed borgia as a cardinal, the rest as they say "is history".
===============================
Juan II of Aragon could tell you getting one could be darned difficult if the Pope wasn't getting along with you: planning a hazardous marriage between Isabel and Fernando in 1469, Juan knew that a dispensation was needed for his son, Fernando, to marry cousin Isabel, and because Pope Paul II had differences with Juan (I don't remember what they were), no dispensation was forthcoming. Being the resourceful sort, and not labelled "The Aragonese Fox" for nothing, Juan forged a dispensation and handed it over to his son, who, braving dangers from the favorites of Enrique IV of Castile, crossed the border from Aragon to Castile, disguised as a mule-driver, with the falsified document in hand (they procured a legal one 1472).
Maria
elena@...
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-25 19:51:59
comments interspersed. see below
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
children of their own?
-----------------------------
yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong maternal instincts.
we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter your children for power positions.
i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little eliz had two children by brandon.
brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of lady jane grey.
consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or henry stafford to katherine woodville.
this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp an understanding as to how any particular person might react publically vs privately to an event such as "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what happened with morton.
2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
it maybe needs to be):
a) Edward IV died
----------
accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this? perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through her son e5.
what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to intercept e5 and company?
b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
coronation
c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
Edward V's planned movements
d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
element
e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
---------
see above for b through to e response.
----------
f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
normally.
---------
what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul? perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4, and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the protector on a permanent basis.
was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
-----------------
g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
divulges precontract story
------------------
the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville occurred.
was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
-----------------
h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
June 13th
-----------
i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them? i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend a search phrase so i can google for more info?
---------------------
i) Gloucester claims crown
j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
--------------
was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down rapidly.
-------------------
k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
strictly contempory records don't say
----------
ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why this occurred.
-------------
l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
of York
m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
-------------
woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him, than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
---------------------
n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
eascape to richard, and brought back
----------
glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues to events.
as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped, essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top of my head here.
-------------------
o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
----------
yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew" a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides, share info.
------------
p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
together with her sisters
-------------------
this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they continue to hide?
see question/comment Q.
----------------
q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
Elizabeth
-----------
there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned invasion/usurption of the crown.
---------------
r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
(whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
captured or raped
---------------
who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
-----------------
s) Henry marries Elizabeth
----------
but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same time she delivers arthur.
------------
t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
the King
---------------
the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the powerful menfolk.
-----------------
u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
---------
remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated katherine of aragon.
---------------
v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
------------
good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
--------------
vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
death except the approximate date from IPMs.
I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
----------
it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7. that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
---------------
And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
----------------
woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet to be determined.
-----------------
3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
(of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
---------
good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the documents coming out of nottingham!!!
it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot of lee-way as to a date.
last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right now..unceasing rain.
if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
regards
roslyn
-------------------
Marie
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
children of their own?
-----------------------------
yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong maternal instincts.
we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter your children for power positions.
i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little eliz had two children by brandon.
brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of lady jane grey.
consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or henry stafford to katherine woodville.
this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp an understanding as to how any particular person might react publically vs privately to an event such as "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what happened with morton.
2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
it maybe needs to be):
a) Edward IV died
----------
accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this? perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through her son e5.
what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to intercept e5 and company?
b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
coronation
c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
Edward V's planned movements
d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
element
e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
---------
see above for b through to e response.
----------
f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
normally.
---------
what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul? perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4, and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the protector on a permanent basis.
was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
-----------------
g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
divulges precontract story
------------------
the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville occurred.
was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
-----------------
h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
June 13th
-----------
i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them? i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend a search phrase so i can google for more info?
---------------------
i) Gloucester claims crown
j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
--------------
was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down rapidly.
-------------------
k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
strictly contempory records don't say
----------
ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why this occurred.
-------------
l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
of York
m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
-------------
woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him, than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
---------------------
n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
eascape to richard, and brought back
----------
glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues to events.
as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped, essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top of my head here.
-------------------
o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
----------
yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew" a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides, share info.
------------
p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
together with her sisters
-------------------
this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they continue to hide?
see question/comment Q.
----------------
q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
Elizabeth
-----------
there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned invasion/usurption of the crown.
---------------
r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
(whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
captured or raped
---------------
who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
-----------------
s) Henry marries Elizabeth
----------
but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same time she delivers arthur.
------------
t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
the King
---------------
the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the powerful menfolk.
-----------------
u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
---------
remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated katherine of aragon.
---------------
v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
------------
good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
--------------
vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
death except the approximate date from IPMs.
I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
----------
it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7. that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
---------------
And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
----------------
woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet to be determined.
-----------------
3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
(of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
---------
good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the documents coming out of nottingham!!!
it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot of lee-way as to a date.
last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right now..unceasing rain.
if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
regards
roslyn
-------------------
Marie
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-25 21:32:34
I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
pass in and out of fashion.
I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
they were a Rubik's cube.
fayre rose wrote:
> comments interspersed. see below
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
>
> Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
>
> 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> children of their own?
> -----------------------------
> yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> maternal instincts.
>
> we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> your children for power positions.
>
> i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> eliz had two children by brandon.
>
> brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> lady jane grey.
>
> consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> henry stafford to katherine woodville.
>
> this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> publically vs privately to an event such as
> "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
>
> remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> happened with morton.
>
> 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> it maybe needs to be):
> a) Edward IV died
> ----------
> accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> her son e5.
> what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> intercept e5 and company?
>
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> coronation
> c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> Edward V's planned movements
> d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> element
> e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> ---------
> see above for b through to e response.
> ----------
> f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> normally.
> ---------
> what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> protector on a permanent basis.
>
> was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
>
> -----------------
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> ------------------
> the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> occurred.
>
> was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> -----------------
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> -----------
> i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> ---------------------
> i) Gloucester claims crown
>
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> --------------
> was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> rapidly.
> -------------------
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> ----------
> ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> this occurred.
> -------------
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> -------------
> woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> ---------------------
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> ----------
> glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> to events.
>
> as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> of my head here.
> -------------------
> o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> ----------
> yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> share info.
> ------------
> p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> -------------------
> this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> continue to hide?
> see question/comment Q.
> ----------------
> q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth
> -----------
> there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> invasion/usurption of the crown.
> ---------------
> r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> captured or raped
> ---------------
> who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> -----------------
> s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> ----------
> but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> time she delivers arthur.
> ------------
> t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> the King
> ---------------
> the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> powerful menfolk.
> -----------------
>
> u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> ---------
> remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> katherine of aragon.
> ---------------
> v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> ------------
> good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> --------------
> vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> death except the approximate date from IPMs.
>
> I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> ----------
> it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> ---------------
> And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> ----------------
> woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> to be determined.
> -----------------
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> ---------
> good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> documents coming out of nottingham!!!
>
> it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> of lee-way as to a date.
>
> last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> now..unceasing rain.
>
> if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
>
> i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
>
> regards
> roslyn
> -------------------
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
pass in and out of fashion.
I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
they were a Rubik's cube.
fayre rose wrote:
> comments interspersed. see below
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
>
> Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
>
> 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> children of their own?
> -----------------------------
> yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> maternal instincts.
>
> we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> your children for power positions.
>
> i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> eliz had two children by brandon.
>
> brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> lady jane grey.
>
> consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> henry stafford to katherine woodville.
>
> this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> publically vs privately to an event such as
> "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
>
> remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> happened with morton.
>
> 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> it maybe needs to be):
> a) Edward IV died
> ----------
> accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> her son e5.
> what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> intercept e5 and company?
>
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> coronation
> c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> Edward V's planned movements
> d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> element
> e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> ---------
> see above for b through to e response.
> ----------
> f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> normally.
> ---------
> what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> protector on a permanent basis.
>
> was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
>
> -----------------
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> ------------------
> the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> occurred.
>
> was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> -----------------
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> -----------
> i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> ---------------------
> i) Gloucester claims crown
>
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> --------------
> was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> rapidly.
> -------------------
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> ----------
> ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> this occurred.
> -------------
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> -------------
> woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> ---------------------
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> ----------
> glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> to events.
>
> as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> of my head here.
> -------------------
> o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> ----------
> yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> share info.
> ------------
> p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> -------------------
> this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> continue to hide?
> see question/comment Q.
> ----------------
> q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth
> -----------
> there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> invasion/usurption of the crown.
> ---------------
> r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> captured or raped
> ---------------
> who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> -----------------
> s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> ----------
> but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> time she delivers arthur.
> ------------
> t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> the King
> ---------------
> the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> powerful menfolk.
> -----------------
>
> u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> ---------
> remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> katherine of aragon.
> ---------------
> v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> ------------
> good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> --------------
> vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> death except the approximate date from IPMs.
>
> I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> ----------
> it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> ---------------
> And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> ----------------
> woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> to be determined.
> -----------------
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> ---------
> good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> documents coming out of nottingham!!!
>
> it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> of lee-way as to a date.
>
> last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> now..unceasing rain.
>
> if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
>
> i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
>
> regards
> roslyn
> -------------------
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 00:20:45
i have to somewhat disagree with you bill. in one of my professional incarnations i was an assessionist/docent and assistant to the curator at a small local, but well respected museum.
i've set up displays/diaramas too. you based your set up on what is/was known via illustrations/writings/aural tradition and other expert opinions. while you can not create an exact facismile of the event you are trying to portray, you can come within reasonable expectations.
what i have learned with my medieval research is families and their holdings were like corporations. the king was head office. the higher up the corporate ladder you were, the better the dividends. nepotism was rampant. there were friendly take overs..i.e marriage and hostile takeovers..war or legal suits. local and international trade deals, often sealed with the marriage of a child to the other corporation.
depending upon the branch offices, one could be absorbed or destroyed, or rise in power by making a better "business" alliance.
the pope/church were akin to government. this branch of medieval society determined how head office/king and the branch offices could interact...validating or nullifying contracts.
the corporation and government were often both on the take, and willing to take bribes to secure their rise or position in the power base. human emotions could play a role, but diplomacy and the art of negotiating outweighed how an individual felt, or exposed themselves in public.
george d. of clarence lacked finesse with a substance abuse problem who leaked corporate secrets. richard neville was a rogue chief exec playing both sides to the middle hoping for the best alliance. they were "replaced". add a touch of mafia intellect, and you've got rival gangs whacking the competition.
it's all just a matter of business. people were pawns. you did what was best for the corporation or survival within the corp. personal feelings were a side issue.
peasants were tools of the trade, the cogs that kept the white collar executive supplied. peasants were simply human resources, and minor nobles were human capital..everything was spent or invested in head office and tithed to government...it's all about gathering/profiting/consolidating/disbursing and working the system to one's personal advantage.
read machevelli's prince. beaucrats and corporate heads still use it as their bible...it's all in how the game was played. the one with the most toys won.
roslyn
William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
pass in and out of fashion.
I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
they were a Rubik's cube.
fayre rose wrote:
> comments interspersed. see below
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
>
> Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
>
> 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> children of their own?
> -----------------------------
> yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> maternal instincts.
>
> we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> your children for power positions.
>
> i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> eliz had two children by brandon.
>
> brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> lady jane grey.
>
> consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> henry stafford to katherine woodville.
>
> this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> publically vs privately to an event such as
> "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
>
> remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> happened with morton.
>
> 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> it maybe needs to be):
> a) Edward IV died
> ----------
> accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> her son e5.
> what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> intercept e5 and company?
>
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> coronation
> c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> Edward V's planned movements
> d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> element
> e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> ---------
> see above for b through to e response.
> ----------
> f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> normally.
> ---------
> what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> protector on a permanent basis.
>
> was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
>
> -----------------
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> ------------------
> the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> occurred.
>
> was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> -----------------
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> -----------
> i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> ---------------------
> i) Gloucester claims crown
>
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> --------------
> was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> rapidly.
> -------------------
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> ----------
> ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> this occurred.
> -------------
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> -------------
> woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> ---------------------
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> ----------
> glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> to events.
>
> as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> of my head here.
> -------------------
> o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> ----------
> yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> share info.
> ------------
> p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> -------------------
> this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> continue to hide?
> see question/comment Q.
> ----------------
> q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth
> -----------
> there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> invasion/usurption of the crown.
> ---------------
> r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> captured or raped
> ---------------
> who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> -----------------
> s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> ----------
> but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> time she delivers arthur.
> ------------
> t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> the King
> ---------------
> the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> powerful menfolk.
> -----------------
>
> u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> ---------
> remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> katherine of aragon.
> ---------------
> v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> ------------
> good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> --------------
> vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> death except the approximate date from IPMs.
>
> I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> ----------
> it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> ---------------
> And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> ----------------
> woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> to be determined.
> -----------------
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> ---------
> good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> documents coming out of nottingham!!!
>
> it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> of lee-way as to a date.
>
> last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> now..unceasing rain.
>
> if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
>
> i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
>
> regards
> roslyn
> -------------------
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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've set up displays/diaramas too. you based your set up on what is/was known via illustrations/writings/aural tradition and other expert opinions. while you can not create an exact facismile of the event you are trying to portray, you can come within reasonable expectations.
what i have learned with my medieval research is families and their holdings were like corporations. the king was head office. the higher up the corporate ladder you were, the better the dividends. nepotism was rampant. there were friendly take overs..i.e marriage and hostile takeovers..war or legal suits. local and international trade deals, often sealed with the marriage of a child to the other corporation.
depending upon the branch offices, one could be absorbed or destroyed, or rise in power by making a better "business" alliance.
the pope/church were akin to government. this branch of medieval society determined how head office/king and the branch offices could interact...validating or nullifying contracts.
the corporation and government were often both on the take, and willing to take bribes to secure their rise or position in the power base. human emotions could play a role, but diplomacy and the art of negotiating outweighed how an individual felt, or exposed themselves in public.
george d. of clarence lacked finesse with a substance abuse problem who leaked corporate secrets. richard neville was a rogue chief exec playing both sides to the middle hoping for the best alliance. they were "replaced". add a touch of mafia intellect, and you've got rival gangs whacking the competition.
it's all just a matter of business. people were pawns. you did what was best for the corporation or survival within the corp. personal feelings were a side issue.
peasants were tools of the trade, the cogs that kept the white collar executive supplied. peasants were simply human resources, and minor nobles were human capital..everything was spent or invested in head office and tithed to government...it's all about gathering/profiting/consolidating/disbursing and working the system to one's personal advantage.
read machevelli's prince. beaucrats and corporate heads still use it as their bible...it's all in how the game was played. the one with the most toys won.
roslyn
William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
pass in and out of fashion.
I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
they were a Rubik's cube.
fayre rose wrote:
> comments interspersed. see below
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
>
> Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
>
> 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> children of their own?
> -----------------------------
> yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> maternal instincts.
>
> we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> your children for power positions.
>
> i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> eliz had two children by brandon.
>
> brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> lady jane grey.
>
> consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> henry stafford to katherine woodville.
>
> this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> publically vs privately to an event such as
> "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
>
> remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> happened with morton.
>
> 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> it maybe needs to be):
> a) Edward IV died
> ----------
> accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> her son e5.
> what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> intercept e5 and company?
>
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> coronation
> c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> Edward V's planned movements
> d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> element
> e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> ---------
> see above for b through to e response.
> ----------
> f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> normally.
> ---------
> what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> protector on a permanent basis.
>
> was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
>
> -----------------
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> ------------------
> the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> occurred.
>
> was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> -----------------
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> -----------
> i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> ---------------------
> i) Gloucester claims crown
>
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> --------------
> was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> rapidly.
> -------------------
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> ----------
> ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> this occurred.
> -------------
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> -------------
> woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> ---------------------
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> ----------
> glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> to events.
>
> as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> of my head here.
> -------------------
> o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> ----------
> yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> share info.
> ------------
> p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> -------------------
> this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> continue to hide?
> see question/comment Q.
> ----------------
> q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> Elizabeth
> -----------
> there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> invasion/usurption of the crown.
> ---------------
> r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> captured or raped
> ---------------
> who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> -----------------
> s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> ----------
> but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> time she delivers arthur.
> ------------
> t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> the King
> ---------------
> the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> powerful menfolk.
> -----------------
>
> u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> ---------
> remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> katherine of aragon.
> ---------------
> v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> ------------
> good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> --------------
> vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> death except the approximate date from IPMs.
>
> I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> ----------
> it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> ---------------
> And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> ----------------
> woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> to be determined.
> -----------------
>
> 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> ---------
> good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> documents coming out of nottingham!!!
>
> it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> of lee-way as to a date.
>
> last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> now..unceasing rain.
>
> if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
>
> i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
>
> regards
> roslyn
> -------------------
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 01:11:22
I pretty much agree with you. I think that, for whatever reason,
Elizabeth Woodville's response was much more cerebral than might be our
response today. My point is that if we try to project our mindsets and
'heartsets' back to the fifteenth century, we run into a major
'disconnect'. We assume that people could not be as dispassionate as
they seem to have been. They're a tad too heartless for our liking. But
he importance of individual family members was subordinate to the good
of the family as a whole. Actually, it's a fairly tribal mindset. To get
back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have felt
and behaved.
fayre rose wrote:
> i have to somewhat disagree with you bill. in one of my professional
> incarnations i was an assessionist/docent and assistant to the curator
> at a small local, but well respected museum.
>
> i've set up displays/diaramas too. you based your set up on what
> is/was known via illustrations/writings/aural tradition and other
> expert opinions. while you can not create an exact facismile of the
> event you are trying to portray, you can come within reasonable
> expectations.
>
> what i have learned with my medieval research is families and their
> holdings were like corporations. the king was head office. the higher
> up the corporate ladder you were, the better the dividends. nepotism
> was rampant. there were friendly take overs..i.e marriage and hostile
> takeovers..war or legal suits. local and international trade deals,
> often sealed with the marriage of a child to the other corporation.
>
> depending upon the branch offices, one could be absorbed or
> destroyed, or rise in power by making a better "business" alliance.
>
> the pope/church were akin to government. this branch of medieval
> society determined how head office/king and the branch offices could
> interact...validating or nullifying contracts.
>
> the corporation and government were often both on the take, and
> willing to take bribes to secure their rise or position in the power
> base. human emotions could play a role, but diplomacy and the art of
> negotiating outweighed how an individual felt, or exposed themselves
> in public.
>
> george d. of clarence lacked finesse with a substance abuse problem
> who leaked corporate secrets. richard neville was a rogue chief exec
> playing both sides to the middle hoping for the best alliance. they
> were "replaced". add a touch of mafia intellect, and you've got rival
> gangs whacking the competition.
>
> it's all just a matter of business. people were pawns. you did what
> was best for the corporation or survival within the corp. personal
> feelings were a side issue.
>
> peasants were tools of the trade, the cogs that kept the white
> collar executive supplied. peasants were simply human resources, and
> minor nobles were human capital..everything was spent or invested in
> head office and tithed to government...it's all about
> gathering/profiting/consolidating/disbursing and working the system to
> one's personal advantage.
>
> read machevelli's prince. beaucrats and corporate heads still use it
> as their bible...it's all in how the game was played. the one with the
> most toys won.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
> responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
> difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
> zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
> known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
> transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
> Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
> impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
> century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
>
> Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
> I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
> the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
> pass in and out of fashion.
>
> I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
> ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
> Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
> ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
>
> Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
> know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
> subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
>
> But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
> they were a Rubik's cube.
>
> fayre rose wrote:
>
> > comments interspersed. see below
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
> >
> > Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
> >
> > 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> > woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> > young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> > children of their own?
> > -----------------------------
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> > maternal instincts.
> >
> > we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> > your children for power positions.
> >
> > i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> > brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> > guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> > was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> > eliz had two children by brandon.
> >
> > brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> > lady jane grey.
> >
> > consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> > henry stafford to katherine woodville.
> >
> > this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> > emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> > society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> > attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> > an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> > publically vs privately to an event such as
> > "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
> >
> > remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> > witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> > penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> > happened with morton.
> >
> > 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> > neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> > an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> > successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> > reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> > The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> > Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> > murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> > Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> > expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> > for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> > rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> > mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> > it maybe needs to be):
> > a) Edward IV died
> > ----------
> > accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> > perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> > her son e5.
> > what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> > vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> > something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> > intercept e5 and company?
> >
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> > coronation
> > c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> > Edward V's planned movements
> > d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> > element
> > e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> > sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> > ---------
> > see above for b through to e response.
> > ----------
> > f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> > normally.
> > ---------
> > what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> > perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> > and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> > uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> > protector on a permanent basis.
> >
> > was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> > pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> > of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> > george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> > manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> > game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
> >
> > -----------------
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > ------------------
> > the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> > was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> > the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> > occurred.
> >
> > was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> > talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> > of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> > will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> > abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> > -----------------
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > -----------
> > i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> > cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> > i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> > a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> > ---------------------
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> >
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > --------------
> > was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> > brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> > rapidly.
> > -------------------
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > ----------
> > ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> > this occurred.
> > -------------
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > -------------
> > woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> > had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> > than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> > what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> > beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> > ---------------------
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > ----------
> > glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> > to events.
> >
> > as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> > sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> > of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> > reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> > ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> > essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> > of my head here.
> > -------------------
> > o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> > ----------
> > yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> > woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> > assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> > a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> > share info.
> > ------------
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > -------------------
> > this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> > to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> > in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> > continue to hide?
> > see question/comment Q.
> > ----------------
> > q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> > parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> > Elizabeth
> > -----------
> > there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> > children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> > h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> > christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> > invasion/usurption of the crown.
> > ---------------
> > r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> > second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> > the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> > (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> > how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> > eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> > for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> > captured or raped
> > ---------------
> > who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> > -----------------
> > s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> > ----------
> > but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> > time she delivers arthur.
> > ------------
> > t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> > Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> > dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> > the King
> > ---------------
> > the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> > often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> > powerful menfolk.
> > -----------------
> >
> > u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> > pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> > children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> > purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> > that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> > no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> > without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> > ---------
> > remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> > katherine of aragon.
> > ---------------
> > v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> > turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> > none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> > and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> > much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> > Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> > ------------
> > good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> > --------------
> > vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> > also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> > authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> > death except the approximate date from IPMs.
> >
> > I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> > having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> > ----------
> > it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> > that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> > ---------------
> > And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> > having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> > ----------------
> > woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> > to be determined.
> > -----------------
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> > ---------
> > good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> > documents coming out of nottingham!!!
> >
> > it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> > looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> > of lee-way as to a date.
> >
> > last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> > later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> > now..unceasing rain.
> >
> > if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> > calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> > memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> > same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> > isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
> >
> > i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> > birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> > birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> > other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
> >
> > regards
> > roslyn
> > -------------------
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Elizabeth Woodville's response was much more cerebral than might be our
response today. My point is that if we try to project our mindsets and
'heartsets' back to the fifteenth century, we run into a major
'disconnect'. We assume that people could not be as dispassionate as
they seem to have been. They're a tad too heartless for our liking. But
he importance of individual family members was subordinate to the good
of the family as a whole. Actually, it's a fairly tribal mindset. To get
back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have felt
and behaved.
fayre rose wrote:
> i have to somewhat disagree with you bill. in one of my professional
> incarnations i was an assessionist/docent and assistant to the curator
> at a small local, but well respected museum.
>
> i've set up displays/diaramas too. you based your set up on what
> is/was known via illustrations/writings/aural tradition and other
> expert opinions. while you can not create an exact facismile of the
> event you are trying to portray, you can come within reasonable
> expectations.
>
> what i have learned with my medieval research is families and their
> holdings were like corporations. the king was head office. the higher
> up the corporate ladder you were, the better the dividends. nepotism
> was rampant. there were friendly take overs..i.e marriage and hostile
> takeovers..war or legal suits. local and international trade deals,
> often sealed with the marriage of a child to the other corporation.
>
> depending upon the branch offices, one could be absorbed or
> destroyed, or rise in power by making a better "business" alliance.
>
> the pope/church were akin to government. this branch of medieval
> society determined how head office/king and the branch offices could
> interact...validating or nullifying contracts.
>
> the corporation and government were often both on the take, and
> willing to take bribes to secure their rise or position in the power
> base. human emotions could play a role, but diplomacy and the art of
> negotiating outweighed how an individual felt, or exposed themselves
> in public.
>
> george d. of clarence lacked finesse with a substance abuse problem
> who leaked corporate secrets. richard neville was a rogue chief exec
> playing both sides to the middle hoping for the best alliance. they
> were "replaced". add a touch of mafia intellect, and you've got rival
> gangs whacking the competition.
>
> it's all just a matter of business. people were pawns. you did what
> was best for the corporation or survival within the corp. personal
> feelings were a side issue.
>
> peasants were tools of the trade, the cogs that kept the white
> collar executive supplied. peasants were simply human resources, and
> minor nobles were human capital..everything was spent or invested in
> head office and tithed to government...it's all about
> gathering/profiting/consolidating/disbursing and working the system to
> one's personal advantage.
>
> read machevelli's prince. beaucrats and corporate heads still use it
> as their bible...it's all in how the game was played. the one with the
> most toys won.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
> responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
> difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
> zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
> known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
> transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
> Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
> impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
> century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
>
> Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
> I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
> the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
> pass in and out of fashion.
>
> I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
> ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
> Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
> ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
>
> Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
> know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
> subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
>
> But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
> they were a Rubik's cube.
>
> fayre rose wrote:
>
> > comments interspersed. see below
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
> >
> > Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
> >
> > 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> > woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> > young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> > children of their own?
> > -----------------------------
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> > maternal instincts.
> >
> > we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> > your children for power positions.
> >
> > i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> > brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> > guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> > was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> > eliz had two children by brandon.
> >
> > brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> > lady jane grey.
> >
> > consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> > henry stafford to katherine woodville.
> >
> > this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> > emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> > society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> > attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> > an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> > publically vs privately to an event such as
> > "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
> >
> > remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> > witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> > penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> > happened with morton.
> >
> > 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> > neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> > an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> > successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> > reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> > The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> > Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> > murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> > Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> > expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> > for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> > rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> > mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> > it maybe needs to be):
> > a) Edward IV died
> > ----------
> > accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> > perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> > her son e5.
> > what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> > vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> > something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> > intercept e5 and company?
> >
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> > coronation
> > c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> > Edward V's planned movements
> > d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> > element
> > e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> > sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> > ---------
> > see above for b through to e response.
> > ----------
> > f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> > normally.
> > ---------
> > what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> > perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> > and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> > uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> > protector on a permanent basis.
> >
> > was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> > pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> > of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> > george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> > manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> > game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
> >
> > -----------------
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > ------------------
> > the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> > was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> > the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> > occurred.
> >
> > was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> > talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> > of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> > will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> > abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> > -----------------
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > -----------
> > i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> > cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> > i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> > a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> > ---------------------
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> >
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > --------------
> > was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> > brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> > rapidly.
> > -------------------
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > ----------
> > ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> > this occurred.
> > -------------
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > -------------
> > woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> > had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> > than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> > what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> > beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> > ---------------------
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > ----------
> > glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> > to events.
> >
> > as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> > sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> > of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> > reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> > ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> > essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> > of my head here.
> > -------------------
> > o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> > ----------
> > yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> > woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> > assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> > a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> > share info.
> > ------------
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > -------------------
> > this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> > to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> > in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> > continue to hide?
> > see question/comment Q.
> > ----------------
> > q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> > parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> > Elizabeth
> > -----------
> > there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> > children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> > h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> > christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> > invasion/usurption of the crown.
> > ---------------
> > r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> > second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> > the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> > (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> > how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> > eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> > for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> > captured or raped
> > ---------------
> > who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> > -----------------
> > s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> > ----------
> > but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> > time she delivers arthur.
> > ------------
> > t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> > Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> > dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> > the King
> > ---------------
> > the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> > often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> > powerful menfolk.
> > -----------------
> >
> > u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> > pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> > children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> > purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> > that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> > no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> > without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> > ---------
> > remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> > katherine of aragon.
> > ---------------
> > v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> > turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> > none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> > and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> > much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> > Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> > ------------
> > good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> > --------------
> > vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> > also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> > authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> > death except the approximate date from IPMs.
> >
> > I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> > having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> > ----------
> > it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> > that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> > ---------------
> > And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> > having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> > ----------------
> > woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> > to be determined.
> > -----------------
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> > ---------
> > good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> > documents coming out of nottingham!!!
> >
> > it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> > looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> > of lee-way as to a date.
> >
> > last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> > later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> > now..unceasing rain.
> >
> > if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> > calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> > memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> > same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> > isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
> >
> > i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> > birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> > birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> > other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
> >
> > regards
> > roslyn
> > -------------------
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 03:03:06
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
To get
> back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
> project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have
felt
> and behaved.
I don't know how much or how little emotion on the part of people who
lived 500 years ago we can sift from their actions as observed from
this distance.
I do know that actions look different when viewed from another time
and/or place. Mothers in the highlands of Peru are, to the viewpoint
of our Anglo-European society, extremely indifferent to their babies
till they reach age 2 or 3, after which they are cherished and have
love lavished on them, according to a cultural anthropology report I
read. There is a very high infant mortality in the area, partly due
to the cold, oxygen-poor environment as well as the care they
receive. "Our" take is usually that the women are heartless and lack
normal maternal feelings -- their society's is that since most babies
die young, it is self-protective to avoid heartbreak by not getting too
attached to them until they have survived their first couple of years.
To us, especially after watching Kate Hepburn in the role, Eleanor of
Aquitaine looks like the prottype of a spirited women's libber. Taken
in the context of her own time, she was a dangerous women whose husband
was right in keeping her locked up for years at a time. If she had
been of a lower rank and had meddled in her husband's affairs and
plotted to set the sons against each other and against their father,
she probably would have been drowned in a pond.
Likewise, I'm sure King John's subjects found his doings, such as
giving England to the Pope, declaring that he was thinking of
converting to Islam, and so on, a lot less amusing than I do.
Katy
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
To get
> back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
> project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have
felt
> and behaved.
I don't know how much or how little emotion on the part of people who
lived 500 years ago we can sift from their actions as observed from
this distance.
I do know that actions look different when viewed from another time
and/or place. Mothers in the highlands of Peru are, to the viewpoint
of our Anglo-European society, extremely indifferent to their babies
till they reach age 2 or 3, after which they are cherished and have
love lavished on them, according to a cultural anthropology report I
read. There is a very high infant mortality in the area, partly due
to the cold, oxygen-poor environment as well as the care they
receive. "Our" take is usually that the women are heartless and lack
normal maternal feelings -- their society's is that since most babies
die young, it is self-protective to avoid heartbreak by not getting too
attached to them until they have survived their first couple of years.
To us, especially after watching Kate Hepburn in the role, Eleanor of
Aquitaine looks like the prottype of a spirited women's libber. Taken
in the context of her own time, she was a dangerous women whose husband
was right in keeping her locked up for years at a time. If she had
been of a lower rank and had meddled in her husband's affairs and
plotted to set the sons against each other and against their father,
she probably would have been drowned in a pond.
Likewise, I'm sure King John's subjects found his doings, such as
giving England to the Pope, declaring that he was thinking of
converting to Islam, and so on, a lot less amusing than I do.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 05:51:05
I remember setting up a new First Nations gallery about twenty years
ago. I carefully researched the various time periods and obtained
artifacts and reproductions. I grouped materials into Palaeo, Archaic,
various Woodland and Contact Periods. Items were grouped thematically.
Feeling proud of my handiwork, I brought in one of my friends who was
curator of the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford, Ontario to have
a look . Needless to say, I was a tad crushed when he gently chided me
for interpreting native culture in a Eurocentric manner.
I asked him how he would set up the gallery. He said that First Nations
people don't define artifacts according to utility as do Europeans. To
First Nations peoples, artifacts are extensions of environment and life
force. Likewise, division of time into epochs is incomprehensible. How
can one say that there was there was a palaeolithic period that lasted
from 10,000 BCE to 3,000BCE? Even we are catching on to this fallacy.
Only a generation ago, my teacher of English history taught that the
Middle Ages lasted from 411 AD to 1485 AD. Did Richard know that his
epoch was coming to an end?
Over the next few days, I had several 'aha' experiences. I thought how
arrogant we are, not just about the cultures of others, but about our
own culture. Subliminally, we see ourselves as the apogee of
civilization--as if our ancestors were the opening act for us.
At the time I was installing the exhibition, I was as interested in
fifteenth century English history as I am now. And I was pretty
judgmental. I thought that the Duke of York and his youngest boy were
nuts when they gambled all on their respective mad dashes at Wakefield
and Bosworth. Then it hit me that the reason I felt the that way was
that I could never enter their zeitgeist. Although I could understand
the chronological processes of their activities, I could never
experience the spirit of their age. They acted appropriately according
to their world view. What I thought about how they acted was of no
significance.
For this reason, I can't comment on what Elizabeth Woodville was feeling
or the appropriateness/lack of appropriateness of what she was feeling
because I'm not sure that her view of psychological or emotional
normality was the same as mine--not that everyone agrees on what
constitutes psychological or emotional normality in my time.
And then, of course, views of psychological and emotional normality
differ among the various cultures who inhabit the earth at the same
time, but that's another topic.
Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson tomorrow. Wonder what
Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the 'terrible twos'.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> To get
> > back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
> > project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have
> felt
> > and behaved.
>
>
> I don't know how much or how little emotion on the part of people who
> lived 500 years ago we can sift from their actions as observed from
> this distance.
>
> I do know that actions look different when viewed from another time
> and/or place. Mothers in the highlands of Peru are, to the viewpoint
> of our Anglo-European society, extremely indifferent to their babies
> till they reach age 2 or 3, after which they are cherished and have
> love lavished on them, according to a cultural anthropology report I
> read. There is a very high infant mortality in the area, partly due
> to the cold, oxygen-poor environment as well as the care they
> receive. "Our" take is usually that the women are heartless and lack
> normal maternal feelings -- their society's is that since most babies
> die young, it is self-protective to avoid heartbreak by not getting too
> attached to them until they have survived their first couple of years.
>
> To us, especially after watching Kate Hepburn in the role, Eleanor of
> Aquitaine looks like the prottype of a spirited women's libber. Taken
> in the context of her own time, she was a dangerous women whose husband
> was right in keeping her locked up for years at a time. If she had
> been of a lower rank and had meddled in her husband's affairs and
> plotted to set the sons against each other and against their father,
> she probably would have been drowned in a pond.
>
> Likewise, I'm sure King John's subjects found his doings, such as
> giving England to the Pope, declaring that he was thinking of
> converting to Islam, and so on, a lot less amusing than I do.
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
ago. I carefully researched the various time periods and obtained
artifacts and reproductions. I grouped materials into Palaeo, Archaic,
various Woodland and Contact Periods. Items were grouped thematically.
Feeling proud of my handiwork, I brought in one of my friends who was
curator of the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford, Ontario to have
a look . Needless to say, I was a tad crushed when he gently chided me
for interpreting native culture in a Eurocentric manner.
I asked him how he would set up the gallery. He said that First Nations
people don't define artifacts according to utility as do Europeans. To
First Nations peoples, artifacts are extensions of environment and life
force. Likewise, division of time into epochs is incomprehensible. How
can one say that there was there was a palaeolithic period that lasted
from 10,000 BCE to 3,000BCE? Even we are catching on to this fallacy.
Only a generation ago, my teacher of English history taught that the
Middle Ages lasted from 411 AD to 1485 AD. Did Richard know that his
epoch was coming to an end?
Over the next few days, I had several 'aha' experiences. I thought how
arrogant we are, not just about the cultures of others, but about our
own culture. Subliminally, we see ourselves as the apogee of
civilization--as if our ancestors were the opening act for us.
At the time I was installing the exhibition, I was as interested in
fifteenth century English history as I am now. And I was pretty
judgmental. I thought that the Duke of York and his youngest boy were
nuts when they gambled all on their respective mad dashes at Wakefield
and Bosworth. Then it hit me that the reason I felt the that way was
that I could never enter their zeitgeist. Although I could understand
the chronological processes of their activities, I could never
experience the spirit of their age. They acted appropriately according
to their world view. What I thought about how they acted was of no
significance.
For this reason, I can't comment on what Elizabeth Woodville was feeling
or the appropriateness/lack of appropriateness of what she was feeling
because I'm not sure that her view of psychological or emotional
normality was the same as mine--not that everyone agrees on what
constitutes psychological or emotional normality in my time.
And then, of course, views of psychological and emotional normality
differ among the various cultures who inhabit the earth at the same
time, but that's another topic.
Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson tomorrow. Wonder what
Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the 'terrible twos'.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> To get
> > back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
> > project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have
> felt
> > and behaved.
>
>
> I don't know how much or how little emotion on the part of people who
> lived 500 years ago we can sift from their actions as observed from
> this distance.
>
> I do know that actions look different when viewed from another time
> and/or place. Mothers in the highlands of Peru are, to the viewpoint
> of our Anglo-European society, extremely indifferent to their babies
> till they reach age 2 or 3, after which they are cherished and have
> love lavished on them, according to a cultural anthropology report I
> read. There is a very high infant mortality in the area, partly due
> to the cold, oxygen-poor environment as well as the care they
> receive. "Our" take is usually that the women are heartless and lack
> normal maternal feelings -- their society's is that since most babies
> die young, it is self-protective to avoid heartbreak by not getting too
> attached to them until they have survived their first couple of years.
>
> To us, especially after watching Kate Hepburn in the role, Eleanor of
> Aquitaine looks like the prottype of a spirited women's libber. Taken
> in the context of her own time, she was a dangerous women whose husband
> was right in keeping her locked up for years at a time. If she had
> been of a lower rank and had meddled in her husband's affairs and
> plotted to set the sons against each other and against their father,
> she probably would have been drowned in a pond.
>
> Likewise, I'm sure King John's subjects found his doings, such as
> giving England to the Pope, declaring that he was thinking of
> converting to Islam, and so on, a lot less amusing than I do.
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 05:54:42
here's another queen faced with a somewhat similiar situation a little over a decade previously to e. woodville and the ric iii scenario.
margaret of anjou and the earl of warwick.
The Earl of Warwick, in French exile, lost no time in agreeing to King Louis XI's proposal that he should come to terms with his former enemy, the ex-queen Margaret of Anjou, now herself a refugee in France. With French assistance, Warwick was to invade England and restore the imprisoned Henry VI to the throne. This compact was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI's heir, the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster, prince of Wales, to Warwick's younger daughter, Anne Nevill (fourteen) in July 1470. In return, the restored Henry would aid Louis in his invasion of Burgundy. (pg. 18)
Margaret of Anjou's deal in 1470 with Warwick the Kingmaker, who had done so much to bring about her husband's deposition and the deaths of so many of her friends and kinsmen, permitting her son's marriage to Warwick's daughter was an act of cynical realism which surprised even a hardened contemporary like Philippe de Commynes. (pg. 101
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/shaksper/rossnote.html
so, it would appear that "making the connections" was significantly more important than one's own personal feelings regarding "family". but it was also surprising even that day and age, if we can go by the writer's interpretation of commynes commentary/reaction to the event.
i've not read commynes, so i can't honestly comment on what he wrote.
roslyn
William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I pretty much agree with you. I think that, for whatever reason,
Elizabeth Woodville's response was much more cerebral than might be our
response today. My point is that if we try to project our mindsets and
'heartsets' back to the fifteenth century, we run into a major
'disconnect'. We assume that people could not be as dispassionate as
they seem to have been. They're a tad too heartless for our liking. But
he importance of individual family members was subordinate to the good
of the family as a whole. Actually, it's a fairly tribal mindset. To get
back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have felt
and behaved.
fayre rose wrote:
> i have to somewhat disagree with you bill. in one of my professional
> incarnations i was an assessionist/docent and assistant to the curator
> at a small local, but well respected museum.
>
> i've set up displays/diaramas too. you based your set up on what
> is/was known via illustrations/writings/aural tradition and other
> expert opinions. while you can not create an exact facismile of the
> event you are trying to portray, you can come within reasonable
> expectations.
>
> what i have learned with my medieval research is families and their
> holdings were like corporations. the king was head office. the higher
> up the corporate ladder you were, the better the dividends. nepotism
> was rampant. there were friendly take overs..i.e marriage and hostile
> takeovers..war or legal suits. local and international trade deals,
> often sealed with the marriage of a child to the other corporation.
>
> depending upon the branch offices, one could be absorbed or
> destroyed, or rise in power by making a better "business" alliance.
>
> the pope/church were akin to government. this branch of medieval
> society determined how head office/king and the branch offices could
> interact...validating or nullifying contracts.
>
> the corporation and government were often both on the take, and
> willing to take bribes to secure their rise or position in the power
> base. human emotions could play a role, but diplomacy and the art of
> negotiating outweighed how an individual felt, or exposed themselves
> in public.
>
> george d. of clarence lacked finesse with a substance abuse problem
> who leaked corporate secrets. richard neville was a rogue chief exec
> playing both sides to the middle hoping for the best alliance. they
> were "replaced". add a touch of mafia intellect, and you've got rival
> gangs whacking the competition.
>
> it's all just a matter of business. people were pawns. you did what
> was best for the corporation or survival within the corp. personal
> feelings were a side issue.
>
> peasants were tools of the trade, the cogs that kept the white
> collar executive supplied. peasants were simply human resources, and
> minor nobles were human capital..everything was spent or invested in
> head office and tithed to government...it's all about
> gathering/profiting/consolidating/disbursing and working the system to
> one's personal advantage.
>
> read machevelli's prince. beaucrats and corporate heads still use it
> as their bible...it's all in how the game was played. the one with the
> most toys won.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
> responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
> difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
> zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
> known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
> transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
> Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
> impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
> century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
>
> Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
> I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
> the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
> pass in and out of fashion.
>
> I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
> ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
> Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
> ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
>
> Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
> know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
> subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
>
> But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
> they were a Rubik's cube.
>
> fayre rose wrote:
>
> > comments interspersed. see below
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
> >
> > Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
> >
> > 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> > woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> > young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> > children of their own?
> > -----------------------------
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> > maternal instincts.
> >
> > we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> > your children for power positions.
> >
> > i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> > brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> > guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> > was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> > eliz had two children by brandon.
> >
> > brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> > lady jane grey.
> >
> > consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> > henry stafford to katherine woodville.
> >
> > this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> > emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> > society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> > attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> > an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> > publically vs privately to an event such as
> > "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
> >
> > remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> > witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> > penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> > happened with morton.
> >
> > 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> > neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> > an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> > successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> > reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> > The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> > Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> > murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> > Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> > expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> > for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> > rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> > mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> > it maybe needs to be):
> > a) Edward IV died
> > ----------
> > accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> > perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> > her son e5.
> > what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> > vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> > something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> > intercept e5 and company?
> >
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> > coronation
> > c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> > Edward V's planned movements
> > d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> > element
> > e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> > sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> > ---------
> > see above for b through to e response.
> > ----------
> > f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> > normally.
> > ---------
> > what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> > perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> > and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> > uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> > protector on a permanent basis.
> >
> > was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> > pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> > of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> > george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> > manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> > game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
> >
> > -----------------
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > ------------------
> > the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> > was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> > the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> > occurred.
> >
> > was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> > talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> > of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> > will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> > abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> > -----------------
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > -----------
> > i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> > cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> > i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> > a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> > ---------------------
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> >
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > --------------
> > was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> > brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> > rapidly.
> > -------------------
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > ----------
> > ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> > this occurred.
> > -------------
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > -------------
> > woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> > had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> > than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> > what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> > beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> > ---------------------
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > ----------
> > glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> > to events.
> >
> > as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> > sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> > of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> > reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> > ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> > essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> > of my head here.
> > -------------------
> > o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> > ----------
> > yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> > woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> > assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> > a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> > share info.
> > ------------
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > -------------------
> > this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> > to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> > in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> > continue to hide?
> > see question/comment Q.
> > ----------------
> > q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> > parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> > Elizabeth
> > -----------
> > there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> > children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> > h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> > christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> > invasion/usurption of the crown.
> > ---------------
> > r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> > second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> > the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> > (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> > how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> > eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> > for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> > captured or raped
> > ---------------
> > who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> > -----------------
> > s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> > ----------
> > but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> > time she delivers arthur.
> > ------------
> > t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> > Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> > dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> > the King
> > ---------------
> > the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> > often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> > powerful menfolk.
> > -----------------
> >
> > u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> > pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> > children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> > purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> > that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> > no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> > without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> > ---------
> > remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> > katherine of aragon.
> > ---------------
> > v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> > turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> > none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> > and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> > much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> > Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> > ------------
> > good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> > --------------
> > vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> > also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> > authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> > death except the approximate date from IPMs.
> >
> > I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> > having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> > ----------
> > it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> > that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> > ---------------
> > And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> > having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> > ----------------
> > woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> > to be determined.
> > -----------------
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> > ---------
> > good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> > documents coming out of nottingham!!!
> >
> > it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> > looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> > of lee-way as to a date.
> >
> > last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> > later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> > now..unceasing rain.
> >
> > if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> > calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> > memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> > same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> > isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
> >
> > i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> > birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> > birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> > other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
> >
> > regards
> > roslyn
> > -------------------
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.
---------------------------------
margaret of anjou and the earl of warwick.
The Earl of Warwick, in French exile, lost no time in agreeing to King Louis XI's proposal that he should come to terms with his former enemy, the ex-queen Margaret of Anjou, now herself a refugee in France. With French assistance, Warwick was to invade England and restore the imprisoned Henry VI to the throne. This compact was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI's heir, the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster, prince of Wales, to Warwick's younger daughter, Anne Nevill (fourteen) in July 1470. In return, the restored Henry would aid Louis in his invasion of Burgundy. (pg. 18)
Margaret of Anjou's deal in 1470 with Warwick the Kingmaker, who had done so much to bring about her husband's deposition and the deaths of so many of her friends and kinsmen, permitting her son's marriage to Warwick's daughter was an act of cynical realism which surprised even a hardened contemporary like Philippe de Commynes. (pg. 101
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/shaksper/rossnote.html
so, it would appear that "making the connections" was significantly more important than one's own personal feelings regarding "family". but it was also surprising even that day and age, if we can go by the writer's interpretation of commynes commentary/reaction to the event.
i've not read commynes, so i can't honestly comment on what he wrote.
roslyn
William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I pretty much agree with you. I think that, for whatever reason,
Elizabeth Woodville's response was much more cerebral than might be our
response today. My point is that if we try to project our mindsets and
'heartsets' back to the fifteenth century, we run into a major
'disconnect'. We assume that people could not be as dispassionate as
they seem to have been. They're a tad too heartless for our liking. But
he importance of individual family members was subordinate to the good
of the family as a whole. Actually, it's a fairly tribal mindset. To get
back to zeitgeist, I think it may be a bit culturalocentric (?) to
project on to Elizabeth Woodville our view of how she should have felt
and behaved.
fayre rose wrote:
> i have to somewhat disagree with you bill. in one of my professional
> incarnations i was an assessionist/docent and assistant to the curator
> at a small local, but well respected museum.
>
> i've set up displays/diaramas too. you based your set up on what
> is/was known via illustrations/writings/aural tradition and other
> expert opinions. while you can not create an exact facismile of the
> event you are trying to portray, you can come within reasonable
> expectations.
>
> what i have learned with my medieval research is families and their
> holdings were like corporations. the king was head office. the higher
> up the corporate ladder you were, the better the dividends. nepotism
> was rampant. there were friendly take overs..i.e marriage and hostile
> takeovers..war or legal suits. local and international trade deals,
> often sealed with the marriage of a child to the other corporation.
>
> depending upon the branch offices, one could be absorbed or
> destroyed, or rise in power by making a better "business" alliance.
>
> the pope/church were akin to government. this branch of medieval
> society determined how head office/king and the branch offices could
> interact...validating or nullifying contracts.
>
> the corporation and government were often both on the take, and
> willing to take bribes to secure their rise or position in the power
> base. human emotions could play a role, but diplomacy and the art of
> negotiating outweighed how an individual felt, or exposed themselves
> in public.
>
> george d. of clarence lacked finesse with a substance abuse problem
> who leaked corporate secrets. richard neville was a rogue chief exec
> playing both sides to the middle hoping for the best alliance. they
> were "replaced". add a touch of mafia intellect, and you've got rival
> gangs whacking the competition.
>
> it's all just a matter of business. people were pawns. you did what
> was best for the corporation or survival within the corp. personal
> feelings were a side issue.
>
> peasants were tools of the trade, the cogs that kept the white
> collar executive supplied. peasants were simply human resources, and
> minor nobles were human capital..everything was spent or invested in
> head office and tithed to government...it's all about
> gathering/profiting/consolidating/disbursing and working the system to
> one's personal advantage.
>
> read machevelli's prince. beaucrats and corporate heads still use it
> as their bible...it's all in how the game was played. the one with the
> most toys won.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> I was a museum curator in one of my professional incarnations, and was
> responsible for creating a great number of exhibitions. One of the most
> difficult things a museum curator has to do is to try and capture the
> zeitgeist either of another culture or of another era. If truth be
> known, the task is impossible. Zeitgeists undergo kaleidoscope-like
> transformations, and once a pattern is gone, it cannot be retrieved.
> Applying the kaleidoscope analogy to our area of interest, I think it is
> impossible for us to understand completely what motivated our fifteenth
> century ancestors. Their world is closed to us.
>
> Even though we are imbued with innate psychological characteristics,
> I'm not even sure that these characteristics aren't somewhat shaped by
> the spirit of the age. Even some of the names given to emotional states
> pass in and out of fashion.
>
> I think that if we were to come face to face with our fifteenth century
> ancestors, neither we nor they would understand each other at all.
> Perhaps this is why we have so much trouble trying to understand why our
> ancestors did the seemingly counter-intuitive things they did.
>
> Why did Elizabeth Woodville do what she did? Damned if I know. What I do
> know is that we will never discover motivations behind her actions by
> subjecting her actions to logical analysis.
>
> But, on a lighter note, it is fun to try to solve these enigmas as if
> they were a Rubik's cube.
>
> fayre rose wrote:
>
> > comments interspersed. see below
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
> >
> > Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
> >
> > 1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
> > woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
> > young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
> > children of their own?
> > -----------------------------
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has strong
> > maternal instincts.
> >
> > we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to barter
> > your children for power positions.
> >
> > i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> > brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> > guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> > was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> > eliz had two children by brandon.
> >
> > brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather of
> > lady jane grey.
> >
> > consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> > henry stafford to katherine woodville.
> >
> > this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on an
> > emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> > society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> > attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> > an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> > publically vs privately to an event such as
> > "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
> >
> > remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> > witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did public
> > penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea what
> > happened with morton.
> >
> > 2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
> > neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
> > an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
> > successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
> > reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
> > The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
> > Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
> > murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
> > Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
> > expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
> > for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
> > rebellion to the autumn of 1484. I would just ask everyone to bear in
> > mind a particular train of events (I'm sorry this is rather long, but
> > it maybe needs to be):
> > a) Edward IV died
> > ----------
> > accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind this?
> > perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power through
> > her son e5.
> > what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey and
> > vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings know
> > something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched south to
> > intercept e5 and company?
> >
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London for
> > coronation
> > c) Richard is informed from another source of Edward IV's death and
> > Edward V's planned movements
> > d) Richard joins the royal party at Northampton, minus its royal
> > element
> > e) Woodville escort arrested. Elizabeth Woodville & daughters take
> > sanctuary. Gloucester brings Edward V to London
> > ---------
> > see above for b through to e response.
> > ----------
> > f) Plans put in place for Edward V's coronation. Government proceeds
> > normally.
> > ---------
> > what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> > perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> > and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> > uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> > protector on a permanent basis.
> >
> > was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how to
> > pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in law
> > of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of sibling
> > george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> > manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play the
> > game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
> >
> > -----------------
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > ------------------
> > the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d. of c
> > was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman about
> > the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to woodville
> > occurred.
> >
> > was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting that
> > talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the revelation
> > of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also witnesses talbot's
> > will in june 1468. is this not about the same time that the kingmaker
> > abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
> > -----------------
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > -----------
> > i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my brain
> > cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding them?
> > i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or recommend
> > a search phrase so i can google for more info?
> > ---------------------
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> >
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > --------------
> > was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> > brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> > rapidly.
> > -------------------
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > ----------
> > ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> > this occurred.
> > -------------
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know) for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > -------------
> > woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> > had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> > than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> > what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> > beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> > ---------------------
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > ----------
> > glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more hints/clues
> > to events.
> >
> > as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> > sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> > of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> > reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held to
> > ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> > essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the top
> > of my head here.
> > -------------------
> > o) August 1485 - Tudor invades, leaving Dorset behind in France
> > ----------
> > yes, interesting. was dorset so much a hostage/guarantee that
> > woodville and her remaining children/sibs wouldn't be involved in
> > assisting ric iii with the raising of troops. or perhaps dorset "knew"
> > a little too much to be allowed the opportunity to "switch" sides,
> > share info.
> > ------------
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > -------------------
> > this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on the "vow
> > to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered is..were they
> > in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead, why would they
> > continue to hide?
> > see question/comment Q.
> > ----------------
> > q) December 1485 - Petition from now rebellious and unmanageable
> > parliament forces Henry to agree to honour his promise to marry
> > Elizabeth
> > -----------
> > there you go..another clue to this drama. the known surviving
> > children of e4 held by beaufort/tudor. but the parliament has to force
> > h7 to honour is vow. why was h7 reluctant? it would appear his
> > christmas vow was simply a war cry to rally support for his planned
> > invasion/usurption of the crown.
> > ---------------
> > r) A couple of days or so before the wedding, Henry petitions for a
> > second dispensation, from the Papal legate in England. The wording of
> > the whole thing suggests Henry was not aware of another dispensation
> > (whether this was the fact or not is another question, but that is
> > how it was presented to the Papal legate). None of the
> > eight "witnesses" belong to Elizabeth's family. The witnesses vouch
> > for the fact that Elizabeth is a willing participant and has not been
> > captured or raped
> > ---------------
> > who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
> > -----------------
> > s) Henry marries Elizabeth
> > ----------
> > but doesn't crown her for several months, if i recall about the same
> > time she delivers arthur.
> > ------------
> > t) As the Tudor court braces itself for invasion of Earl of Warwick,
> > Elizabeth Woodville "retires" to Bermondsey Abbey. Unusually for a
> > dowager embracing the religious life, she gives up all her money to
> > the King
> > ---------------
> > the dowager seeks sanctuary yet again. or is simply locked up as was
> > often done to women who were getting too "uppity" for the good of the
> > powerful menfolk.
> > -----------------
> >
> > u) Elizabeth Woodville writes her will. She specifically (and
> > pathetically) says she would like to have the money to endow her
> > children, but doesn't have. Perhaps ty could be given first chance to
> > purchase her goods, and acquire anything they particuarly want in
> > that way. If this is a conventional will it is very odd as she makes
> > no mention whatesoever of the King. She asks to be buried (though
> > without pomp) with Edward IV at Windsor
> > ---------
> > remember h7 was "frugal" to the extreme. look at the way her treated
> > katherine of aragon.
> > ---------------
> > v) Elizabeth's body brought from Bermondsey to Windsor by barge,
> > turns up in the middle of the night, no one apparently prepared and
> > none of her family yet there to receive it. They all turn up later,
> > and she is buried with very simple funeral in a coffin without so
> > much as a lead lining. Did the Abbot of Bermondsey perhaps present
> > Windsor and the King with a fait accompli?
> > ------------
> > good question..and again info i did not know. thanks for sharing.
> > --------------
> > vi) Dorset briefly imprisoned during Warbeck rebellion. Apparently he
> > also met Suffolk (as I recall) - a meeting reported to the
> > authorities - only a month before his death. No details known of said
> > death except the approximate date from IPMs.
> >
> > I just ask: do these facts completely fit the scenario of Elizabeth
> > having been, or at least having remained, totally on Henry's side?
> > ----------
> > it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> > that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
> > ---------------
> > And can anyone give me a plausible alternative explanation for her
> > having given her daughters to Richard at that time, when Tudor
> > deliverance seemed to be right at hand?
> > ----------------
> > woodville trusted ric iii more than beaufort/tudor. the why is yet
> > to be determined.
> > -----------------
> >
> > 3) Last but not least: Regarding death of Richard's son. We don't
> > know the date was 9th April. This is built up merely from Croyland
> > (of whom I admit to becoming increasingly less fond) telling his
> > readers that he died at the same time of year as Edward IV. In fact,
> > having once studied the sources for the first half of Richard's reign
> > in some detail, I noticed that warrants, etc, kept being pumped out
> > from Nottingham, like peas from a pea-shooter, until much much later
> > in the month (20-something), then fizzled out. I therefore came to
> > the conclusion that the news of Edward of Middleham's death probably
> > reached the court only a few days before the end of the month. As a
> > previous lister has pointed out, this suggests the death itself took
> > place only about two days earlier than that. Croyland, of course,
> > was trying to make a point about cause and effect.
> > ---------
> > good points marie, and excellent observations regarding the
> > documents coming out of nottingham!!!
> >
> > it leaves me wondering, just how much a calendar was consulted vs
> > looking at the night sky or season. "same time of year" leaves a lot
> > of lee-way as to a date.
> >
> > last year, it was bitterly cold at this time of year, but a month
> > later it was the same kind of weather as we are having right
> > now..unceasing rain.
> >
> > if i put myself into the chronicler's shoes, and not using a
> > calendar as we are so addicted to nowadays..and if i were writing from
> > memory about an event..i could say, it occurred during or about the
> > same time as the rainy season last year. simply because the exact date
> > isn't/wasn't too important to me, or in my thoughts.
> >
> > i also think of my spouse's birthday, april 20th. i can say his
> > birthday is around easter, simply because easter has fallen on his
> > birthday, but i also know it has occurred about a month earlier in
> > other years. time reference wasn't as important then, as it is today.
> >
> > regards
> > roslyn
> > -------------------
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <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/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 14:05:19
--- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
[snip great stuff about interpreting cultures]
>
> Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson
> tomorrow. Wonder what
> Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the
> 'terrible twos'.
>
Servants.
[snip great stuff about interpreting cultures]
>
> Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson
> tomorrow. Wonder what
> Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the
> 'terrible twos'.
>
Servants.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 14:10:28
William Barber wrote : Wonder what Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit
the 'terrible twos'.
- She no doubt handed them back to their nurse and told her to bring them
back when they were prepared to behave in a civilized manner !
Greg.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Barber" <bbarber@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>I remember setting up a new First Nations gallery about twenty years
> ago. I carefully researched the various time periods and obtained
> artifacts and reproductions. I grouped materials into Palaeo, Archaic,
> various Woodland and Contact Periods. Items were grouped thematically.
>
> Feeling proud of my handiwork, I brought in one of my friends who was
> curator of the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford, Ontario to have
> a look . Needless to say, I was a tad crushed when he gently chided me
> for interpreting native culture in a Eurocentric manner.
>
> I asked him how he would set up the gallery. He said that First Nations
> people don't define artifacts according to utility as do Europeans. To
> First Nations peoples, artifacts are extensions of environment and life
> force. Likewise, division of time into epochs is incomprehensible. How
> can one say that there was there was a palaeolithic period that lasted
> from 10,000 BCE to 3,000BCE? Even we are catching on to this fallacy.
> Only a generation ago, my teacher of English history taught that the
> Middle Ages lasted from 411 AD to 1485 AD. Did Richard know that his
> epoch was coming to an end?
>
> Over the next few days, I had several 'aha' experiences. I thought how
> arrogant we are, not just about the cultures of others, but about our
> own culture. Subliminally, we see ourselves as the apogee of
> civilization--as if our ancestors were the opening act for us.
>
> At the time I was installing the exhibition, I was as interested in
> fifteenth century English history as I am now. And I was pretty
> judgmental. I thought that the Duke of York and his youngest boy were
> nuts when they gambled all on their respective mad dashes at Wakefield
> and Bosworth. Then it hit me that the reason I felt the that way was
> that I could never enter their zeitgeist. Although I could understand
> the chronological processes of their activities, I could never
> experience the spirit of their age. They acted appropriately according
> to their world view. What I thought about how they acted was of no
> significance.
>
> For this reason, I can't comment on what Elizabeth Woodville was feeling
> or the appropriateness/lack of appropriateness of what she was feeling
> because I'm not sure that her view of psychological or emotional
> normality was the same as mine--not that everyone agrees on what
> constitutes psychological or emotional normality in my time.
>
> And then, of course, views of psychological and emotional normality
> differ among the various cultures who inhabit the earth at the same
> time, but that's another topic.
>
> Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson tomorrow. Wonder what
> Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the 'terrible twos'.
the 'terrible twos'.
- She no doubt handed them back to their nurse and told her to bring them
back when they were prepared to behave in a civilized manner !
Greg.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Barber" <bbarber@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>I remember setting up a new First Nations gallery about twenty years
> ago. I carefully researched the various time periods and obtained
> artifacts and reproductions. I grouped materials into Palaeo, Archaic,
> various Woodland and Contact Periods. Items were grouped thematically.
>
> Feeling proud of my handiwork, I brought in one of my friends who was
> curator of the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford, Ontario to have
> a look . Needless to say, I was a tad crushed when he gently chided me
> for interpreting native culture in a Eurocentric manner.
>
> I asked him how he would set up the gallery. He said that First Nations
> people don't define artifacts according to utility as do Europeans. To
> First Nations peoples, artifacts are extensions of environment and life
> force. Likewise, division of time into epochs is incomprehensible. How
> can one say that there was there was a palaeolithic period that lasted
> from 10,000 BCE to 3,000BCE? Even we are catching on to this fallacy.
> Only a generation ago, my teacher of English history taught that the
> Middle Ages lasted from 411 AD to 1485 AD. Did Richard know that his
> epoch was coming to an end?
>
> Over the next few days, I had several 'aha' experiences. I thought how
> arrogant we are, not just about the cultures of others, but about our
> own culture. Subliminally, we see ourselves as the apogee of
> civilization--as if our ancestors were the opening act for us.
>
> At the time I was installing the exhibition, I was as interested in
> fifteenth century English history as I am now. And I was pretty
> judgmental. I thought that the Duke of York and his youngest boy were
> nuts when they gambled all on their respective mad dashes at Wakefield
> and Bosworth. Then it hit me that the reason I felt the that way was
> that I could never enter their zeitgeist. Although I could understand
> the chronological processes of their activities, I could never
> experience the spirit of their age. They acted appropriately according
> to their world view. What I thought about how they acted was of no
> significance.
>
> For this reason, I can't comment on what Elizabeth Woodville was feeling
> or the appropriateness/lack of appropriateness of what she was feeling
> because I'm not sure that her view of psychological or emotional
> normality was the same as mine--not that everyone agrees on what
> constitutes psychological or emotional normality in my time.
>
> And then, of course, views of psychological and emotional normality
> differ among the various cultures who inhabit the earth at the same
> time, but that's another topic.
>
> Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson tomorrow. Wonder what
> Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the 'terrible twos'.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 14:44:56
Oh, yeah. I forgot!
Laura Blanchard wrote:
> --- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> [snip great stuff about interpreting cultures]
>
> >
> > Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson
> > tomorrow. Wonder what
> > Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the
> > 'terrible twos'.
> >
>
> Servants.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Laura Blanchard wrote:
> --- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> [snip great stuff about interpreting cultures]
>
> >
> > Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson
> > tomorrow. Wonder what
> > Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the
> > 'terrible twos'.
> >
>
> Servants.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 15:48:13
You're right, of course. We need to remember that Elizabeth probably
didn't see too much of the kids. Kinda cramped her style. Officially,
our culture would disapprove of fifteenth century parenting practices,
although I'm not sure that we always do a whole lot better.
Greg Henderson wrote:
> William Barber wrote : Wonder what Elizabeth Woodville did when her
> kids hit
> the 'terrible twos'.
>
> - She no doubt handed them back to their nurse and told her to bring them
> back when they were prepared to behave in a civilized manner !
>
> Greg.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Barber" <bbarber@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>
>
> >I remember setting up a new First Nations gallery about twenty years
> > ago. I carefully researched the various time periods and obtained
> > artifacts and reproductions. I grouped materials into Palaeo, Archaic,
> > various Woodland and Contact Periods. Items were grouped thematically.
> >
> > Feeling proud of my handiwork, I brought in one of my friends who was
> > curator of the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford, Ontario to have
> > a look . Needless to say, I was a tad crushed when he gently chided me
> > for interpreting native culture in a Eurocentric manner.
> >
> > I asked him how he would set up the gallery. He said that First Nations
> > people don't define artifacts according to utility as do Europeans. To
> > First Nations peoples, artifacts are extensions of environment and life
> > force. Likewise, division of time into epochs is incomprehensible. How
> > can one say that there was there was a palaeolithic period that lasted
> > from 10,000 BCE to 3,000BCE? Even we are catching on to this fallacy.
> > Only a generation ago, my teacher of English history taught that the
> > Middle Ages lasted from 411 AD to 1485 AD. Did Richard know that his
> > epoch was coming to an end?
> >
> > Over the next few days, I had several 'aha' experiences. I thought how
> > arrogant we are, not just about the cultures of others, but about our
> > own culture. Subliminally, we see ourselves as the apogee of
> > civilization--as if our ancestors were the opening act for us.
> >
> > At the time I was installing the exhibition, I was as interested in
> > fifteenth century English history as I am now. And I was pretty
> > judgmental. I thought that the Duke of York and his youngest boy were
> > nuts when they gambled all on their respective mad dashes at Wakefield
> > and Bosworth. Then it hit me that the reason I felt the that way was
> > that I could never enter their zeitgeist. Although I could understand
> > the chronological processes of their activities, I could never
> > experience the spirit of their age. They acted appropriately according
> > to their world view. What I thought about how they acted was of no
> > significance.
> >
> > For this reason, I can't comment on what Elizabeth Woodville was feeling
> > or the appropriateness/lack of appropriateness of what she was feeling
> > because I'm not sure that her view of psychological or emotional
> > normality was the same as mine--not that everyone agrees on what
> > constitutes psychological or emotional normality in my time.
> >
> > And then, of course, views of psychological and emotional normality
> > differ among the various cultures who inhabit the earth at the same
> > time, but that's another topic.
> >
> > Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson tomorrow. Wonder what
> > Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the 'terrible twos'.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
didn't see too much of the kids. Kinda cramped her style. Officially,
our culture would disapprove of fifteenth century parenting practices,
although I'm not sure that we always do a whole lot better.
Greg Henderson wrote:
> William Barber wrote : Wonder what Elizabeth Woodville did when her
> kids hit
> the 'terrible twos'.
>
> - She no doubt handed them back to their nurse and told her to bring them
> back when they were prepared to behave in a civilized manner !
>
> Greg.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Barber" <bbarber@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>
>
> >I remember setting up a new First Nations gallery about twenty years
> > ago. I carefully researched the various time periods and obtained
> > artifacts and reproductions. I grouped materials into Palaeo, Archaic,
> > various Woodland and Contact Periods. Items were grouped thematically.
> >
> > Feeling proud of my handiwork, I brought in one of my friends who was
> > curator of the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford, Ontario to have
> > a look . Needless to say, I was a tad crushed when he gently chided me
> > for interpreting native culture in a Eurocentric manner.
> >
> > I asked him how he would set up the gallery. He said that First Nations
> > people don't define artifacts according to utility as do Europeans. To
> > First Nations peoples, artifacts are extensions of environment and life
> > force. Likewise, division of time into epochs is incomprehensible. How
> > can one say that there was there was a palaeolithic period that lasted
> > from 10,000 BCE to 3,000BCE? Even we are catching on to this fallacy.
> > Only a generation ago, my teacher of English history taught that the
> > Middle Ages lasted from 411 AD to 1485 AD. Did Richard know that his
> > epoch was coming to an end?
> >
> > Over the next few days, I had several 'aha' experiences. I thought how
> > arrogant we are, not just about the cultures of others, but about our
> > own culture. Subliminally, we see ourselves as the apogee of
> > civilization--as if our ancestors were the opening act for us.
> >
> > At the time I was installing the exhibition, I was as interested in
> > fifteenth century English history as I am now. And I was pretty
> > judgmental. I thought that the Duke of York and his youngest boy were
> > nuts when they gambled all on their respective mad dashes at Wakefield
> > and Bosworth. Then it hit me that the reason I felt the that way was
> > that I could never enter their zeitgeist. Although I could understand
> > the chronological processes of their activities, I could never
> > experience the spirit of their age. They acted appropriately according
> > to their world view. What I thought about how they acted was of no
> > significance.
> >
> > For this reason, I can't comment on what Elizabeth Woodville was feeling
> > or the appropriateness/lack of appropriateness of what she was feeling
> > because I'm not sure that her view of psychological or emotional
> > normality was the same as mine--not that everyone agrees on what
> > constitutes psychological or emotional normality in my time.
> >
> > And then, of course, views of psychological and emotional normality
> > differ among the various cultures who inhabit the earth at the same
> > time, but that's another topic.
> >
> > Have to go to bed. I'm looking after my grandson tomorrow. Wonder what
> > Elizabeth Woodville did when her kids hit the 'terrible twos'.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 15:59:11
--- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> You're right, of course. We need to remember that
> Elizabeth probably
> didn't see too much of the kids. Kinda cramped her
> style. Officially,
> our culture would disapprove of fifteenth century
> parenting practices,
> although I'm not sure that we always do a whole lot
> better.
>
Despite the picture of Prince Phillip cooking bangers
for breakfast, I suspect the current Queen Elizabeth
was able to send her children off when they became
tired and fretful or simply obstreperous.
> You're right, of course. We need to remember that
> Elizabeth probably
> didn't see too much of the kids. Kinda cramped her
> style. Officially,
> our culture would disapprove of fifteenth century
> parenting practices,
> although I'm not sure that we always do a whole lot
> better.
>
Despite the picture of Prince Phillip cooking bangers
for breakfast, I suspect the current Queen Elizabeth
was able to send her children off when they became
tired and fretful or simply obstreperous.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 17:34:42
I understand that they can still be tired, fretful and obstreperous at
times (well--actually--most of the time).
Laura Blanchard wrote:
> --- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> > You're right, of course. We need to remember that
> > Elizabeth probably
> > didn't see too much of the kids. Kinda cramped her
> > style. Officially,
> > our culture would disapprove of fifteenth century
> > parenting practices,
> > although I'm not sure that we always do a whole lot
> > better.
> >
>
> Despite the picture of Prince Phillip cooking bangers
> for breakfast, I suspect the current Queen Elizabeth
> was able to send her children off when they became
> tired and fretful or simply obstreperous.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
times (well--actually--most of the time).
Laura Blanchard wrote:
> --- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> > You're right, of course. We need to remember that
> > Elizabeth probably
> > didn't see too much of the kids. Kinda cramped her
> > style. Officially,
> > our culture would disapprove of fifteenth century
> > parenting practices,
> > although I'm not sure that we always do a whole lot
> > better.
> >
>
> Despite the picture of Prince Phillip cooking bangers
> for breakfast, I suspect the current Queen Elizabeth
> was able to send her children off when they became
> tired and fretful or simply obstreperous.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-26 23:36:03
> yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
strong maternal instincts.
No - most do, but a minority don't.
I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on the
subject of cultural differences. I am very aware of these. Growing up
in rational suburban England with a fairly elderly mother from the
Gaelic fringes of Ireland was enough to teach me about that. In some
ways she is an excellent introduction to the medieval era. She always
regretted the end of arranged marriages, which happened when she was
small, and did her best to arrange my own (to a degree, I would say,
she succeeded). I was brought up with death, ghosts, heaven, hell &
graveyards right there in the forefront of everyday life.
She still finds certain aspects of modern English life very odd,
often in ways I share. The lack of interest in family, for instance.
I've found most of my English friends can't tell you anything past
their grandparents & first cousins st most, unless they've actually
researched their family tree. My mum's oral family history, on the
other hand, goes back to before 1800, and third and fourth cousins
are no difficulty.
I've also had friends from very different cultures and religions,
and, yes, I see what everyone's saying about the danger of
transferring cultural assumptions on to 15th century people. I don't
think I'm doing that, though. One thing I have learned, and that is
that under the cultural clothing human beings are the same deep down.
The women in the Andes don't pay too much attention to their babies
for the same reason that in some cultures they are not named for a
long time: not because loving your children is an affectation of our
culture but just the opposite - because losing a child so so
terribly, terribly hard. Cultural errors on this subject, on the
other hand, are those like the modern cliche "no parent should ever
have to bury a child", because (so the argument goes) it's the wrong
order for things to happen in, an abberation. No one in the past, and
no one now in the third World, would understand what you were talking
about. I must admit I winced when those words were put into Theoden's
mouth in the film of the Two Towers: Tolkien would never have made
such a boo-boo. Childhood was always the commonest time of all to
die. And males from warrior societies often traded their later years
for a glorious name.
But losing a child still hurt dreadfully - you can tell that by
reading firsthand accounts of parents from previous eras.
Less fond mothers there have always been - a problem of the maternal
gene, perhaps, or an abusive upbringing. There are, however, several
extant descriptions of life at Edward and Elizabeth's court, in which
the children seem to have played a big part. Also this from
Elizabeth's will:-
"Item where I haue no wordely goodes to do the Quenes grace my
derest doughter a pleaser with nether to reward any of my children
according to my hart and mynde. I besech' almyghty god to blisse here
grace with all her noble issue and with as good hart and mynde as is
to me posible I geue her grace my blesing and all the forsaide my
children . . . Item yf any of my bloode wilbie any of my saide stufe
or goodes to me perteyning I will that they have the prefermente be
fore any other."
Moving on from that, to assume that fifteenth century people are
inscrutable, so any old mad behaviour is not to be wondered at, is,
dare I suggest, cultural arrogance itself. It is actually not that
difficult to discern some of the shaping lines:
People often had to live quietly with, or under, those against whom
they had a great grudge. But given a change in the power structure,
the latent hostility got a chance to surface. We can all think of
examples. In the case of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset they seem
(after spring of 1484) to have been far more compicit in richard's
regime than they were ever to be in Henry's. Now that takes
explaining.
People did care about their children. I don't see Margaret of Anjou's
acceptance of Warwick's help, and Warwick's daughter for her son, as
exhibiting a lack of care for her son. She only really entered
politics after the birth Edward, and her whole raison d'etre had been
to ensure his succession. It probably wasn't that sudden a change,
anyway. Apparently Louis had put forward this idea some years
earlier, and had probably talked Margaret round a long time before
Warwick eventually washed up willing to play ball. She was very
protective of her son, and unwilling to let him cross to England
until things were considered safe.
Then of course, we all know of richard and Anne's reaction to the
dewaath of their son, and Clarence's to the death of his wife and
baby.
I can't even think of another case of a murdered child within the
upper echelons (unless you count Clarence's accusation against
ankarette Twynyho) - which perhaps shows how beyond the Pale this
was - but a young man murdered pretty callously was the elder brother
of the Sir Humphrey Stafford who mounted the rebellion in 1486. He
was killed by one of the Harcourts in about 1450 (the two parties had
crossed in the street, Harcourt had struck young Stafford with the
flat of his sword, the latter pulled a knife and made a lunge, but
stumbled, then one of Harcourt's men atabbed in the back). Daddy
Stafford responded by attacking Stanton Harcourt and setting fire to
the church tower where his enemy had taken refuge. Many years of
peace masked a festering grievance, and the two sides were at it
again during the Re-adeption. Humphrey's rise under Richard III may
have been the catalyst that prompted the Harourt of the day to join
Buckingham's Rebellion and then join Tudor. And it was probably the
Harcourt ascendacy after Bosworth that galvanised Sir Humphrey
Stafford to risk all in rebellion.
And just bear in mind how much of a tear-jerker the Slaughter of the
Innocents was for medievals. There was also a whole genre of weepie
fiction based around pathetic little orphan heirs turned out or done
away with by their evil guardians.
No, Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour for me does not fit the idea that
Richard came and gave her concrete proof early in 1484 that he had
successfully killed both her sons.
>
> we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to
barter your children for power positions.
That's modern language, and value judgements. "Worshipful" marriages
were what their parents wanted for them, ones which would maintain or
increase their social status. Love matches, if beneath one's
stations, were likely, in their eyes, to bring the family down and
prove unhappy when the gloss wore off. Guardians were enjoined not to
arrange "disparaging" marriages for their wards. It was all very
materialistic, and some families were colder and more abusive than
others in pairing their children off (one thinks immediately of the
Pastons). But at heart the families thought they were doing their
best by thei children.
>
> i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
eliz had two children by brandon.
>
> brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather
of lady jane grey.
>
> consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
henry stafford to katherine woodville.
>
> this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on
an emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
an understanding as to how any particular person might react
publically vs privately to an event such
as "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
The differences are as much about attitudes to marriage as attitudes
to children. Marriage for the propertied classes was a social
arrangement - it was what kept their society stuck together. Love
affairs were not necessarily outlawed but were expected to be kept in
their place.
>
> remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did
public penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea
what happened with morton.
Well, that's taking More's version of the events in the Tower as
Gospel. Though the information probably came from morton, Morton was
one of those accused, and any real conspiracy is not likely to have
been admitted. Richard's panicky letters north for troops just three
days earlier suggest it was not witchcraft that worried him.
Mistress Shore did penance for being a whore.
> ----------
> accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind
this? perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power
through her son e5.
> what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey
and vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings
know something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched
south to intercept e5 and company?
.
>
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt
to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London
for
> coronation
I really don't think so. If Elizabeth wanted Edward IV dead, she'd
have waited till her son was old enough not to need a Propector, and
she'd have chosen a time when he was on hand in London for a speedy
coronation. He did isit the capital from time to time. The way it
happened actually made things very difficult for the Woodvilles.
> what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
protector on a permanent basis.
If only we knew!
>
> was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how
to pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in
law of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of
sibling george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play
the game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
>
> -----------------
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> ------------------
> the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d.
of c was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman
about the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to
woodville occurred.
I've not read that before. There is no mention of it prior to June
1483. The idea that George knew of it, and was making capital out of
it, comes from the fact that a month or two after his death
Stillington was briefly slammed in the Tower for "uttering words
prejudicial to the King and his state". The problems are, though,
that:-
1) George's Act of Attainder actually says it was the story of Edward
IV's own illegitimacy George had been repeating
2) If George had made use of the story, Edward would have known
Stillington had squealed, and imprisoned him, rather earlier.
My suspicion is that it was the belief in his brother's illegitimacy
that continued to fuel George, and that after his execution
Stillington, knowing of this second impediment to Edward's line, felt
guilty and unburdened himself to someone who then told the King.
> was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting
that talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the
revelation of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also
witnesses talbot's will in june 1468. is this not about the same time
that the kingmaker abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
The woman said to have been married to Edward was Eleanor Talbot. The
real Lady Lucy was a Margaret, not an Elizabeth (see Hicks' Edward
V). Her husband was a Sir William Lucy, but he died in the wars, 1460
I think. She bore Edward IV a daughter, also Margaret. All told, she
had a very chequered sexual history and got involved in a precontract
scandal herself later, so who knows, perhaps Edward IV had done it to
her as well. Can you refresh my memory which Talbot it was that died
in 1468? Eleanor's father was the "Old Earl", who died at Castillon.
I'd be very interested to find out how this Lucy and Talbot connect
with Eleanor and Edward's Lady Lucy.
> -----------------
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> -----------
> i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my
brain cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding
them? i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or
recommend a search phrase so i can google for more info?
Two survive - one to the city of York, and one to Lord Neville. I'll
fish them out for you.
> ---------------------
> i) Gloucester claims crown
>
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> --------------
> was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
rapidly.
> -------------------
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> ----------
> ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
this occurred.
> -------------
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry
Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know)
for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point
(not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> -------------
> woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> ---------------------
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> ----------
> glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more
hints/clues to events.
>
> as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held
to ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the
top of my head here.
The Tudor story is that Richard got Lord Stanley to leave Strange
with him as a hostage, Richard ordered Stanley to join him &
threatened to behead Strange, but Stanley staunchly said he had
plenty of other sons to take his place. However, Strange survived and
historians have now started questioning whether Lord Stanley himself
was ever anywhere near Bosworth. The whole thing might have been made
up later to make Lord Stanley look a lot more pro-Tudor than he had
been, or even to excuse Strange being with Richard's camp.
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff
Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> -------------------
> this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on
the "vow to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered
is..were they in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead,
why would they continue to hide?
> see question/comment Q.
I think it was probably known they were at Sheriff Hutton - Warwick
was there too.
> ---------------
> who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
Don't know, I'm afraid. It's only just been found in the same place
as richard and Anne's. It was mentioned in the last Ricardian
Bulletin.
> it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
I should say so. I think there's loads we don't know. And perhaps we
should come clean about it and keep open minds while we do more
digging. Just read any book on the period written before the mid
1970s and you'll see how things have changed - the identities, and
first names, of Edward's two famous mistresses "Jane Shore"
and "Elizabeth Lucy" both turned out to be complete bunk, for
instance. What else we think we know is actually bunk?
Marie
strong maternal instincts.
No - most do, but a minority don't.
I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on the
subject of cultural differences. I am very aware of these. Growing up
in rational suburban England with a fairly elderly mother from the
Gaelic fringes of Ireland was enough to teach me about that. In some
ways she is an excellent introduction to the medieval era. She always
regretted the end of arranged marriages, which happened when she was
small, and did her best to arrange my own (to a degree, I would say,
she succeeded). I was brought up with death, ghosts, heaven, hell &
graveyards right there in the forefront of everyday life.
She still finds certain aspects of modern English life very odd,
often in ways I share. The lack of interest in family, for instance.
I've found most of my English friends can't tell you anything past
their grandparents & first cousins st most, unless they've actually
researched their family tree. My mum's oral family history, on the
other hand, goes back to before 1800, and third and fourth cousins
are no difficulty.
I've also had friends from very different cultures and religions,
and, yes, I see what everyone's saying about the danger of
transferring cultural assumptions on to 15th century people. I don't
think I'm doing that, though. One thing I have learned, and that is
that under the cultural clothing human beings are the same deep down.
The women in the Andes don't pay too much attention to their babies
for the same reason that in some cultures they are not named for a
long time: not because loving your children is an affectation of our
culture but just the opposite - because losing a child so so
terribly, terribly hard. Cultural errors on this subject, on the
other hand, are those like the modern cliche "no parent should ever
have to bury a child", because (so the argument goes) it's the wrong
order for things to happen in, an abberation. No one in the past, and
no one now in the third World, would understand what you were talking
about. I must admit I winced when those words were put into Theoden's
mouth in the film of the Two Towers: Tolkien would never have made
such a boo-boo. Childhood was always the commonest time of all to
die. And males from warrior societies often traded their later years
for a glorious name.
But losing a child still hurt dreadfully - you can tell that by
reading firsthand accounts of parents from previous eras.
Less fond mothers there have always been - a problem of the maternal
gene, perhaps, or an abusive upbringing. There are, however, several
extant descriptions of life at Edward and Elizabeth's court, in which
the children seem to have played a big part. Also this from
Elizabeth's will:-
"Item where I haue no wordely goodes to do the Quenes grace my
derest doughter a pleaser with nether to reward any of my children
according to my hart and mynde. I besech' almyghty god to blisse here
grace with all her noble issue and with as good hart and mynde as is
to me posible I geue her grace my blesing and all the forsaide my
children . . . Item yf any of my bloode wilbie any of my saide stufe
or goodes to me perteyning I will that they have the prefermente be
fore any other."
Moving on from that, to assume that fifteenth century people are
inscrutable, so any old mad behaviour is not to be wondered at, is,
dare I suggest, cultural arrogance itself. It is actually not that
difficult to discern some of the shaping lines:
People often had to live quietly with, or under, those against whom
they had a great grudge. But given a change in the power structure,
the latent hostility got a chance to surface. We can all think of
examples. In the case of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset they seem
(after spring of 1484) to have been far more compicit in richard's
regime than they were ever to be in Henry's. Now that takes
explaining.
People did care about their children. I don't see Margaret of Anjou's
acceptance of Warwick's help, and Warwick's daughter for her son, as
exhibiting a lack of care for her son. She only really entered
politics after the birth Edward, and her whole raison d'etre had been
to ensure his succession. It probably wasn't that sudden a change,
anyway. Apparently Louis had put forward this idea some years
earlier, and had probably talked Margaret round a long time before
Warwick eventually washed up willing to play ball. She was very
protective of her son, and unwilling to let him cross to England
until things were considered safe.
Then of course, we all know of richard and Anne's reaction to the
dewaath of their son, and Clarence's to the death of his wife and
baby.
I can't even think of another case of a murdered child within the
upper echelons (unless you count Clarence's accusation against
ankarette Twynyho) - which perhaps shows how beyond the Pale this
was - but a young man murdered pretty callously was the elder brother
of the Sir Humphrey Stafford who mounted the rebellion in 1486. He
was killed by one of the Harcourts in about 1450 (the two parties had
crossed in the street, Harcourt had struck young Stafford with the
flat of his sword, the latter pulled a knife and made a lunge, but
stumbled, then one of Harcourt's men atabbed in the back). Daddy
Stafford responded by attacking Stanton Harcourt and setting fire to
the church tower where his enemy had taken refuge. Many years of
peace masked a festering grievance, and the two sides were at it
again during the Re-adeption. Humphrey's rise under Richard III may
have been the catalyst that prompted the Harourt of the day to join
Buckingham's Rebellion and then join Tudor. And it was probably the
Harcourt ascendacy after Bosworth that galvanised Sir Humphrey
Stafford to risk all in rebellion.
And just bear in mind how much of a tear-jerker the Slaughter of the
Innocents was for medievals. There was also a whole genre of weepie
fiction based around pathetic little orphan heirs turned out or done
away with by their evil guardians.
No, Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour for me does not fit the idea that
Richard came and gave her concrete proof early in 1484 that he had
successfully killed both her sons.
>
> we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to
barter your children for power positions.
That's modern language, and value judgements. "Worshipful" marriages
were what their parents wanted for them, ones which would maintain or
increase their social status. Love matches, if beneath one's
stations, were likely, in their eyes, to bring the family down and
prove unhappy when the gloss wore off. Guardians were enjoined not to
arrange "disparaging" marriages for their wards. It was all very
materialistic, and some families were colder and more abusive than
others in pairing their children off (one thinks immediately of the
Pastons). But at heart the families thought they were doing their
best by thei children.
>
> i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
eliz had two children by brandon.
>
> brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather
of lady jane grey.
>
> consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
henry stafford to katherine woodville.
>
> this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on
an emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
an understanding as to how any particular person might react
publically vs privately to an event such
as "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
The differences are as much about attitudes to marriage as attitudes
to children. Marriage for the propertied classes was a social
arrangement - it was what kept their society stuck together. Love
affairs were not necessarily outlawed but were expected to be kept in
their place.
>
> remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did
public penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea
what happened with morton.
Well, that's taking More's version of the events in the Tower as
Gospel. Though the information probably came from morton, Morton was
one of those accused, and any real conspiracy is not likely to have
been admitted. Richard's panicky letters north for troops just three
days earlier suggest it was not witchcraft that worried him.
Mistress Shore did penance for being a whore.
> ----------
> accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind
this? perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power
through her son e5.
> what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey
and vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings
know something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched
south to intercept e5 and company?
.
>
> b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt
to
> use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London
for
> coronation
I really don't think so. If Elizabeth wanted Edward IV dead, she'd
have waited till her son was old enough not to need a Propector, and
she'd have chosen a time when he was on hand in London for a speedy
coronation. He did isit the capital from time to time. The way it
happened actually made things very difficult for the Woodvilles.
> what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
protector on a permanent basis.
If only we knew!
>
> was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how
to pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in
law of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of
sibling george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play
the game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
>
> -----------------
> g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> divulges precontract story
> ------------------
> the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d.
of c was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman
about the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to
woodville occurred.
I've not read that before. There is no mention of it prior to June
1483. The idea that George knew of it, and was making capital out of
it, comes from the fact that a month or two after his death
Stillington was briefly slammed in the Tower for "uttering words
prejudicial to the King and his state". The problems are, though,
that:-
1) George's Act of Attainder actually says it was the story of Edward
IV's own illegitimacy George had been repeating
2) If George had made use of the story, Edward would have known
Stillington had squealed, and imprisoned him, rather earlier.
My suspicion is that it was the belief in his brother's illegitimacy
that continued to fuel George, and that after his execution
Stillington, knowing of this second impediment to Edward's line, felt
guilty and unburdened himself to someone who then told the King.
> was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting
that talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the
revelation of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also
witnesses talbot's will in june 1468. is this not about the same time
that the kingmaker abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
The woman said to have been married to Edward was Eleanor Talbot. The
real Lady Lucy was a Margaret, not an Elizabeth (see Hicks' Edward
V). Her husband was a Sir William Lucy, but he died in the wars, 1460
I think. She bore Edward IV a daughter, also Margaret. All told, she
had a very chequered sexual history and got involved in a precontract
scandal herself later, so who knows, perhaps Edward IV had done it to
her as well. Can you refresh my memory which Talbot it was that died
in 1468? Eleanor's father was the "Old Earl", who died at Castillon.
I'd be very interested to find out how this Lucy and Talbot connect
with Eleanor and Edward's Lady Lucy.
> -----------------
> h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> June 13th
> -----------
> i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my
brain cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding
them? i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or
recommend a search phrase so i can google for more info?
Two survive - one to the city of York, and one to Lord Neville. I'll
fish them out for you.
> ---------------------
> i) Gloucester claims crown
>
> j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> --------------
> was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
rapidly.
> -------------------
> k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> strictly contempory records don't say
> ----------
> ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
this occurred.
> -------------
> l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry
Elizabeth
> of York
> m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know)
for
> Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point
(not
> February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> -------------
> woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> ---------------------
> n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> eascape to richard, and brought back
> ----------
> glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more
hints/clues to events.
>
> as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
>
> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held
to ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the
top of my head here.
The Tudor story is that Richard got Lord Stanley to leave Strange
with him as a hostage, Richard ordered Stanley to join him &
threatened to behead Strange, but Stanley staunchly said he had
plenty of other sons to take his place. However, Strange survived and
historians have now started questioning whether Lord Stanley himself
was ever anywhere near Bosworth. The whole thing might have been made
up later to make Lord Stanley look a lot more pro-Tudor than he had
been, or even to excuse Strange being with Richard's camp.
> > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff
Hutton and
> taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> together with her sisters
> -------------------
> this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on
the "vow to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered
is..were they in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead,
why would they continue to hide?
> see question/comment Q.
I think it was probably known they were at Sheriff Hutton - Warwick
was there too.
> ---------------
> who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
Don't know, I'm afraid. It's only just been found in the same place
as richard and Anne's. It was mentioned in the last Ricardian
Bulletin.
> it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
I should say so. I think there's loads we don't know. And perhaps we
should come clean about it and keep open minds while we do more
digging. Just read any book on the period written before the mid
1970s and you'll see how things have changed - the identities, and
first names, of Edward's two famous mistresses "Jane Shore"
and "Elizabeth Lucy" both turned out to be complete bunk, for
instance. What else we think we know is actually bunk?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-27 00:26:11
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
> strong maternal instincts.
>
> No - most do, but a minority don't.
> I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on the
> subject of cultural differences.
I'd also to hark back to a orevious point about Elizabeth Woodville's
behavior, leaving conjectures about her emotional natire/state aside:
She took her daughters into sanctuary with her, then at Richard's
behest, she came out of sanctuary and gave them and their marriages
over to Richard, and she evidently did it willingly or without
protest. If not, she could have written to all her relatives, to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Pope, to Parliament, to Morton,
since she was in communication with him via Mistress Shore.
Evidently she did not. And she wrote to her son Dorset, urging him
to come back. She gave up all her bargaining power, in short.
She must have believed that Richard would not strip her of all her
property and holdings and force her into an abbey as a penniless
virtual prisoner. Another king did that. She must have trusted
Richard's word, and what sensible person would if she believed he had
had her sons killed? She can't have been devoid of both maternal
feelings and self-preservation.
Katy
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
> strong maternal instincts.
>
> No - most do, but a minority don't.
> I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on the
> subject of cultural differences.
I'd also to hark back to a orevious point about Elizabeth Woodville's
behavior, leaving conjectures about her emotional natire/state aside:
She took her daughters into sanctuary with her, then at Richard's
behest, she came out of sanctuary and gave them and their marriages
over to Richard, and she evidently did it willingly or without
protest. If not, she could have written to all her relatives, to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Pope, to Parliament, to Morton,
since she was in communication with him via Mistress Shore.
Evidently she did not. And she wrote to her son Dorset, urging him
to come back. She gave up all her bargaining power, in short.
She must have believed that Richard would not strip her of all her
property and holdings and force her into an abbey as a penniless
virtual prisoner. Another king did that. She must have trusted
Richard's word, and what sensible person would if she believed he had
had her sons killed? She can't have been devoid of both maternal
feelings and self-preservation.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-27 00:27:43
I certainly agree with what you are saying, and I wouldn't want to
suggest that Elizabeth Woodville lacked maternal instincts. My concern
is that we don't judge her actions by our standards. I don't think you
were doing that either.
As I believe you are stating, we just don't know enough about the people
and events to make definitive statements. The enigmas of this era are
what make it so compelling.
What will we do if all the mysteries pertaining to the Richard's era are
solved? We'll probably all become depressed or something. We'll have to
take up macrame or line dancing to get some structure into our lives.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
> strong maternal instincts.
>
> No - most do, but a minority don't.
> I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on the
> subject of cultural differences. I am very aware of these. Growing up
> in rational suburban England with a fairly elderly mother from the
> Gaelic fringes of Ireland was enough to teach me about that. In some
> ways she is an excellent introduction to the medieval era. She always
> regretted the end of arranged marriages, which happened when she was
> small, and did her best to arrange my own (to a degree, I would say,
> she succeeded). I was brought up with death, ghosts, heaven, hell &
> graveyards right there in the forefront of everyday life.
> She still finds certain aspects of modern English life very odd,
> often in ways I share. The lack of interest in family, for instance.
> I've found most of my English friends can't tell you anything past
> their grandparents & first cousins st most, unless they've actually
> researched their family tree. My mum's oral family history, on the
> other hand, goes back to before 1800, and third and fourth cousins
> are no difficulty.
>
> I've also had friends from very different cultures and religions,
> and, yes, I see what everyone's saying about the danger of
> transferring cultural assumptions on to 15th century people. I don't
> think I'm doing that, though. One thing I have learned, and that is
> that under the cultural clothing human beings are the same deep down.
> The women in the Andes don't pay too much attention to their babies
> for the same reason that in some cultures they are not named for a
> long time: not because loving your children is an affectation of our
> culture but just the opposite - because losing a child so so
> terribly, terribly hard. Cultural errors on this subject, on the
> other hand, are those like the modern cliche "no parent should ever
> have to bury a child", because (so the argument goes) it's the wrong
> order for things to happen in, an abberation. No one in the past, and
> no one now in the third World, would understand what you were talking
> about. I must admit I winced when those words were put into Theoden's
> mouth in the film of the Two Towers: Tolkien would never have made
> such a boo-boo. Childhood was always the commonest time of all to
> die. And males from warrior societies often traded their later years
> for a glorious name.
> But losing a child still hurt dreadfully - you can tell that by
> reading firsthand accounts of parents from previous eras.
>
> Less fond mothers there have always been - a problem of the maternal
> gene, perhaps, or an abusive upbringing. There are, however, several
> extant descriptions of life at Edward and Elizabeth's court, in which
> the children seem to have played a big part. Also this from
> Elizabeth's will:-
> "Item where I haue no wordely goodes to do the Quenes grace my
> derest doughter a pleaser with nether to reward any of my children
> according to my hart and mynde. I besech' almyghty god to blisse here
> grace with all her noble issue and with as good hart and mynde as is
> to me posible I geue her grace my blesing and all the forsaide my
> children . . . Item yf any of my bloode wilbie any of my saide stufe
> or goodes to me perteyning I will that they have the prefermente be
> fore any other."
>
> Moving on from that, to assume that fifteenth century people are
> inscrutable, so any old mad behaviour is not to be wondered at, is,
> dare I suggest, cultural arrogance itself. It is actually not that
> difficult to discern some of the shaping lines:
> People often had to live quietly with, or under, those against whom
> they had a great grudge. But given a change in the power structure,
> the latent hostility got a chance to surface. We can all think of
> examples. In the case of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset they seem
> (after spring of 1484) to have been far more compicit in richard's
> regime than they were ever to be in Henry's. Now that takes
> explaining.
> People did care about their children. I don't see Margaret of Anjou's
> acceptance of Warwick's help, and Warwick's daughter for her son, as
> exhibiting a lack of care for her son. She only really entered
> politics after the birth Edward, and her whole raison d'etre had been
> to ensure his succession. It probably wasn't that sudden a change,
> anyway. Apparently Louis had put forward this idea some years
> earlier, and had probably talked Margaret round a long time before
> Warwick eventually washed up willing to play ball. She was very
> protective of her son, and unwilling to let him cross to England
> until things were considered safe.
> Then of course, we all know of richard and Anne's reaction to the
> dewaath of their son, and Clarence's to the death of his wife and
> baby.
> I can't even think of another case of a murdered child within the
> upper echelons (unless you count Clarence's accusation against
> ankarette Twynyho) - which perhaps shows how beyond the Pale this
> was - but a young man murdered pretty callously was the elder brother
> of the Sir Humphrey Stafford who mounted the rebellion in 1486. He
> was killed by one of the Harcourts in about 1450 (the two parties had
> crossed in the street, Harcourt had struck young Stafford with the
> flat of his sword, the latter pulled a knife and made a lunge, but
> stumbled, then one of Harcourt's men atabbed in the back). Daddy
> Stafford responded by attacking Stanton Harcourt and setting fire to
> the church tower where his enemy had taken refuge. Many years of
> peace masked a festering grievance, and the two sides were at it
> again during the Re-adeption. Humphrey's rise under Richard III may
> have been the catalyst that prompted the Harourt of the day to join
> Buckingham's Rebellion and then join Tudor. And it was probably the
> Harcourt ascendacy after Bosworth that galvanised Sir Humphrey
> Stafford to risk all in rebellion.
>
> And just bear in mind how much of a tear-jerker the Slaughter of the
> Innocents was for medievals. There was also a whole genre of weepie
> fiction based around pathetic little orphan heirs turned out or done
> away with by their evil guardians.
>
> No, Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour for me does not fit the idea that
> Richard came and gave her concrete proof early in 1484 that he had
> successfully killed both her sons.
>
> >
> > we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to
> barter your children for power positions.
>
> That's modern language, and value judgements. "Worshipful" marriages
> were what their parents wanted for them, ones which would maintain or
> increase their social status. Love matches, if beneath one's
> stations, were likely, in their eyes, to bring the family down and
> prove unhappy when the gloss wore off. Guardians were enjoined not to
> arrange "disparaging" marriages for their wards. It was all very
> materialistic, and some families were colder and more abusive than
> others in pairing their children off (one thinks immediately of the
> Pastons). But at heart the families thought they were doing their
> best by thei children.
>
>
> >
> > i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> eliz had two children by brandon.
> >
> > brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather
> of lady jane grey.
> >
> > consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> henry stafford to katherine woodville.
> >
> > this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on
> an emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> publically vs privately to an event such
> as "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
>
> The differences are as much about attitudes to marriage as attitudes
> to children. Marriage for the propertied classes was a social
> arrangement - it was what kept their society stuck together. Love
> affairs were not necessarily outlawed but were expected to be kept in
> their place.
>
> >
> > remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did
> public penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea
> what happened with morton.
>
> Well, that's taking More's version of the events in the Tower as
> Gospel. Though the information probably came from morton, Morton was
> one of those accused, and any real conspiracy is not likely to have
> been admitted. Richard's panicky letters north for troops just three
> days earlier suggest it was not witchcraft that worried him.
> Mistress Shore did penance for being a whore.
>
>
> > ----------
> > accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind
> this? perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power
> through her son e5.
> > what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey
> and vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings
> know something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched
> south to intercept e5 and company?
>
>
> .
> >
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt
> to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London
> for
> > coronation
>
> I really don't think so. If Elizabeth wanted Edward IV dead, she'd
> have waited till her son was old enough not to need a Propector, and
> she'd have chosen a time when he was on hand in London for a speedy
> coronation. He did isit the capital from time to time. The way it
> happened actually made things very difficult for the Woodvilles.
>
> > what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> protector on a permanent basis.
>
> If only we knew!
> >
> > was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how
> to pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in
> law of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of
> sibling george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play
> the game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
> >
> > -----------------
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > ------------------
> > the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d.
> of c was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman
> about the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to
> woodville occurred.
>
> I've not read that before. There is no mention of it prior to June
> 1483. The idea that George knew of it, and was making capital out of
> it, comes from the fact that a month or two after his death
> Stillington was briefly slammed in the Tower for "uttering words
> prejudicial to the King and his state". The problems are, though,
> that:-
> 1) George's Act of Attainder actually says it was the story of Edward
> IV's own illegitimacy George had been repeating
> 2) If George had made use of the story, Edward would have known
> Stillington had squealed, and imprisoned him, rather earlier.
> My suspicion is that it was the belief in his brother's illegitimacy
> that continued to fuel George, and that after his execution
> Stillington, knowing of this second impediment to Edward's line, felt
> guilty and unburdened himself to someone who then told the King.
>
>
> > was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting
> that talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the
> revelation of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also
> witnesses talbot's will in june 1468. is this not about the same time
> that the kingmaker abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
>
> The woman said to have been married to Edward was Eleanor Talbot. The
> real Lady Lucy was a Margaret, not an Elizabeth (see Hicks' Edward
> V). Her husband was a Sir William Lucy, but he died in the wars, 1460
> I think. She bore Edward IV a daughter, also Margaret. All told, she
> had a very chequered sexual history and got involved in a precontract
> scandal herself later, so who knows, perhaps Edward IV had done it to
> her as well. Can you refresh my memory which Talbot it was that died
> in 1468? Eleanor's father was the "Old Earl", who died at Castillon.
> I'd be very interested to find out how this Lucy and Talbot connect
> with Eleanor and Edward's Lady Lucy.
>
>
> > -----------------
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > -----------
> > i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my
> brain cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding
> them? i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or
> recommend a search phrase so i can google for more info?
>
> Two survive - one to the city of York, and one to Lord Neville. I'll
> fish them out for you.
> > ---------------------
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> >
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > --------------
> > was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> rapidly.
> > -------------------
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > ----------
> > ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> this occurred.
> > -------------
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry
> Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know)
> for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point
> (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > -------------
> > woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> > what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> > ---------------------
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > ----------
> > glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more
> hints/clues to events.
> >
> > as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held
> to ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the
> top of my head here.
>
> The Tudor story is that Richard got Lord Stanley to leave Strange
> with him as a hostage, Richard ordered Stanley to join him &
> threatened to behead Strange, but Stanley staunchly said he had
> plenty of other sons to take his place. However, Strange survived and
> historians have now started questioning whether Lord Stanley himself
> was ever anywhere near Bosworth. The whole thing might have been made
> up later to make Lord Stanley look a lot more pro-Tudor than he had
> been, or even to excuse Strange being with Richard's camp.
>
>
> > > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff
> Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > -------------------
> > this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on
> the "vow to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered
> is..were they in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead,
> why would they continue to hide?
> > see question/comment Q.
>
> I think it was probably known they were at Sheriff Hutton - Warwick
> was there too.
>
> > ---------------
> > who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
>
> Don't know, I'm afraid. It's only just been found in the same place
> as richard and Anne's. It was mentioned in the last Ricardian
> Bulletin.
>
> > it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
>
> I should say so. I think there's loads we don't know. And perhaps we
> should come clean about it and keep open minds while we do more
> digging. Just read any book on the period written before the mid
> 1970s and you'll see how things have changed - the identities, and
> first names, of Edward's two famous mistresses "Jane Shore"
> and "Elizabeth Lucy" both turned out to be complete bunk, for
> instance. What else we think we know is actually bunk?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
suggest that Elizabeth Woodville lacked maternal instincts. My concern
is that we don't judge her actions by our standards. I don't think you
were doing that either.
As I believe you are stating, we just don't know enough about the people
and events to make definitive statements. The enigmas of this era are
what make it so compelling.
What will we do if all the mysteries pertaining to the Richard's era are
solved? We'll probably all become depressed or something. We'll have to
take up macrame or line dancing to get some structure into our lives.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
> strong maternal instincts.
>
> No - most do, but a minority don't.
> I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on the
> subject of cultural differences. I am very aware of these. Growing up
> in rational suburban England with a fairly elderly mother from the
> Gaelic fringes of Ireland was enough to teach me about that. In some
> ways she is an excellent introduction to the medieval era. She always
> regretted the end of arranged marriages, which happened when she was
> small, and did her best to arrange my own (to a degree, I would say,
> she succeeded). I was brought up with death, ghosts, heaven, hell &
> graveyards right there in the forefront of everyday life.
> She still finds certain aspects of modern English life very odd,
> often in ways I share. The lack of interest in family, for instance.
> I've found most of my English friends can't tell you anything past
> their grandparents & first cousins st most, unless they've actually
> researched their family tree. My mum's oral family history, on the
> other hand, goes back to before 1800, and third and fourth cousins
> are no difficulty.
>
> I've also had friends from very different cultures and religions,
> and, yes, I see what everyone's saying about the danger of
> transferring cultural assumptions on to 15th century people. I don't
> think I'm doing that, though. One thing I have learned, and that is
> that under the cultural clothing human beings are the same deep down.
> The women in the Andes don't pay too much attention to their babies
> for the same reason that in some cultures they are not named for a
> long time: not because loving your children is an affectation of our
> culture but just the opposite - because losing a child so so
> terribly, terribly hard. Cultural errors on this subject, on the
> other hand, are those like the modern cliche "no parent should ever
> have to bury a child", because (so the argument goes) it's the wrong
> order for things to happen in, an abberation. No one in the past, and
> no one now in the third World, would understand what you were talking
> about. I must admit I winced when those words were put into Theoden's
> mouth in the film of the Two Towers: Tolkien would never have made
> such a boo-boo. Childhood was always the commonest time of all to
> die. And males from warrior societies often traded their later years
> for a glorious name.
> But losing a child still hurt dreadfully - you can tell that by
> reading firsthand accounts of parents from previous eras.
>
> Less fond mothers there have always been - a problem of the maternal
> gene, perhaps, or an abusive upbringing. There are, however, several
> extant descriptions of life at Edward and Elizabeth's court, in which
> the children seem to have played a big part. Also this from
> Elizabeth's will:-
> "Item where I haue no wordely goodes to do the Quenes grace my
> derest doughter a pleaser with nether to reward any of my children
> according to my hart and mynde. I besech' almyghty god to blisse here
> grace with all her noble issue and with as good hart and mynde as is
> to me posible I geue her grace my blesing and all the forsaide my
> children . . . Item yf any of my bloode wilbie any of my saide stufe
> or goodes to me perteyning I will that they have the prefermente be
> fore any other."
>
> Moving on from that, to assume that fifteenth century people are
> inscrutable, so any old mad behaviour is not to be wondered at, is,
> dare I suggest, cultural arrogance itself. It is actually not that
> difficult to discern some of the shaping lines:
> People often had to live quietly with, or under, those against whom
> they had a great grudge. But given a change in the power structure,
> the latent hostility got a chance to surface. We can all think of
> examples. In the case of Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset they seem
> (after spring of 1484) to have been far more compicit in richard's
> regime than they were ever to be in Henry's. Now that takes
> explaining.
> People did care about their children. I don't see Margaret of Anjou's
> acceptance of Warwick's help, and Warwick's daughter for her son, as
> exhibiting a lack of care for her son. She only really entered
> politics after the birth Edward, and her whole raison d'etre had been
> to ensure his succession. It probably wasn't that sudden a change,
> anyway. Apparently Louis had put forward this idea some years
> earlier, and had probably talked Margaret round a long time before
> Warwick eventually washed up willing to play ball. She was very
> protective of her son, and unwilling to let him cross to England
> until things were considered safe.
> Then of course, we all know of richard and Anne's reaction to the
> dewaath of their son, and Clarence's to the death of his wife and
> baby.
> I can't even think of another case of a murdered child within the
> upper echelons (unless you count Clarence's accusation against
> ankarette Twynyho) - which perhaps shows how beyond the Pale this
> was - but a young man murdered pretty callously was the elder brother
> of the Sir Humphrey Stafford who mounted the rebellion in 1486. He
> was killed by one of the Harcourts in about 1450 (the two parties had
> crossed in the street, Harcourt had struck young Stafford with the
> flat of his sword, the latter pulled a knife and made a lunge, but
> stumbled, then one of Harcourt's men atabbed in the back). Daddy
> Stafford responded by attacking Stanton Harcourt and setting fire to
> the church tower where his enemy had taken refuge. Many years of
> peace masked a festering grievance, and the two sides were at it
> again during the Re-adeption. Humphrey's rise under Richard III may
> have been the catalyst that prompted the Harourt of the day to join
> Buckingham's Rebellion and then join Tudor. And it was probably the
> Harcourt ascendacy after Bosworth that galvanised Sir Humphrey
> Stafford to risk all in rebellion.
>
> And just bear in mind how much of a tear-jerker the Slaughter of the
> Innocents was for medievals. There was also a whole genre of weepie
> fiction based around pathetic little orphan heirs turned out or done
> away with by their evil guardians.
>
> No, Elizabeth Woodville's behaviour for me does not fit the idea that
> Richard came and gave her concrete proof early in 1484 that he had
> successfully killed both her sons.
>
> >
> > we are also dealing with an era where it wasn't uncommon to
> barter your children for power positions.
>
> That's modern language, and value judgements. "Worshipful" marriages
> were what their parents wanted for them, ones which would maintain or
> increase their social status. Love matches, if beneath one's
> stations, were likely, in their eyes, to bring the family down and
> prove unhappy when the gloss wore off. Guardians were enjoined not to
> arrange "disparaging" marriages for their wards. It was all very
> materialistic, and some families were colder and more abusive than
> others in pairing their children off (one thinks immediately of the
> Pastons). But at heart the families thought they were doing their
> best by thei children.
>
>
> >
> > i think of young elizabeth de grey b. 1505, betrothed to charles
> brandon, a middle aged social climbing womanizer. h8 granted/sold her
> guardianship to brandon. this included the d'lisle barony/title. eliz
> was about 8 years old when this occurred. it is also alleged little
> eliz had two children by brandon.
> >
> > brandon went on to marry h8's sister mary, and is the grandfather
> of lady jane grey.
> >
> > consider the marriage of richard of york jr to anne mowbray. or
> henry stafford to katherine woodville.
> >
> > this doesn't mean children weren't important to their parents on
> an emotional basis. it simply means there was a different cultural
> society and bond to offspring. we need to get past our modern
> attitudes and revert to medieval/renaissance politics to better grasp
> an understanding as to how any particular person might react
> publically vs privately to an event such
> as "death/murder/disappearance" of a child/ren.
>
> The differences are as much about attitudes to marriage as attitudes
> to children. Marriage for the propertied classes was a social
> arrangement - it was what kept their society stuck together. Love
> affairs were not necessarily outlawed but were expected to be kept in
> their place.
>
> >
> > remember ric iii accused woodville, morton, hastings and shore of
> witchcraft. hastings was executed for this "treason", shore did
> public penance, woodville was hiding in sanctuary, and i've no idea
> what happened with morton.
>
> Well, that's taking More's version of the events in the Tower as
> Gospel. Though the information probably came from morton, Morton was
> one of those accused, and any real conspiracy is not likely to have
> been admitted. Richard's panicky letters north for troops just three
> days earlier suggest it was not witchcraft that worried him.
> Mistress Shore did penance for being a whore.
>
>
> > ----------
> > accusations of poisoning too. could woodville have been behind
> this? perhaps tired of e4's womanising and wanting to seize power
> through her son e5.
> > what caused ric iii to do in woodville's brother, and son grey
> and vaughan. had they been involved in the poisoning? did hastings
> know something, and it was communicated to ric iii as he marched
> south to intercept e5 and company?
>
>
> .
> >
> > b) The Woodvilles withold the information from Richard and attempt
> to
> > use the breathing space to scoot the uncrowned boy-king to London
> for
> > coronation
>
> I really don't think so. If Elizabeth wanted Edward IV dead, she'd
> have waited till her son was old enough not to need a Propector, and
> she'd have chosen a time when he was on hand in London for a speedy
> coronation. He did isit the capital from time to time. The way it
> happened actually made things very difficult for the Woodvilles.
>
> > what events occurred to alert ric iii that something was a foul?
> perhaps hastings was revealed to be involved in the plot to do in e4,
> and it was a pretended friendship/alliance to draw ric iii to the
> uncrowned boy king. at which time the plot included removing the
> protector on a permanent basis.
>
> If only we knew!
> >
> > was ric a very astute player of this era's politics knowing how
> to pretend stupidity/ignorance to gain more facts? ric was the son in
> law of the kingmaker, the brother of king, and knew the errors of
> sibling george. moreover, he had witnessed cecily neville and her
> manipulations. ric lived in interesting times. one had better play
> the game well, if one wanted to keep one's head.
> >
> > -----------------
> > g) Duchess of Gloucester reaches London. Stillington maapparently
> > divulges precontract story
> > ------------------
> > the precontract story was out and about around the time geo, d.
> of c was offed. even cecily knew because she questioned a young woman
> about the precontract about the same time as e4's marriage to
> woodville occurred.
>
> I've not read that before. There is no mention of it prior to June
> 1483. The idea that George knew of it, and was making capital out of
> it, comes from the fact that a month or two after his death
> Stillington was briefly slammed in the Tower for "uttering words
> prejudicial to the King and his state". The problems are, though,
> that:-
> 1) George's Act of Attainder actually says it was the story of Edward
> IV's own illegitimacy George had been repeating
> 2) If George had made use of the story, Edward would have known
> Stillington had squealed, and imprisoned him, rather earlier.
> My suspicion is that it was the belief in his brother's illegitimacy
> that continued to fuel George, and that after his execution
> Stillington, knowing of this second impediment to Edward's line, felt
> guilty and unburdened himself to someone who then told the King.
>
>
> > was this woman eliz lucy or eleanor talbot. it is interesting
> that talbot heads for the nunnery at about the same time as the
> revelation of e4's marriage to woodville. a william lucy also
> witnesses talbot's will in june 1468. is this not about the same time
> that the kingmaker abandons e4? he was talbot's uncle by marriage.
>
> The woman said to have been married to Edward was Eleanor Talbot. The
> real Lady Lucy was a Margaret, not an Elizabeth (see Hicks' Edward
> V). Her husband was a Sir William Lucy, but he died in the wars, 1460
> I think. She bore Edward IV a daughter, also Margaret. All told, she
> had a very chequered sexual history and got involved in a precontract
> scandal herself later, so who knows, perhaps Edward IV had done it to
> her as well. Can you refresh my memory which Talbot it was that died
> in 1468? Eleanor's father was the "Old Earl", who died at Castillon.
> I'd be very interested to find out how this Lucy and Talbot connect
> with Eleanor and Edward's Lady Lucy.
>
>
> > -----------------
> > h) Gloucester's panicky letters to north, followed by the events of
> > June 13th
> > -----------
> > i'm not aware of the letters, or they haven't latched on to my
> brain cells until this moment. can you share a bit of info regarding
> them? i.e. who they were written to, and gist of the contents? or
> recommend a search phrase so i can google for more info?
>
> Two survive - one to the city of York, and one to Lord Neville. I'll
> fish them out for you.
> > ---------------------
> > i) Gloucester claims crown
> >
> > j) Rebellion organised in favour of Edward V
> > --------------
> > was it raised in favour of e5? i seem to recall reading about a
> brief insurrection in london to free the princes, but it was put down
> rapidly.
> > -------------------
> > k) Rebels told the princes have died. Rebellion breaks, led or
> > hijacked by Buckingham, whether in favour of himself or Henry Tudor
> > strictly contempory records don't say
> > ----------
> > ah yes, buck's rebellion. lots of unanswered questions as to why
> this occurred.
> > -------------
> > l) Christmas Day 1483 - Henry Tudor publicly vows to marry
> Elizabeth
> > of York
> > m) Spring 1484 - A papal dispensation is issued (as we now know)
> for
> > Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth. He plainly plans to invade that
> > summer, and either Elizabeth Woodville OR her family in exile with
> > Tudor appear to have been all for it at the time the petition was
> > drafted and sent on its way towards Rome. However, at this point
> (not
> > February, as recently stated on forum, but around Easter) Elizabeth
> > Woodville releases all her daughters into Richard's custody
> > -------------
> > woodville must have had some faith in ric to do this. remember he
> had slandered her with witchcraft. did she have more trust in him,
> than her future tudor/beaufort/stanley in-law/relatives? if so, why?
> > what is known about woodville's interaction with margaret
> beaufort/tudor? or possible 3rd party/go betweens.
> > ---------------------
> > n) Early 1485 - Dorset caught by an agent of Tudor's trying to
> > eascape to richard, and brought back
> > ----------
> > glad i'm hanging out here, because i'm picking up more
> hints/clues to events.
> >
> > as an aside, i think we should also look at the holding of
> sons/relatives as guarantees of good behaviour by relatives suspected
> of "untrustworthy" to glean a better understanding of how parents
> reacted to dead/missing children and/or threats of death/injury.
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't lord stanley's son get held
> to ensure stanley's support at bosworth? then the son escaped,
> essentially sealing ric iii's fate? i'm responding mostly from the
> top of my head here.
>
> The Tudor story is that Richard got Lord Stanley to leave Strange
> with him as a hostage, Richard ordered Stanley to join him &
> threatened to behead Strange, but Stanley staunchly said he had
> plenty of other sons to take his place. However, Strange survived and
> historians have now started questioning whether Lord Stanley himself
> was ever anywhere near Bosworth. The whole thing might have been made
> up later to make Lord Stanley look a lot more pro-Tudor than he had
> been, or even to excuse Strange being with Richard's camp.
>
>
> > > p) Henry wins Bosworth. Elizabeth of York found at Sheriff
> Hutton and
> > taken to household of Henry's mother, where she apparently remains
> > together with her sisters
> > -------------------
> > this to me indicates e of y and family weren't too keen on
> the "vow to marry" by h7. the question that begs to be answered
> is..were they in hiding or had they been hidden. with ric iii dead,
> why would they continue to hide?
> > see question/comment Q.
>
> I think it was probably known they were at Sheriff Hutton - Warwick
> was there too.
>
> > ---------------
> > who are the witnesses/signatories to first dispensation?
>
> Don't know, I'm afraid. It's only just been found in the same place
> as richard and Anne's. It was mentioned in the last Ricardian
> Bulletin.
>
> > it would appear woodville was not particularily supportive of h7.
> that there was a lot of background politics we aren't privvy too..yet.
>
> I should say so. I think there's loads we don't know. And perhaps we
> should come clean about it and keep open minds while we do more
> digging. Just read any book on the period written before the mid
> 1970s and you'll see how things have changed - the identities, and
> first names, of Edward's two famous mistresses "Jane Shore"
> and "Elizabeth Lucy" both turned out to be complete bunk, for
> instance. What else we think we know is actually bunk?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-27 04:26:39
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> What will we do if all the mysteries pertaining to the Richard's era
are
> solved? We'll probably all become depressed or something. We'll have
to
> take up macrame or line dancing to get some structure into our lives.
Wonderful image! May I steal that line?
Katy
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> What will we do if all the mysteries pertaining to the Richard's era
are
> solved? We'll probably all become depressed or something. We'll have
to
> take up macrame or line dancing to get some structure into our lives.
Wonderful image! May I steal that line?
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-27 09:09:22
Sure.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
>
> > What will we do if all the mysteries pertaining to the Richard's era
> are
> > solved? We'll probably all become depressed or something. We'll have
> to
> > take up macrame or line dancing to get some structure into our lives.
>
>
> Wonderful image! May I steal that line?
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
>
> > What will we do if all the mysteries pertaining to the Richard's era
> are
> > solved? We'll probably all become depressed or something. We'll have
> to
> > take up macrame or line dancing to get some structure into our lives.
>
>
> Wonderful image! May I steal that line?
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-27 20:23:52
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
> > strong maternal instincts.
> >
> > No - most do, but a minority don't.
> > I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on
the
> > subject of cultural differences.
>
>
> I'd also to hark back to a orevious point about Elizabeth
Woodville's
> behavior, leaving conjectures about her emotional natire/state
aside:
>
> She took her daughters into sanctuary with her, then at Richard's
> behest, she came out of sanctuary and gave them and their marriages
> over to Richard, and she evidently did it willingly or without
> protest. If not, she could have written to all her relatives, to
the
> Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Pope, to Parliament, to Morton,
> since she was in communication with him via Mistress Shore.
> Evidently she did not. And she wrote to her son Dorset, urging
him
> to come back. She gave up all her bargaining power, in short.
>
> She must have believed that Richard would not strip her of all her
> property and holdings and force her into an abbey as a penniless
> virtual prisoner. Another king did that. She must have trusted
> Richard's word, and what sensible person would if she believed he
had
> had her sons killed? She can't have been devoid of both maternal
> feelings and self-preservation.
>
> Katy
Thanks. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. And this lady
was no idiot.
Also, just thought of another 15th century doting mum - Margaret
Beaufort.
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > yes, i have children, but i also know, not every woman has
> > strong maternal instincts.
> >
> > No - most do, but a minority don't.
> > I'd like at the point to respond to some of the later posts on
the
> > subject of cultural differences.
>
>
> I'd also to hark back to a orevious point about Elizabeth
Woodville's
> behavior, leaving conjectures about her emotional natire/state
aside:
>
> She took her daughters into sanctuary with her, then at Richard's
> behest, she came out of sanctuary and gave them and their marriages
> over to Richard, and she evidently did it willingly or without
> protest. If not, she could have written to all her relatives, to
the
> Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Pope, to Parliament, to Morton,
> since she was in communication with him via Mistress Shore.
> Evidently she did not. And she wrote to her son Dorset, urging
him
> to come back. She gave up all her bargaining power, in short.
>
> She must have believed that Richard would not strip her of all her
> property and holdings and force her into an abbey as a penniless
> virtual prisoner. Another king did that. She must have trusted
> Richard's word, and what sensible person would if she believed he
had
> had her sons killed? She can't have been devoid of both maternal
> feelings and self-preservation.
>
> Katy
Thanks. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. And this lady
was no idiot.
Also, just thought of another 15th century doting mum - Margaret
Beaufort.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 11:42:18
I have been away for the past week and am just now catching up with my emails.
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
children of their own?
2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
rebellion to the autumn of 1484.
No, I do not have any children. My approach to the point Marie made is quite simply that I cannot see why a mother would be 'totally grossed-out' (new expression to me) about the murder of her child sons yet somewhat uninterested in the judicial murder (since that was what it amounted to) of another son just because he was an adult. Admittedly, it seems to me that it is a not-uncommon phenomenon for parents (more often fathers but sometimes mothers) to lose interest in their elder children once the younger arrive, particularly if they come from different marriages, and perhaps Richard Grey was not a very loveable individual.... But if maternal love is so all-encompassing and so powerful it surely doesn't run out as soon as a son or daughter reaches adulthood.
No, I am not a mother, but reaching an accommodation which involved putting her minor daughters into the power of the man responsible for her adult son's death, and a bare six months after that death, seems rather unfeeling to me, even by the calculating standards of medieval nobility.
As to Rivers's death, I have never been on good terms with my brother (a bit less than three years younger than I am) but I would certainly not treat his death in indifferent fashion.
Ann Lyon
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Hi all,
Just got back from hiatus. One or two points:-
1) Can Anne (Lyon?) and our other lister not convinced that Elizabeth
woodville would probably have been totally grossed out by murder of
young sons just let us know - plain yes or no, please - do they have
children of their own?
2) I'm not writing out human reactions. Unfortuantley, the simple,
neat style of historical argument I was addressing seemed to demand
an equally neat solution. Of course neat rules like that never
successfully take account of human emotions. The posts I was
reesponding to certainly didn't/. It's a matter or degree, isn't it?
The fact that Elizabeth eventually lived with Richard's execution of
Rivers and Grey doesn't mean she would or could have "lived with" the
murder of her child sons. She appears to have made common cause with
Tudor and then changed her mind just a oule of months before he was
expeced to invade. This takes some explaining, and psossibly accounts
for the Tudor chroniclers' insistent misdating of Buckinghmas
rebellion to the autumn of 1484.
No, I do not have any children. My approach to the point Marie made is quite simply that I cannot see why a mother would be 'totally grossed-out' (new expression to me) about the murder of her child sons yet somewhat uninterested in the judicial murder (since that was what it amounted to) of another son just because he was an adult. Admittedly, it seems to me that it is a not-uncommon phenomenon for parents (more often fathers but sometimes mothers) to lose interest in their elder children once the younger arrive, particularly if they come from different marriages, and perhaps Richard Grey was not a very loveable individual.... But if maternal love is so all-encompassing and so powerful it surely doesn't run out as soon as a son or daughter reaches adulthood.
No, I am not a mother, but reaching an accommodation which involved putting her minor daughters into the power of the man responsible for her adult son's death, and a bare six months after that death, seems rather unfeeling to me, even by the calculating standards of medieval nobility.
As to Rivers's death, I have never been on good terms with my brother (a bit less than three years younger than I am) but I would certainly not treat his death in indifferent fashion.
Ann Lyon
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 14:08:13
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
> No, I do not have any children. My approach to the point Marie made is quite simply
that I cannot see why a mother would be 'totally grossed-out' (new expression to me)
about the murder of her child sons yet somewhat uninterested in the judicial murder
(since that was what it amounted to) of another son just because he was an adult.
Admittedly, it seems to me that it is a not-uncommon phenomenon for parents (more
often fathers but sometimes mothers) to lose interest in their elder children once the
younger arrive, particularly if they come from different marriages, and perhaps Richard
Grey was not a very loveable individual.... But if maternal love is so all-encompassing and
so powerful it surely doesn't run out as soon as a son or daughter reaches adulthood.
Well I am a mum and I can assure you maternal love does not run out when your children
reach adulthood.
You are assuming EW was 'somewhat uninterested' in the death of her older son - how do
you know that?? - have her feelings on the matter been recorded? we cannot possibly
know what what went through EW's head
> No, I am not a mother, but reaching an accommodation which involved putting her
minor daughters into the power of the man responsible for her adult son's death, and a
bare six months after that death, seems rather unfeeling to me, even by the calculating
standards of medieval nobility.
EW knew full well she could not, along with her daughers, remain in sanctuary forever (yes
I know I am repeating myself here!) But she did not emerge until Richard made a promise
to his council that he would no way harm them and make good marriages for them. For
all we know rather than her being 'unfeeling' about the situation she may have been
absolutely seething inwardly. Her choices were rather limited, in fact she had no choice.
She would have known the death of Grey was a fair cop anyway - I think she was extremely
lucky she wasnt locked up and the key thrown away.
> As to Rivers's death, I have never been on good terms with my brother (a bit less than
three years younger than I am) but I would certainly not treat his death in indifferent
fashion.
Again, EW's thoughts regarding her brother's death have not come down to us - I dont see
how you can assume she was indifferent.
Eileen
>
> Ann Lyon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, I do not have any children. My approach to the point Marie made is quite simply
that I cannot see why a mother would be 'totally grossed-out' (new expression to me)
about the murder of her child sons yet somewhat uninterested in the judicial murder
(since that was what it amounted to) of another son just because he was an adult.
Admittedly, it seems to me that it is a not-uncommon phenomenon for parents (more
often fathers but sometimes mothers) to lose interest in their elder children once the
younger arrive, particularly if they come from different marriages, and perhaps Richard
Grey was not a very loveable individual.... But if maternal love is so all-encompassing and
so powerful it surely doesn't run out as soon as a son or daughter reaches adulthood.
Well I am a mum and I can assure you maternal love does not run out when your children
reach adulthood.
You are assuming EW was 'somewhat uninterested' in the death of her older son - how do
you know that?? - have her feelings on the matter been recorded? we cannot possibly
know what what went through EW's head
> No, I am not a mother, but reaching an accommodation which involved putting her
minor daughters into the power of the man responsible for her adult son's death, and a
bare six months after that death, seems rather unfeeling to me, even by the calculating
standards of medieval nobility.
EW knew full well she could not, along with her daughers, remain in sanctuary forever (yes
I know I am repeating myself here!) But she did not emerge until Richard made a promise
to his council that he would no way harm them and make good marriages for them. For
all we know rather than her being 'unfeeling' about the situation she may have been
absolutely seething inwardly. Her choices were rather limited, in fact she had no choice.
She would have known the death of Grey was a fair cop anyway - I think she was extremely
lucky she wasnt locked up and the key thrown away.
> As to Rivers's death, I have never been on good terms with my brother (a bit less than
three years younger than I am) but I would certainly not treat his death in indifferent
fashion.
Again, EW's thoughts regarding her brother's death have not come down to us - I dont see
how you can assume she was indifferent.
Eileen
>
> Ann Lyon
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 15:00:13
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: I agree that she could not have remained in sanctuary for ever, but getting out of sanctuary did not necessarily mean her daughters gracing the court. Could they not have gone to live somewhere in the country? admittedly, it could be argued that Elizabeth Woodville might have decided that she and her daughters were safer in the public eye. But, repeating myself, Richard Grey's execution was legally very dubious, and despite promises in council it would surely take quite a lot for Elizabeth Woodville to trust Richard III after that. And don't forget that the Countess of Warwick seems to have stayed in sanctuary at Beaulieu for a good two years, a lot longer than La Woodville.
EW knew full well she could not, along with her daughers, remain in sanctuary forever (yes
I know I am repeating myself here!) But she did not emerge until Richard made a promise
to his council that he would no way harm them and make good marriages for them. For
all we know rather than her being 'unfeeling' about the situation she may have been
absolutely seething inwardly. Her choices were rather limited, in fact she had no choice.
'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking to kill Richard or at least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does not necessarily mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly rational logic? After all, in the modern age at least there are numerous examples of parents refusing to accpt that their offspring are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where the evidence is overwhelming. I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth Woodville's situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with fire at the very least, but I can't help thinking that that would take a matter of years rather than a few months.
She would have known the death of Grey was a fair cop anyway - I think she was extremely
lucky she wasnt locked up and the key thrown away.
Ann
EW knew full well she could not, along with her daughers, remain in sanctuary forever (yes
I know I am repeating myself here!) But she did not emerge until Richard made a promise
to his council that he would no way harm them and make good marriages for them. For
all we know rather than her being 'unfeeling' about the situation she may have been
absolutely seething inwardly. Her choices were rather limited, in fact she had no choice.
'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking to kill Richard or at least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does not necessarily mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly rational logic? After all, in the modern age at least there are numerous examples of parents refusing to accpt that their offspring are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where the evidence is overwhelming. I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth Woodville's situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with fire at the very least, but I can't help thinking that that would take a matter of years rather than a few months.
She would have known the death of Grey was a fair cop anyway - I think she was extremely
lucky she wasnt locked up and the key thrown away.
Ann
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 17:55:12
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote: I agree that she could not have remained in
sanctuary for ever, but getting out of sanctuary did not necessarily mean her daughters
gracing the court. Could they not have gone to live somewhere in the country?
"La Woodville' - I love it! henceforth thats what Im going to call her.
What you say about her daughters gracing the Court - it is precisely because this
happened I am convinced Richard had not harmed the 2 boy princes - that he gave her an
explanation of their whereabout/continuing survival. Then her actions become more
understandable, i.e. writing to Dorset telling him to return.
admittedly, it could be argued that Elizabeth Woodville might have decided that she and
her daughters were safer in the public eye. But, repeating myself, Richard Grey's execution
was legally very dubious, and despite promises in council it would surely take quite a lot
for Elizabeth Woodville to trust Richard III after that.
Regarding Greys execution, possibly she loathed Richard because of this, maybe never
forgave him, who knows, but on the other hand maybe she knew she could still TRUST him
- knew Richard was a man of his word - &, after all he did keep his word, never harmed
them. Amarriage was made for Cecily and, I learnt from Marie's recent posting that a
marriage was being arrenged for Elizabeth. Possibly she could come to terms/accept
Grey's execution, an adult, playing with fire, whilst at the same time feeling grief. It would
appear she loved her family, they sound more clannish to me than the Waltons. She
certainly sought and got them titles, wealth, grand marriages etc., etc.,
'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking to kill Richard or at
least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does not necessarily
mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
rational logic?
Richard evidently thought this - consider his sudden & urgent letter to the city of York
asking for reinforcements on the10 June "the Queen her blood adherents and affinity
which have intended and daily doth intend to murder & utterly destroy us & our cousin the
D of B and the old royal blood of this realm" - this sounds like a man who has just
received some shocking news - this letter speaks volumes dont you think?
Grey's and Rivers executions may have been legally dubious, I really couldnt comment on
that as I dont have a clue about that one, but, they were understandable. I think it was a
kill or get killed situation - on the whole I think Richard did not execute enough people -
why he let Morton & Stanley live I dont know - perhaps he couldnt get hold of him
(Morton). Margaret Beaufort - definitely should never have been free woman again. I
think he was very restrained considering some of the stuff that went on in that period.
Didnt his brother Edward have men dragged out of Santuary & executed (Tewkesbury??).
After all, in the modern age at least there are numerous examples of parents refusing to
accpt that their offspring are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where
the evidence is overwhelming. I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth
Woodville's situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with fire at the
very least, but I can't help thinking that that would take a matter of years rather than a few
months.
Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and her daughters
attended court - anyone know?
Eileen
>
>
> She would have known the death of Grey was a fair cop anyway - I think she was
extremely
> lucky she wasnt locked up and the key thrown away.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote: I agree that she could not have remained in
sanctuary for ever, but getting out of sanctuary did not necessarily mean her daughters
gracing the court. Could they not have gone to live somewhere in the country?
"La Woodville' - I love it! henceforth thats what Im going to call her.
What you say about her daughters gracing the Court - it is precisely because this
happened I am convinced Richard had not harmed the 2 boy princes - that he gave her an
explanation of their whereabout/continuing survival. Then her actions become more
understandable, i.e. writing to Dorset telling him to return.
admittedly, it could be argued that Elizabeth Woodville might have decided that she and
her daughters were safer in the public eye. But, repeating myself, Richard Grey's execution
was legally very dubious, and despite promises in council it would surely take quite a lot
for Elizabeth Woodville to trust Richard III after that.
Regarding Greys execution, possibly she loathed Richard because of this, maybe never
forgave him, who knows, but on the other hand maybe she knew she could still TRUST him
- knew Richard was a man of his word - &, after all he did keep his word, never harmed
them. Amarriage was made for Cecily and, I learnt from Marie's recent posting that a
marriage was being arrenged for Elizabeth. Possibly she could come to terms/accept
Grey's execution, an adult, playing with fire, whilst at the same time feeling grief. It would
appear she loved her family, they sound more clannish to me than the Waltons. She
certainly sought and got them titles, wealth, grand marriages etc., etc.,
'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking to kill Richard or at
least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does not necessarily
mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
rational logic?
Richard evidently thought this - consider his sudden & urgent letter to the city of York
asking for reinforcements on the10 June "the Queen her blood adherents and affinity
which have intended and daily doth intend to murder & utterly destroy us & our cousin the
D of B and the old royal blood of this realm" - this sounds like a man who has just
received some shocking news - this letter speaks volumes dont you think?
Grey's and Rivers executions may have been legally dubious, I really couldnt comment on
that as I dont have a clue about that one, but, they were understandable. I think it was a
kill or get killed situation - on the whole I think Richard did not execute enough people -
why he let Morton & Stanley live I dont know - perhaps he couldnt get hold of him
(Morton). Margaret Beaufort - definitely should never have been free woman again. I
think he was very restrained considering some of the stuff that went on in that period.
Didnt his brother Edward have men dragged out of Santuary & executed (Tewkesbury??).
After all, in the modern age at least there are numerous examples of parents refusing to
accpt that their offspring are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where
the evidence is overwhelming. I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth
Woodville's situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with fire at the
very least, but I can't help thinking that that would take a matter of years rather than a few
months.
Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and her daughters
attended court - anyone know?
Eileen
>
>
> She would have known the death of Grey was a fair cop anyway - I think she was
extremely
> lucky she wasnt locked up and the key thrown away.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 21:18:45
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote: I agree that she could not
have remained in sanctuary for ever, but getting out of sanctuary did
not necessarily mean her daughters gracing the court. Could they not
have gone to live somewhere in the country? admittedly, it could be
argued that Elizabeth Woodville might have decided that she and her
daughters were safer in the public eye. But, repeating myself,
Richard Grey's execution was legally very dubious, and despite
promises in council it would surely take quite a lot for Elizabeth
Woodville to trust Richard III after that. And don't forget that the
Countess of Warwick seems to have stayed in sanctuary at Beaulieu for
a good two years, a lot longer than La Woodville.
Actually, the Countess of Warwick stayed in sanctuary because Edward
wouldn't let her out. She complained like hell about it.
I'm not, Eileen, inferring that Elizabeth didn't mind about the
execution of Richard Grey. I am a mother, and no you never stop
loving your children, but there is a huge difference in the level of
protectiveness you feel when they're young - because they're
innocent. And that's a view that was deeply held in the Middle Ages -
that children did not have the understanding to be guilty of sin. I
personally believe the Woodvilles had been attempting to destroy
Richard, and that the reason was the story of Edward IV's
illegitimacy. Hence the big rush to get Edward V crowned. So even if
Grey's crime was dubious treason, it was pretty fair attempted murder.
>
>
> EW knew full well she could not, along with her daughers, remain
in sanctuary forever (yes
> I know I am repeating myself here!) But she did not emerge until
Richard made a promise
> to his council that he would no way harm them and make good
marriages for them. For
> all we know rather than her being 'unfeeling' about the situation
she may have been
> absolutely seething inwardly. Her choices were rather limited, in
fact she had no choice.
>
>
> 'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were
seeking to kill Richard or at least remove him as Protector. Quite
possibly they were, but this does not necessarily mean that Elizabeth
Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
rational logic? After all, in the modern age at least there are
numerous examples of parents refusing to accpt that their offspring
are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where the
evidence is overwhelming.
Yes, mothers do find it hard to believe their children guilty of
cimes, but not when they've put them up to it.
Elizabeth's choices were limited - between doing a deal with Richard
and waiting for Tudor. The point I'm making is that she changed her
mind on that one in a way that is not explained by the known facts.
Please don't write her off as an unfeeling mother to explain it - she
wasn't. That for me is a given from all that I know of her*. She just
decided Richard was, as I put it before, the lesser of two evils. I
also suspect disappearing with her daughters to some place safe from
richard's vigilance would not have been an option.
*Just remember her hatred of Warwick for the executions of her father
and brother.
I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth Woodville's
situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with
fire at the very least, but I can't help thinking that that would
take a matter of years rather than a few months.
If you believe she was such an accommodating lady, what is your
explanation for slight role distance (to be euphemistic about it)
maintained between her & Dorset and Henry VII?
Marie
wrote:
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote: I agree that she could not
have remained in sanctuary for ever, but getting out of sanctuary did
not necessarily mean her daughters gracing the court. Could they not
have gone to live somewhere in the country? admittedly, it could be
argued that Elizabeth Woodville might have decided that she and her
daughters were safer in the public eye. But, repeating myself,
Richard Grey's execution was legally very dubious, and despite
promises in council it would surely take quite a lot for Elizabeth
Woodville to trust Richard III after that. And don't forget that the
Countess of Warwick seems to have stayed in sanctuary at Beaulieu for
a good two years, a lot longer than La Woodville.
Actually, the Countess of Warwick stayed in sanctuary because Edward
wouldn't let her out. She complained like hell about it.
I'm not, Eileen, inferring that Elizabeth didn't mind about the
execution of Richard Grey. I am a mother, and no you never stop
loving your children, but there is a huge difference in the level of
protectiveness you feel when they're young - because they're
innocent. And that's a view that was deeply held in the Middle Ages -
that children did not have the understanding to be guilty of sin. I
personally believe the Woodvilles had been attempting to destroy
Richard, and that the reason was the story of Edward IV's
illegitimacy. Hence the big rush to get Edward V crowned. So even if
Grey's crime was dubious treason, it was pretty fair attempted murder.
>
>
> EW knew full well she could not, along with her daughers, remain
in sanctuary forever (yes
> I know I am repeating myself here!) But she did not emerge until
Richard made a promise
> to his council that he would no way harm them and make good
marriages for them. For
> all we know rather than her being 'unfeeling' about the situation
she may have been
> absolutely seething inwardly. Her choices were rather limited, in
fact she had no choice.
>
>
> 'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were
seeking to kill Richard or at least remove him as Protector. Quite
possibly they were, but this does not necessarily mean that Elizabeth
Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
rational logic? After all, in the modern age at least there are
numerous examples of parents refusing to accpt that their offspring
are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where the
evidence is overwhelming.
Yes, mothers do find it hard to believe their children guilty of
cimes, but not when they've put them up to it.
Elizabeth's choices were limited - between doing a deal with Richard
and waiting for Tudor. The point I'm making is that she changed her
mind on that one in a way that is not explained by the known facts.
Please don't write her off as an unfeeling mother to explain it - she
wasn't. That for me is a given from all that I know of her*. She just
decided Richard was, as I put it before, the lesser of two evils. I
also suspect disappearing with her daughters to some place safe from
richard's vigilance would not have been an option.
*Just remember her hatred of Warwick for the executions of her father
and brother.
I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth Woodville's
situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with
fire at the very least, but I can't help thinking that that would
take a matter of years rather than a few months.
If you believe she was such an accommodating lady, what is your
explanation for slight role distance (to be euphemistic about it)
maintained between her & Dorset and Henry VII?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 23:15:46
--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> ->
>>
> I'm not, Eileen, inferring that Elizabeth didn't mind about the
> execution of Richard Grey.
no I never thought that Marie
I am a mother, and no you never stop
> loving your children, but there is a huge difference in the level of
> protectiveness you feel when they're young - because they're
> innocent. And that's a view that was deeply held in the Middle Ages -
> that children did not have the understanding to be guilty of sin
Exactly - Sir Thomas More in his History of Richard lll describes the two princes as' these
sely (innocent) children' - of course Sir Thomas' work is fiction and riddled with
inaccuracies - a load of codswollop actually - surprise, surprise, he spent his childhood
in the household of that odious creep, Morton (honestly I really hate this man!) - my point
being that in Tudor England, with all its inherent harshnesses children were regarded as
innocents. Wasnt one of the accusation hurled at Richard (after his death & betrayal at
Bosworth) that he had shedded innocents blood. As to who these innocents were - well
they didnt say - spect that were scared if they named actual names they might eventually
might pop up alive and well and give them the lie. In any case as the boys were still alive
(I am totally convinced on this) there would have been no reason for the delightful
Elizabeth to go through the throes of grief a mother would feel on the deaths of young
children. Although of course, I would have thought it was an ongoing sadness to have
them suddenly ripped out of your life, with no proper goodbyes etc., That she knew that,
at least one of the survived, is evident from her involvement in the Lambert Simmnel
uprising. It was fortunate for Elizabeth that she didnt live long enought to see 'Perkin
Warbeck' executed. La Woodville was a woman who evidently took the most hugest of
gambles throughout her life - which was a mixture of great triumphs and great tragedies.
I personally believe the Woodvilles had been attempting to destroy
> Richard, and that the reason was the story of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy. Hence the big rush to get Edward V crowned. So even if
> Grey's crime was dubious treason, it was pretty fair attempted murder.
I think the getting rid of Richard would have been at the front of their minds. When their
plots went pear shaped La Woodville couldnt get into santuary quick enough, taking so
much stuff with her they had to knock down walls to get it in - Dorset, after dividing the
Royal treasure between himself & his mother took ship to France - what an absolute wimp!
They knew they had been well and truely rumbled!
> >
>> > 'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were
> seeking to kill Richard or at least remove him as Protector. Quite
> possibly they were, but this does not necessarily mean that Elizabeth
> Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
> rational logic? After all, in the modern age at least there are
> numerous examples of parents refusing to accpt that their offspring
> are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where the
> evidence is overwhelming.
>
> Yes, mothers do find it hard to believe their children guilty of
> cimes, but not when they've put them up to it.
Right on - in fact possibly Elizabeth felt guilt - if she hadnt been so craven neither Rivers
or Grey would have been in the position which resulted in them getting the chop!
Eileen
>
> Elizabeth's choices were limited - between doing a deal with Richard
> and waiting for Tudor. The point I'm making is that she changed her
> mind on that one in a way that is not explained by the known facts.
> Please don't write her off as an unfeeling mother to explain it - she
> wasn't. That for me is a given from all that I know of her*. She just
> decided Richard was, as I put it before, the lesser of two evils. I
> also suspect disappearing with her daughters to some place safe from
> richard's vigilance would not have been an option.
> *Just remember her hatred of Warwick for the executions of her father
> and brother.
>
> I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth Woodville's
> situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with
> fire at the very least, but I can't help thinking that that would
> take a matter of years rather than a few months.
>
> If you believe she was such an accommodating lady, what is your
> explanation for slight role distance (to be euphemistic about it)
> maintained between her & Dorset and Henry VII?
>
> Marie
>
>
> ->
>>
> I'm not, Eileen, inferring that Elizabeth didn't mind about the
> execution of Richard Grey.
no I never thought that Marie
I am a mother, and no you never stop
> loving your children, but there is a huge difference in the level of
> protectiveness you feel when they're young - because they're
> innocent. And that's a view that was deeply held in the Middle Ages -
> that children did not have the understanding to be guilty of sin
Exactly - Sir Thomas More in his History of Richard lll describes the two princes as' these
sely (innocent) children' - of course Sir Thomas' work is fiction and riddled with
inaccuracies - a load of codswollop actually - surprise, surprise, he spent his childhood
in the household of that odious creep, Morton (honestly I really hate this man!) - my point
being that in Tudor England, with all its inherent harshnesses children were regarded as
innocents. Wasnt one of the accusation hurled at Richard (after his death & betrayal at
Bosworth) that he had shedded innocents blood. As to who these innocents were - well
they didnt say - spect that were scared if they named actual names they might eventually
might pop up alive and well and give them the lie. In any case as the boys were still alive
(I am totally convinced on this) there would have been no reason for the delightful
Elizabeth to go through the throes of grief a mother would feel on the deaths of young
children. Although of course, I would have thought it was an ongoing sadness to have
them suddenly ripped out of your life, with no proper goodbyes etc., That she knew that,
at least one of the survived, is evident from her involvement in the Lambert Simmnel
uprising. It was fortunate for Elizabeth that she didnt live long enought to see 'Perkin
Warbeck' executed. La Woodville was a woman who evidently took the most hugest of
gambles throughout her life - which was a mixture of great triumphs and great tragedies.
I personally believe the Woodvilles had been attempting to destroy
> Richard, and that the reason was the story of Edward IV's
> illegitimacy. Hence the big rush to get Edward V crowned. So even if
> Grey's crime was dubious treason, it was pretty fair attempted murder.
I think the getting rid of Richard would have been at the front of their minds. When their
plots went pear shaped La Woodville couldnt get into santuary quick enough, taking so
much stuff with her they had to knock down walls to get it in - Dorset, after dividing the
Royal treasure between himself & his mother took ship to France - what an absolute wimp!
They knew they had been well and truely rumbled!
> >
>> > 'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were
> seeking to kill Richard or at least remove him as Protector. Quite
> possibly they were, but this does not necessarily mean that Elizabeth
> Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
> rational logic? After all, in the modern age at least there are
> numerous examples of parents refusing to accpt that their offspring
> are guilty of the crimes of which they are convicted, even where the
> evidence is overwhelming.
>
> Yes, mothers do find it hard to believe their children guilty of
> cimes, but not when they've put them up to it.
Right on - in fact possibly Elizabeth felt guilt - if she hadnt been so craven neither Rivers
or Grey would have been in the position which resulted in them getting the chop!
Eileen
>
> Elizabeth's choices were limited - between doing a deal with Richard
> and waiting for Tudor. The point I'm making is that she changed her
> mind on that one in a way that is not explained by the known facts.
> Please don't write her off as an unfeeling mother to explain it - she
> wasn't. That for me is a given from all that I know of her*. She just
> decided Richard was, as I put it before, the lesser of two evils. I
> also suspect disappearing with her daughters to some place safe from
> richard's vigilance would not have been an option.
> *Just remember her hatred of Warwick for the executions of her father
> and brother.
>
> I accept that after an interval a parent in Elizabeth Woodville's
> situation would probably accept that her son had been playing with
> fire at the very least, but I can't help thinking that that would
> take a matter of years rather than a few months.
>
> If you believe she was such an accommodating lady, what is your
> explanation for slight role distance (to be euphemistic about it)
> maintained between her & Dorset and Henry VII?
>
> Marie
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-30 23:57:53
I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church believe
that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
Actually I think that teaching has now been abandoned, but it would
certainly have been around in Richard's day. I don't think children
were considered to be innocent in quite the way that we do today.
I think it was Kendall who mentioned that Richard wrote in one of his
books, which mentioned the death of his son "Whom God forgive" or
something similar. We would say that a child who died so young could
not possibly need forgiveness.
Has it occurred to anyone else how many middle aged/elderly ladies
there were plotting all sorts of mayhem? I am sure it could be said
of all of them (except possibly Cecily) that they were driven by
mother love.
In a contest between Richard and EW my money would be on her. She was
older and far more experienced than he was, and probably more ruthless
too. Funny that Morton wasn't friendly with her!
children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church believe
that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
Actually I think that teaching has now been abandoned, but it would
certainly have been around in Richard's day. I don't think children
were considered to be innocent in quite the way that we do today.
I think it was Kendall who mentioned that Richard wrote in one of his
books, which mentioned the death of his son "Whom God forgive" or
something similar. We would say that a child who died so young could
not possibly need forgiveness.
Has it occurred to anyone else how many middle aged/elderly ladies
there were plotting all sorts of mayhem? I am sure it could be said
of all of them (except possibly Cecily) that they were driven by
mother love.
In a contest between Richard and EW my money would be on her. She was
older and far more experienced than he was, and probably more ruthless
too. Funny that Morton wasn't friendly with her!
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-31 11:07:08
On Jan 30, 2006, at 23:14, eileen wrote:
> that odious creep, Morton (honestly I really hate this man!)
Eileen, I never miss the opportunity when in Canterbury to spit on his
grave, which I literally do, to the often shock of those I am with!
Paul
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> that odious creep, Morton (honestly I really hate this man!)
Eileen, I never miss the opportunity when in Canterbury to spit on his
grave, which I literally do, to the often shock of those I am with!
Paul
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-31 13:54:41
Dixonian wrote:
> I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
believe
> that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
I believe the Catholic Churce considers young children of under 7
years to be "innocents", not having reached the "age of reason".
That is why one's first communion, which requires a certain amount
of understanding of doctrine, is peformed after a child is 7 years
old.
Baptising an infant was a kind of "insurance" in a time when many
babies didn't make it out of infancy. Later on, when a child is
older (around 13) the "confirmation" takes place when the individual
actually speaks for him/herself and becomes a participating "member"
of the Church.
At least that is my understanding.
L.M.L.,
Janet
- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
turfrey@h...> wrote:
>
> I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
believe
> that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
> Actually I think that teaching has now been abandoned, but it
would
> certainly have been around in Richard's day. I don't think
children
> were considered to be innocent in quite the way that we do today.
>
> I think it was Kendall who mentioned that Richard wrote in one of
his
> books, which mentioned the death of his son "Whom God forgive" or
> something similar. We would say that a child who died so young
could
> not possibly need forgiveness.
>
> Has it occurred to anyone else how many middle aged/elderly ladies
> there were plotting all sorts of mayhem? I am sure it could be
said
> of all of them (except possibly Cecily) that they were driven by
> mother love.
>
> In a contest between Richard and EW my money would be on her. She
was
> older and far more experienced than he was, and probably more
ruthless
> too. Funny that Morton wasn't friendly with her!
>
> I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
believe
> that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
I believe the Catholic Churce considers young children of under 7
years to be "innocents", not having reached the "age of reason".
That is why one's first communion, which requires a certain amount
of understanding of doctrine, is peformed after a child is 7 years
old.
Baptising an infant was a kind of "insurance" in a time when many
babies didn't make it out of infancy. Later on, when a child is
older (around 13) the "confirmation" takes place when the individual
actually speaks for him/herself and becomes a participating "member"
of the Church.
At least that is my understanding.
L.M.L.,
Janet
- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
turfrey@h...> wrote:
>
> I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
believe
> that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
> Actually I think that teaching has now been abandoned, but it
would
> certainly have been around in Richard's day. I don't think
children
> were considered to be innocent in quite the way that we do today.
>
> I think it was Kendall who mentioned that Richard wrote in one of
his
> books, which mentioned the death of his son "Whom God forgive" or
> something similar. We would say that a child who died so young
could
> not possibly need forgiveness.
>
> Has it occurred to anyone else how many middle aged/elderly ladies
> there were plotting all sorts of mayhem? I am sure it could be
said
> of all of them (except possibly Cecily) that they were driven by
> mother love.
>
> In a contest between Richard and EW my money would be on her. She
was
> older and far more experienced than he was, and probably more
ruthless
> too. Funny that Morton wasn't friendly with her!
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-31 14:06:50
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2006, at 23:14, eileen wrote:
>
> > that odious creep, Morton (honestly I really hate this man!)
>
> Eileen, I never miss the opportunity when in Canterbury to spit on his
> grave, which I literally do, to the often shock of those I am with!
> Paul
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Paul - next time you do that give it one extra one for me and I really mean it.
They do say though God pays debts without money!
P>S. Love Canterbury - lived there for four years many years ago.
>Eileen
wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2006, at 23:14, eileen wrote:
>
> > that odious creep, Morton (honestly I really hate this man!)
>
> Eileen, I never miss the opportunity when in Canterbury to spit on his
> grave, which I literally do, to the often shock of those I am with!
> Paul
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Paul - next time you do that give it one extra one for me and I really mean it.
They do say though God pays debts without money!
P>S. Love Canterbury - lived there for four years many years ago.
>Eileen
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-31 15:03:58
On Jan 31, 2006, at 14:05, eileen wrote:
> Paul - next time you do that give it one extra one for me
Deal!
Paul
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> Paul - next time you do that give it one extra one for me
Deal!
Paul
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-01-31 23:12:49
--- In , "Janet"
<forevere@w...> wrote:
>
> Dixonian wrote:
> > I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> > children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
> believe
> > that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> > baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
>
> I believe the Catholic Churce considers young children of under 7
> years to be "innocents", not having reached the "age of reason".
> That is why one's first communion, which requires a certain amount
> of understanding of doctrine, is peformed after a child is 7 years
> old.
> Baptising an infant was a kind of "insurance" in a time when many
> babies didn't make it out of infancy. Later on, when a child is
> older (around 13) the "confirmation" takes place when the individual
> actually speaks for him/herself and becomes a
participating "member"
> of the Church.
> At least that is my understanding.
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
I'm not sure how far this 7 years business goes back in Catholic
thinking. I suspect it is quite recent. The idead that at 7 kids
reach an "age of reason" was as I understand it dreamed up by the
psychologist Piaget, and I suspect the Catholic Church latched on to
it in order to justify having kids commit themselves to the Church
very young.
In the late Middle Ages children were both baptised and confirmed in
infancy (often together), and I don't think there was a big thing
about first communion.
Nocholas Orme is good on medieval attitudes to children's ability to
be responsible for hteir actions. Apparently infant baptism was
brought in during the high Middle Ages and caused a lot of debate to
begin with for the very reason that babies could not be guilty of
sin. The counter argument, of course, is that this is sin they
inherited from Adam and Eve, not their own. The "Little-enders" won
out, as we all know, and created a situation loaded with double-think.
Criminally, young people were not generally held to be fully
responsible till they were about 14, though there were no hard and
fast rules and in general the more serious the crime the younger you
were likely to be tried for it.
The idea of childish innocence certainly persisted in Richard's day.
More's reference to "sely babes" comes straignt out of this culture,
as does the phrase "Massacre of the Innocents". However, the
insurance aspect when it came to God was all important. Clearly
awareness of wrong doesn't come overnight. At just what stage of
development would God consider a person to understand the rights and
wrongs of any particular deed? Hence More is concerned that the
Princes should have been "shriven" before they died. Hence too
Richard's marginal note regarding his late son: "whom God pardon". It
was a conventional phrase, but carries with it the uncertainty
medievals felt regarding their passage to the afterlife. It is, of
course, possible that Edward might have died so suddenly that he did
not receive absolution first.
Anoher good example of the innocent child idea is Richard's argument
for removing Richard Duke of York from sanctuary - sanctuary was
intended for criminals fleeing the law. Since a child could not be
guilty of any crime, a child could not properly claim sanctuary.
Yet another example is Lambert Simnel. Henry VII justified his
failure to have him tried (or even questioned, apparently) by the
boy's youth: he was too young to be held responsible for his deeds.
Marie
>
>
>
>
> - In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
> turfrey@h...> wrote:
> >
> > I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> > children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
> believe
> > that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> > baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
> > Actually I think that teaching has now been abandoned, but it
> would
> > certainly have been around in Richard's day. I don't think
> children
> > were considered to be innocent in quite the way that we do
today.
> >
> > I think it was Kendall who mentioned that Richard wrote in one of
> his
> > books, which mentioned the death of his son "Whom God forgive" or
> > something similar. We would say that a child who died so young
> could
> > not possibly need forgiveness.
> >
> > Has it occurred to anyone else how many middle aged/elderly
ladies
> > there were plotting all sorts of mayhem? I am sure it could be
> said
> > of all of them (except possibly Cecily) that they were driven by
> > mother love.
> >
> > In a contest between Richard and EW my money would be on her.
She
> was
> > older and far more experienced than he was, and probably more
> ruthless
> > too. Funny that Morton wasn't friendly with her!
> >
>
<forevere@w...> wrote:
>
> Dixonian wrote:
> > I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> > children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
> believe
> > that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> > baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
>
> I believe the Catholic Churce considers young children of under 7
> years to be "innocents", not having reached the "age of reason".
> That is why one's first communion, which requires a certain amount
> of understanding of doctrine, is peformed after a child is 7 years
> old.
> Baptising an infant was a kind of "insurance" in a time when many
> babies didn't make it out of infancy. Later on, when a child is
> older (around 13) the "confirmation" takes place when the individual
> actually speaks for him/herself and becomes a
participating "member"
> of the Church.
> At least that is my understanding.
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
I'm not sure how far this 7 years business goes back in Catholic
thinking. I suspect it is quite recent. The idead that at 7 kids
reach an "age of reason" was as I understand it dreamed up by the
psychologist Piaget, and I suspect the Catholic Church latched on to
it in order to justify having kids commit themselves to the Church
very young.
In the late Middle Ages children were both baptised and confirmed in
infancy (often together), and I don't think there was a big thing
about first communion.
Nocholas Orme is good on medieval attitudes to children's ability to
be responsible for hteir actions. Apparently infant baptism was
brought in during the high Middle Ages and caused a lot of debate to
begin with for the very reason that babies could not be guilty of
sin. The counter argument, of course, is that this is sin they
inherited from Adam and Eve, not their own. The "Little-enders" won
out, as we all know, and created a situation loaded with double-think.
Criminally, young people were not generally held to be fully
responsible till they were about 14, though there were no hard and
fast rules and in general the more serious the crime the younger you
were likely to be tried for it.
The idea of childish innocence certainly persisted in Richard's day.
More's reference to "sely babes" comes straignt out of this culture,
as does the phrase "Massacre of the Innocents". However, the
insurance aspect when it came to God was all important. Clearly
awareness of wrong doesn't come overnight. At just what stage of
development would God consider a person to understand the rights and
wrongs of any particular deed? Hence More is concerned that the
Princes should have been "shriven" before they died. Hence too
Richard's marginal note regarding his late son: "whom God pardon". It
was a conventional phrase, but carries with it the uncertainty
medievals felt regarding their passage to the afterlife. It is, of
course, possible that Edward might have died so suddenly that he did
not receive absolution first.
Anoher good example of the innocent child idea is Richard's argument
for removing Richard Duke of York from sanctuary - sanctuary was
intended for criminals fleeing the law. Since a child could not be
guilty of any crime, a child could not properly claim sanctuary.
Yet another example is Lambert Simnel. Henry VII justified his
failure to have him tried (or even questioned, apparently) by the
boy's youth: he was too young to be held responsible for his deeds.
Marie
>
>
>
>
> - In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
> turfrey@h...> wrote:
> >
> > I freely admit I know very little about mediaeval attitudes to
> > children, and neither am I a Catholic, but doesn't that church
> believe
> > that children are born of sin? That is why they insist on early
> > baptism of infants as an unbaptised baby goes straight to hell.
> > Actually I think that teaching has now been abandoned, but it
> would
> > certainly have been around in Richard's day. I don't think
> children
> > were considered to be innocent in quite the way that we do
today.
> >
> > I think it was Kendall who mentioned that Richard wrote in one of
> his
> > books, which mentioned the death of his son "Whom God forgive" or
> > something similar. We would say that a child who died so young
> could
> > not possibly need forgiveness.
> >
> > Has it occurred to anyone else how many middle aged/elderly
ladies
> > there were plotting all sorts of mayhem? I am sure it could be
> said
> > of all of them (except possibly Cecily) that they were driven by
> > mother love.
> >
> > In a contest between Richard and EW my money would be on her.
She
> was
> > older and far more experienced than he was, and probably more
> ruthless
> > too. Funny that Morton wasn't friendly with her!
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 12:31:28
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: Regarding Greys execution, possibly she loathed Richard because of this, maybe never
forgave him, who knows, but on the other hand maybe she knew she could still TRUST him
- knew Richard was a man of his word - &, after all he did keep his word, never harmed
them. Amarriage was made for Cecily and, I learnt from Marie's recent posting that a
marriage was being arrenged for Elizabeth. Possibly she could come to terms/accept
Grey's execution, an adult, playing with fire, whilst at the same time feeling grief. It would
appear she loved her family, they sound more clannish to me than the Waltons. She
certainly sought and got them titles, wealth, grand marriages etc., etc.,
I accept what you say above. However, there is another point; that by coming to Richard's court with her daughters La Woodville was in a sense accepting the legitimacy of Richard's regime and showing that she accepted it. Even setting aside considerations of personal safety, it seems an odd thing to do when this is someone you detest. Yet again, I am not a mother, but my reaction would be to decline the place at court in haughty fashion and retire to the country, at least for a decent interval. Of course, if La Woodville was as calculating an individual as I think of her, then the solution is simple - court was a much better place for plotting.
'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking to kill Richard or at
least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does not necessarily
mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
rational logic?
Richard evidently thought this - consider his sudden & urgent letter to the city of York
asking for reinforcements on the10 June "the Queen her blood adherents and affinity
which have intended and daily doth intend to murder & utterly destroy us & our cousin the
D of B and the old royal blood of this realm" - this sounds like a man who has just
received some shocking news - this letter speaks volumes dont you think?
I think we have to be a little cautious in assuming that there must have been a plot because Richard was convinced that there was - it's a bit like Tony Blair and the weapons of mass destruction. Simply because a person honestly believes something to be true does not of itself mean that it is. Quite possibly there was a plot, and many of Richard's actions are explicable on that basis, but they are also explicable on the basis that he mistakenly believed that there was a plot, or that he mistakenly believed the plot to be more serious than it actually was.
Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and her daughters
attended court - anyone know?
As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
Ann
forgave him, who knows, but on the other hand maybe she knew she could still TRUST him
- knew Richard was a man of his word - &, after all he did keep his word, never harmed
them. Amarriage was made for Cecily and, I learnt from Marie's recent posting that a
marriage was being arrenged for Elizabeth. Possibly she could come to terms/accept
Grey's execution, an adult, playing with fire, whilst at the same time feeling grief. It would
appear she loved her family, they sound more clannish to me than the Waltons. She
certainly sought and got them titles, wealth, grand marriages etc., etc.,
I accept what you say above. However, there is another point; that by coming to Richard's court with her daughters La Woodville was in a sense accepting the legitimacy of Richard's regime and showing that she accepted it. Even setting aside considerations of personal safety, it seems an odd thing to do when this is someone you detest. Yet again, I am not a mother, but my reaction would be to decline the place at court in haughty fashion and retire to the country, at least for a decent interval. Of course, if La Woodville was as calculating an individual as I think of her, then the solution is simple - court was a much better place for plotting.
'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking to kill Richard or at
least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does not necessarily
mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively and with coldly
rational logic?
Richard evidently thought this - consider his sudden & urgent letter to the city of York
asking for reinforcements on the10 June "the Queen her blood adherents and affinity
which have intended and daily doth intend to murder & utterly destroy us & our cousin the
D of B and the old royal blood of this realm" - this sounds like a man who has just
received some shocking news - this letter speaks volumes dont you think?
I think we have to be a little cautious in assuming that there must have been a plot because Richard was convinced that there was - it's a bit like Tony Blair and the weapons of mass destruction. Simply because a person honestly believes something to be true does not of itself mean that it is. Quite possibly there was a plot, and many of Richard's actions are explicable on that basis, but they are also explicable on the basis that he mistakenly believed that there was a plot, or that he mistakenly believed the plot to be more serious than it actually was.
Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and her daughters
attended court - anyone know?
As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
Ann
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 16:13:12
Just a thought:
Am currently reading Hicks' /*English Political Culture in the
Fifteenth Century*/. It provides a rather fascinating view of what I was
speaking about concerning the issue of zeitgeist. The age was heavily
reliant on governing hierarchies, religious ritual and belief
structures, social protocols and the form of law.
Hick' overview of political structure got me thinking about the issue
concerning EW of which we are speaking in this thread.
I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to have been
more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard was an
anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship. Whatever we
think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
trumped Edward V's claims.
I must stress that this particular conjecture is my own, based on what I
read in Hicks. So don't blame Hicks for this idea.
To continue in this line of reasoning, the belief structure of the age
would dictate that Richard's very public oath concerning the well-being
of EW and her children was absolutely binding on Richard. He would be
treading on extremely dangerous ground, both in point of religion and
law if he broke his oath. Even people who despised EW and supported
Richard would not be able to ignore the breaking of such an oath.
Regardless of what EW thought of Richard, she and her offspring would be
safe if he swore to their safety. She had nothing to lose by accepting
his offer.
Further, whether EW liked it or not, after July 6, 1483, Richard was
king in fact.
In putting forward the above argument, I am not in any way making light
of any grief and anger that EW may have felt. I'm sure she was anguished
for many reasons.
Again, just a thought--and a slightly disjointed one at that.
A LYON wrote:
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: Regarding Greys execution,
> possibly she loathed Richard because of this, maybe never
> forgave him, who knows, but on the other hand maybe she knew she could
> still TRUST him
> - knew Richard was a man of his word - &, after all he did keep his
> word, never harmed
> them. Amarriage was made for Cecily and, I learnt from Marie's recent
> posting that a
> marriage was being arrenged for Elizabeth. Possibly she could come to
> terms/accept
> Grey's execution, an adult, playing with fire, whilst at the same time
> feeling grief. It would
> appear she loved her family, they sound more clannish to me than the
> Waltons. She
> certainly sought and got them titles, wealth, grand marriages etc.,
> etc.,
> I accept what you say above. However, there is another point; that
> by coming to Richard's court with her daughters La Woodville was in a
> sense accepting the legitimacy of Richard's regime and showing that
> she accepted it. Even setting aside considerations of personal safety,
> it seems an odd thing to do when this is someone you detest. Yet
> again, I am not a mother, but my reaction would be to decline the
> place at court in haughty fashion and retire to the country, at least
> for a decent interval. Of course, if La Woodville was as calculating
> an individual as I think of her, then the solution is simple - court
> was a much better place for plotting.
>
>
> 'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking
> to kill Richard or at
> least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does
> not necessarily
> mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively
> and with coldly
> rational logic?
>
> Richard evidently thought this - consider his sudden & urgent letter
> to the city of York
> asking for reinforcements on the10 June "the Queen her blood adherents
> and affinity
> which have intended and daily doth intend to murder & utterly destroy
> us & our cousin the
> D of B and the old royal blood of this realm" - this sounds like a
> man who has just
> received some shocking news - this letter speaks volumes dont you think?
>
> I think we have to be a little cautious in assuming that there must
> have been a plot because Richard was convinced that there was - it's a
> bit like Tony Blair and the weapons of mass destruction. Simply
> because a person honestly believes something to be true does not of
> itself mean that it is. Quite possibly there was a plot, and many of
> Richard's actions are explicable on that basis, but they are also
> explicable on the basis that he mistakenly believed that there was a
> plot, or that he mistakenly believed the plot to be more serious than
> it actually was.
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and her
> daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
> impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Am currently reading Hicks' /*English Political Culture in the
Fifteenth Century*/. It provides a rather fascinating view of what I was
speaking about concerning the issue of zeitgeist. The age was heavily
reliant on governing hierarchies, religious ritual and belief
structures, social protocols and the form of law.
Hick' overview of political structure got me thinking about the issue
concerning EW of which we are speaking in this thread.
I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to have been
more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard was an
anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship. Whatever we
think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
trumped Edward V's claims.
I must stress that this particular conjecture is my own, based on what I
read in Hicks. So don't blame Hicks for this idea.
To continue in this line of reasoning, the belief structure of the age
would dictate that Richard's very public oath concerning the well-being
of EW and her children was absolutely binding on Richard. He would be
treading on extremely dangerous ground, both in point of religion and
law if he broke his oath. Even people who despised EW and supported
Richard would not be able to ignore the breaking of such an oath.
Regardless of what EW thought of Richard, she and her offspring would be
safe if he swore to their safety. She had nothing to lose by accepting
his offer.
Further, whether EW liked it or not, after July 6, 1483, Richard was
king in fact.
In putting forward the above argument, I am not in any way making light
of any grief and anger that EW may have felt. I'm sure she was anguished
for many reasons.
Again, just a thought--and a slightly disjointed one at that.
A LYON wrote:
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: Regarding Greys execution,
> possibly she loathed Richard because of this, maybe never
> forgave him, who knows, but on the other hand maybe she knew she could
> still TRUST him
> - knew Richard was a man of his word - &, after all he did keep his
> word, never harmed
> them. Amarriage was made for Cecily and, I learnt from Marie's recent
> posting that a
> marriage was being arrenged for Elizabeth. Possibly she could come to
> terms/accept
> Grey's execution, an adult, playing with fire, whilst at the same time
> feeling grief. It would
> appear she loved her family, they sound more clannish to me than the
> Waltons. She
> certainly sought and got them titles, wealth, grand marriages etc.,
> etc.,
> I accept what you say above. However, there is another point; that
> by coming to Richard's court with her daughters La Woodville was in a
> sense accepting the legitimacy of Richard's regime and showing that
> she accepted it. Even setting aside considerations of personal safety,
> it seems an odd thing to do when this is someone you detest. Yet
> again, I am not a mother, but my reaction would be to decline the
> place at court in haughty fashion and retire to the country, at least
> for a decent interval. Of course, if La Woodville was as calculating
> an individual as I think of her, then the solution is simple - court
> was a much better place for plotting.
>
>
> 'A fair cop'? This assumes that the Woodvilles really were seeking
> to kill Richard or at
> least remove him as Protector. Quite possibly they were, but this does
> not necessarily
> mean that Elizabeth Woodville would view her son's death objectively
> and with coldly
> rational logic?
>
> Richard evidently thought this - consider his sudden & urgent letter
> to the city of York
> asking for reinforcements on the10 June "the Queen her blood adherents
> and affinity
> which have intended and daily doth intend to murder & utterly destroy
> us & our cousin the
> D of B and the old royal blood of this realm" - this sounds like a
> man who has just
> received some shocking news - this letter speaks volumes dont you think?
>
> I think we have to be a little cautious in assuming that there must
> have been a plot because Richard was convinced that there was - it's a
> bit like Tony Blair and the weapons of mass destruction. Simply
> because a person honestly believes something to be true does not of
> itself mean that it is. Quite possibly there was a plot, and many of
> Richard's actions are explicable on that basis, but they are also
> explicable on the basis that he mistakenly believed that there was a
> plot, or that he mistakenly believed the plot to be more serious than
> it actually was.
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and her
> daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
> impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 16:26:02
----- Original Message -----
From: William Barber
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Young princes, various
(Snipped)
I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to have been
more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard was an
anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship. Whatever we
think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
trumped Edward V's claims.
*******
This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some years ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king, and the academic replied along the lines above, that crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
"Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III was a legitimate king."
(Collapse of stout party)
Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
Brian
From: William Barber
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Young princes, various
(Snipped)
I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to have been
more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard was an
anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship. Whatever we
think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
trumped Edward V's claims.
*******
This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some years ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king, and the academic replied along the lines above, that crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
"Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III was a legitimate king."
(Collapse of stout party)
Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
Brian
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 16:55:28
> From: William Barber
> > (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century... The very fact that Richard was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship...>
> *******
>
> This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some years ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king, and the academic replied along the lines above, that crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
>
> "Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III was a legitimate king."
>
> (Collapse of stout party)
>
> Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
>
> Brian
===============================
Of course: that's why there were so many Henrys.
I wonder a little about the actual acceptance of the sanctity of the annointing: Richard faced a rebellion within a month or so of the coronation. Later on, Henry Tudor's annointing, even coupled with Elizabeth of York's, didn't stop Perkin or Simnel, for example. Down below the Pyrennees, Isabel the Catholic was acknowledged the successor of her half-brother Enrique IV, in Enrique's own lifetime, was crowned at Segovia, complete with sword of justice (riling hubby Fernando something awful in the process), and still had to go to war with Afonso V of Portugal and Juana "la Beltraneja" to establish her rights. Up over Rheims-way, not even the coupling of the sacred oil with Joan of Arc could help Charles VII avoid having to continue the fight for his rights (though the coronation was probably an excellent PR move on Joan's part, and the progress to Rheims yielded some profitable promises from towns along the way). Perhaps it was sometimes a case of not being able to be recognized as Monarch by the Grace of God without the annointing, but you also had to sometimes prove that you were capable of being Monarch in the Eyes of the World.
Maria
elena@...
> > (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century... The very fact that Richard was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship...>
> *******
>
> This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some years ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king, and the academic replied along the lines above, that crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
>
> "Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III was a legitimate king."
>
> (Collapse of stout party)
>
> Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
>
> Brian
===============================
Of course: that's why there were so many Henrys.
I wonder a little about the actual acceptance of the sanctity of the annointing: Richard faced a rebellion within a month or so of the coronation. Later on, Henry Tudor's annointing, even coupled with Elizabeth of York's, didn't stop Perkin or Simnel, for example. Down below the Pyrennees, Isabel the Catholic was acknowledged the successor of her half-brother Enrique IV, in Enrique's own lifetime, was crowned at Segovia, complete with sword of justice (riling hubby Fernando something awful in the process), and still had to go to war with Afonso V of Portugal and Juana "la Beltraneja" to establish her rights. Up over Rheims-way, not even the coupling of the sacred oil with Joan of Arc could help Charles VII avoid having to continue the fight for his rights (though the coronation was probably an excellent PR move on Joan's part, and the progress to Rheims yielded some profitable promises from towns along the way). Perhaps it was sometimes a case of not being able to be recognized as Monarch by the Grace of God without the annointing, but you also had to sometimes prove that you were capable of being Monarch in the Eyes of the World.
Maria
elena@...
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 17:17:46
I would agree with what you both say, reconciling the two by saying that by the late 15th century the mystique of the anointed king was wearing thin, in England at least, now that no fewer than three anointed kings had been deprived of their thrones and murdered. However, the fact that Edward V had yet to be crowned made it 'easier' to remove him - we may note that Edward II reigned for 19 years before deposition, Richard II for 22 and Henry VI for 38, and all three survived armed rebellion before deposition, whereas Edward V lasted little more than two months. We may note that as recently as 1936 there was a sense that if Edward VIII was going to abdicate, it was better he do so before the coronation, set for 12 May 1937 (of course, his brother stepped into the breach and was crowned as George VI).
Ann
Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> From: William Barber
> > (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century... The very fact that Richard was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship...>
I wonder a little about the actual acceptance of the sanctity of the annointing: Richard faced a rebellion within a month or so of the coronation. Later on, Henry Tudor's annointing, even coupled with Elizabeth of York's, didn't stop Perkin or Simnel, for example. Down below the Pyrennees, Isabel the Catholic was acknowledged the successor of her half-brother Enrique IV, in Enrique's own lifetime, was crowned at Segovia, complete with sword of justice (riling hubby Fernando something awful in the process), and still had to go to war with Afonso V of Portugal and Juana "la Beltraneja" to establish her rights. Up over Rheims-way, not even the coupling of the sacred oil with Joan of Arc could help Charles VII avoid having to continue the fight for his rights (though the coronation was probably an excellent PR move on Joan's part, and the progress to Rheims yielded some profitable promises from towns along the way). Perhaps it was sometimes a case of not being able to be recognized
as Monarch by the Grace of God without the annointing, but you also had to sometimes prove that you were capable of being Monarch in the Eyes of the World.
Maria
elena@...
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.
---------------------------------
Ann
Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> From: William Barber
> > (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century... The very fact that Richard was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship...>
I wonder a little about the actual acceptance of the sanctity of the annointing: Richard faced a rebellion within a month or so of the coronation. Later on, Henry Tudor's annointing, even coupled with Elizabeth of York's, didn't stop Perkin or Simnel, for example. Down below the Pyrennees, Isabel the Catholic was acknowledged the successor of her half-brother Enrique IV, in Enrique's own lifetime, was crowned at Segovia, complete with sword of justice (riling hubby Fernando something awful in the process), and still had to go to war with Afonso V of Portugal and Juana "la Beltraneja" to establish her rights. Up over Rheims-way, not even the coupling of the sacred oil with Joan of Arc could help Charles VII avoid having to continue the fight for his rights (though the coronation was probably an excellent PR move on Joan's part, and the progress to Rheims yielded some profitable promises from towns along the way). Perhaps it was sometimes a case of not being able to be recognized
as Monarch by the Grace of God without the annointing, but you also had to sometimes prove that you were capable of being Monarch in the Eyes of the World.
Maria
elena@...
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 17:21:45
You're right.
And what makes Henry IV more legitimate than Richard?
Speaking of which, I've made a little resolution to read Terry Jones'
book on the murder of Chaucer (perhaps at the instigation of that
alleged leper, Henry IV). but first, I have to plough through the myriad
books I've purchased on Richard and related topics over the past few months.
Actually I don't want to be too hard on Henry IV. Both Henry and Richard
had much to lose if they didn't seize control of events.
Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>
>
> (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to have been
> more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard
> was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were
> sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship.
> Whatever we
> think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
> trumped Edward V's claims.
>
> *******
>
> This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some years
> ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king, and the
> academic replied along the lines above, that
> crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
>
> "Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III
> was a legitimate king."
>
> (Collapse of stout party)
>
> Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
And what makes Henry IV more legitimate than Richard?
Speaking of which, I've made a little resolution to read Terry Jones'
book on the murder of Chaucer (perhaps at the instigation of that
alleged leper, Henry IV). but first, I have to plough through the myriad
books I've purchased on Richard and related topics over the past few months.
Actually I don't want to be too hard on Henry IV. Both Henry and Richard
had much to lose if they didn't seize control of events.
Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>
>
> (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to have been
> more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard
> was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance were
> sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm, regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship.
> Whatever we
> think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
> trumped Edward V's claims.
>
> *******
>
> This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some years
> ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king, and the
> academic replied along the lines above, that
> crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
>
> "Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III
> was a legitimate king."
>
> (Collapse of stout party)
>
> Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 17:54:07
Maria,
You make good points. Being the cynical old sausage that I am, I wonder whether the "crowning and annointing" was a bit like the "electoral mandate" of our own times - useful as a stick to beat the opposition with, but not really taken too seriously by the boys who are really in charge.
Henry IV also faced rebellion within six months of being crowned, and he went on facing them for most of his reign. Obviously, not everyone bought the argument.
The Earl of Manchester said "If we beat the king ninety-nine times he is still king; if he beats us but once, we are all hanged and our posterity ruined." But this was a 17th century view, and people in the 14th and 15th century, in England anyway, seem to have been more than willing to run this risk. We remember the risings that succeeded, or made a big bang, but there are a lot more that get forgotten, like the Appellants in 1387-8 or the Cade Rebellion in the 1450s.
It occurred to me lately that the late medieval English kings who were deposed/defeated had one thing in common; they all inherited from a successful warrior who left a mess behind for them to clear up. In Richard III's case this was a bankrupt treasury, a hopeless defeated foreign policy and a nobility highly cheesed off with Edward's dubious rearrangements of inheritance practice to suit his book. Given that Richard's actions, however understandable and however (possibly) correct, further divided the political community, I suppose it's not really surprising that he was in for a rough ride, crowned and annointed or not.
Brian
You make good points. Being the cynical old sausage that I am, I wonder whether the "crowning and annointing" was a bit like the "electoral mandate" of our own times - useful as a stick to beat the opposition with, but not really taken too seriously by the boys who are really in charge.
Henry IV also faced rebellion within six months of being crowned, and he went on facing them for most of his reign. Obviously, not everyone bought the argument.
The Earl of Manchester said "If we beat the king ninety-nine times he is still king; if he beats us but once, we are all hanged and our posterity ruined." But this was a 17th century view, and people in the 14th and 15th century, in England anyway, seem to have been more than willing to run this risk. We remember the risings that succeeded, or made a big bang, but there are a lot more that get forgotten, like the Appellants in 1387-8 or the Cade Rebellion in the 1450s.
It occurred to me lately that the late medieval English kings who were deposed/defeated had one thing in common; they all inherited from a successful warrior who left a mess behind for them to clear up. In Richard III's case this was a bankrupt treasury, a hopeless defeated foreign policy and a nobility highly cheesed off with Edward's dubious rearrangements of inheritance practice to suit his book. Given that Richard's actions, however understandable and however (possibly) correct, further divided the political community, I suppose it's not really surprising that he was in for a rough ride, crowned and annointed or not.
Brian
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 17:57:20
Actually I don't want to be too hard on Henry IV. Both Henry and Richard
had much to lose if they didn't seize control of events.
One of the things that surprised me when I wrote _Fetterlock_was the extent of the sympathy I felt for Henry Bolingbroke. And yes, I did find parallels with Richard III - and not only that Shrewsbury was almost Henry's Bosworth. (Had he lost it I am sure he would have acquired a hump and the responsibility for several murders in no time.)
Brian
had much to lose if they didn't seize control of events.
One of the things that surprised me when I wrote _Fetterlock_was the extent of the sympathy I felt for Henry Bolingbroke. And yes, I did find parallels with Richard III - and not only that Shrewsbury was almost Henry's Bosworth. (Had he lost it I am sure he would have acquired a hump and the responsibility for several murders in no time.)
Brian
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-02 19:38:26
It had struck me that there were two sides to the 'rule by entitlement'
issue: there were those like Richard who behaved according to the the
literal rules of form regardless of outcomes, and there were others who
believed that form was simply a guideline to behaviour, and that form
was subject to rules of fair play (whatever that means).
Still, I suppose Richard felt the risk to be worth the effort. He really
had too much to lose by not acting.
Another thought: Was the reliance on form and strict law interpretation
more a northern than southern predilection? Might this be where Richard
got into trouble? Two things strike me: First, Richard never 'read'
southerners very well. Secondly, Richard seems to have easily confused
'that which should be' with 'that which actually is'. Either he feigns
being blindsided a lot, or he actually is blindsided a lot. He seems to
be a high dudgeon a fair amount of the time.
Again, I'm being a little obtuse here. I need to think this whole thing
through.
Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
> Maria,
>
> You make good points. Being the cynical old sausage that I am, I
> wonder whether the "crowning and annointing" was a bit like the
> "electoral mandate" of our own times - useful as a stick to beat the
> opposition with, but not really taken too seriously by the boys who
> are really in charge.
>
> Henry IV also faced rebellion within six months of being crowned, and
> he went on facing them for most of his reign. Obviously, not everyone
> bought the argument.
>
> The Earl of Manchester said "If we beat the king ninety-nine times he
> is still king; if he beats us but once, we are all hanged and our
> posterity ruined." But this was a 17th century view, and people in the
> 14th and 15th century, in England anyway, seem to have been more than
> willing to run this risk. We remember the risings that succeeded, or
> made a big bang, but there are a lot more that get forgotten, like the
> Appellants in 1387-8 or the Cade Rebellion in the 1450s.
>
> It occurred to me lately that the late medieval English kings who were
> deposed/defeated had one thing in common; they all inherited from a
> successful warrior who left a mess behind for them to clear up. In
> Richard III's case this was a bankrupt treasury, a hopeless defeated
> foreign policy and a nobility highly cheesed off with Edward's dubious
> rearrangements of inheritance practice to suit his book. Given that
> Richard's actions, however understandable and however (possibly)
> correct, further divided the political community, I suppose it's not
> really surprising that he was in for a rough ride, crowned and
> annointed or not.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
issue: there were those like Richard who behaved according to the the
literal rules of form regardless of outcomes, and there were others who
believed that form was simply a guideline to behaviour, and that form
was subject to rules of fair play (whatever that means).
Still, I suppose Richard felt the risk to be worth the effort. He really
had too much to lose by not acting.
Another thought: Was the reliance on form and strict law interpretation
more a northern than southern predilection? Might this be where Richard
got into trouble? Two things strike me: First, Richard never 'read'
southerners very well. Secondly, Richard seems to have easily confused
'that which should be' with 'that which actually is'. Either he feigns
being blindsided a lot, or he actually is blindsided a lot. He seems to
be a high dudgeon a fair amount of the time.
Again, I'm being a little obtuse here. I need to think this whole thing
through.
Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
> Maria,
>
> You make good points. Being the cynical old sausage that I am, I
> wonder whether the "crowning and annointing" was a bit like the
> "electoral mandate" of our own times - useful as a stick to beat the
> opposition with, but not really taken too seriously by the boys who
> are really in charge.
>
> Henry IV also faced rebellion within six months of being crowned, and
> he went on facing them for most of his reign. Obviously, not everyone
> bought the argument.
>
> The Earl of Manchester said "If we beat the king ninety-nine times he
> is still king; if he beats us but once, we are all hanged and our
> posterity ruined." But this was a 17th century view, and people in the
> 14th and 15th century, in England anyway, seem to have been more than
> willing to run this risk. We remember the risings that succeeded, or
> made a big bang, but there are a lot more that get forgotten, like the
> Appellants in 1387-8 or the Cade Rebellion in the 1450s.
>
> It occurred to me lately that the late medieval English kings who were
> deposed/defeated had one thing in common; they all inherited from a
> successful warrior who left a mess behind for them to clear up. In
> Richard III's case this was a bankrupt treasury, a hopeless defeated
> foreign policy and a nobility highly cheesed off with Edward's dubious
> rearrangements of inheritance practice to suit his book. Given that
> Richard's actions, however understandable and however (possibly)
> correct, further divided the political community, I suppose it's not
> really surprising that he was in for a rough ride, crowned and
> annointed or not.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 02:39:58
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> It had struck me that there were two sides to the 'rule by
entitlement'
> issue: there were those like Richard who behaved according to the
the
> literal rules of form regardless of outcomes, and there were others
who
> believed that form was simply a guideline to behaviour, and that
form
> was subject to rules of fair play (whatever that means).
>
> Still, I suppose Richard felt the risk to be worth the effort. He
really
> had too much to lose by not acting.
>
> Another thought: Was the reliance on form and strict law
interpretation
> more a northern than southern predilection? Might this be where
Richard
> got into trouble? Two things strike me: First, Richard never 'read'
> southerners very well. Secondly, Richard seems to have easily
confused
> 'that which should be' with 'that which actually is'. Either he
feigns
> being blindsided a lot, or he actually is blindsided a lot. He
seems to
> be a high dudgeon a fair amount of the time.
>
> Again, I'm being a little obtuse here. I need to think this whole
thing
> through.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. (It sounds
better in French, I know....) This could be -- and is -- appropriate
to current politics.
Katy
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> It had struck me that there were two sides to the 'rule by
entitlement'
> issue: there were those like Richard who behaved according to the
the
> literal rules of form regardless of outcomes, and there were others
who
> believed that form was simply a guideline to behaviour, and that
form
> was subject to rules of fair play (whatever that means).
>
> Still, I suppose Richard felt the risk to be worth the effort. He
really
> had too much to lose by not acting.
>
> Another thought: Was the reliance on form and strict law
interpretation
> more a northern than southern predilection? Might this be where
Richard
> got into trouble? Two things strike me: First, Richard never 'read'
> southerners very well. Secondly, Richard seems to have easily
confused
> 'that which should be' with 'that which actually is'. Either he
feigns
> being blindsided a lot, or he actually is blindsided a lot. He
seems to
> be a high dudgeon a fair amount of the time.
>
> Again, I'm being a little obtuse here. I need to think this whole
thing
> through.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. (It sounds
better in French, I know....) This could be -- and is -- appropriate
to current politics.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 13:20:27
> I think we have to be a little cautious in assuming that there
must have been a plot because Richard was convinced that there was -
it's a bit like Tony Blair and the weapons of mass destruction.
Simply because a person honestly believes something to be true does
not of itself mean that it is. Quite possibly there was a plot, and
many of Richard's actions are explicable on that basis, but they are
also explicable on the basis that he mistakenly believed that there
was a plot, or that he mistakenly believed the plot to be more
serious than it actually was.
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
was nothing better
2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
time. Very shaky.
Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
Unfortunately, we don't get Richard's body language, but the nature
of those letters is enough to suggest his panic was genuine. He too
was intelligent. If there was no plot, I wonder why it was that
Hastings' family don't seem to have been more outraged. His widow
remained on extremely friendly terms with Joyce, the wife of
Richard's right-hand man Sir Robert Percy. It has even been suggested
that Percy may have spent the two nights before Bosworth with Lady
Hastings at Kirkby Muxloe.
Hastings' brother Ralph also continued to serve Richard loyally.
During the Perkin Warbeck rebellion, Ralph Hastings' steward defected
to Malines with money and jewels which he "stole" from his master.
Intriguingly, at his death, Sir Ralph Hastings paid for a trentall of
masses to be sung for himself at the Newark in Leicester. He was from
a Leicestershire family, but not from Leicester town, and his own
lands were in Essex.
But the thing that intrigues me most is that note in the Cely
papers, you know the one - "Chamberlain deceased in trouble", etc.
It's not a letter as such, it's on the back of an inventory or some
such. Nor is it signed. It appears to have been written by one of the
Celys but carries the name of the Prior of St John's at the bottom.
Prior Weston wasn't in Richard's good books, and his brother Edmund
was in 1485 to be appointed by Henry VII as his new governor of
Jersey. Was this a panicky note, or something passing to Calais via
the Celys to Hastings' fellow conspirators? It bears a number of
strange little symbols placed over certain points in the text. I've
been assured by an expert that they're not alchemical. They very much
resemble the symbols in the surviving code letter of Perkin Warbeck.
So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
was I'm not sure.
Marie
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
her daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
since the early hours of May Day 1483.
Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
put her right off the Tudor scheme.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
must have been a plot because Richard was convinced that there was -
it's a bit like Tony Blair and the weapons of mass destruction.
Simply because a person honestly believes something to be true does
not of itself mean that it is. Quite possibly there was a plot, and
many of Richard's actions are explicable on that basis, but they are
also explicable on the basis that he mistakenly believed that there
was a plot, or that he mistakenly believed the plot to be more
serious than it actually was.
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
was nothing better
2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
time. Very shaky.
Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
Unfortunately, we don't get Richard's body language, but the nature
of those letters is enough to suggest his panic was genuine. He too
was intelligent. If there was no plot, I wonder why it was that
Hastings' family don't seem to have been more outraged. His widow
remained on extremely friendly terms with Joyce, the wife of
Richard's right-hand man Sir Robert Percy. It has even been suggested
that Percy may have spent the two nights before Bosworth with Lady
Hastings at Kirkby Muxloe.
Hastings' brother Ralph also continued to serve Richard loyally.
During the Perkin Warbeck rebellion, Ralph Hastings' steward defected
to Malines with money and jewels which he "stole" from his master.
Intriguingly, at his death, Sir Ralph Hastings paid for a trentall of
masses to be sung for himself at the Newark in Leicester. He was from
a Leicestershire family, but not from Leicester town, and his own
lands were in Essex.
But the thing that intrigues me most is that note in the Cely
papers, you know the one - "Chamberlain deceased in trouble", etc.
It's not a letter as such, it's on the back of an inventory or some
such. Nor is it signed. It appears to have been written by one of the
Celys but carries the name of the Prior of St John's at the bottom.
Prior Weston wasn't in Richard's good books, and his brother Edmund
was in 1485 to be appointed by Henry VII as his new governor of
Jersey. Was this a panicky note, or something passing to Calais via
the Celys to Hastings' fellow conspirators? It bears a number of
strange little symbols placed over certain points in the text. I've
been assured by an expert that they're not alchemical. They very much
resemble the symbols in the surviving code letter of Perkin Warbeck.
So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
was I'm not sure.
Marie
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
her daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
since the early hours of May Day 1483.
Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
put her right off the Tudor scheme.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 13:37:32
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Marie
It sounds as though we have come to the same conclusion - that there probably was a conspiracy, but no absolute certainty, and that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions about who was involved and what the plan actually was.
I agree with you about Tony Blair - I was simply giving him the benefit of the doubt for rhetorical purposes.
Ann
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
was nothing better
2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
time. Very shaky.
Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
was I'm not sure.
Marie
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
her daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
since the early hours of May Day 1483.
Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
put her right off the Tudor scheme.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
It sounds as though we have come to the same conclusion - that there probably was a conspiracy, but no absolute certainty, and that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions about who was involved and what the plan actually was.
I agree with you about Tony Blair - I was simply giving him the benefit of the doubt for rhetorical purposes.
Ann
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
was nothing better
2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
time. Very shaky.
Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
was I'm not sure.
Marie
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
her daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
since the early hours of May Day 1483.
Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
put her right off the Tudor scheme.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 13:38:24
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>
>
> (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights
and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to
have been
> more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard
was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance
were sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm,
regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship.
Whatever we
> think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
> trumped Edward V's claims.
>
> *******
>
> This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some
years ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king,
and the academic replied along the lines above, that
crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
>
> "Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III
was a legitimate king."
>
> (Collapse of stout party)
>
> Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
>
> Brian
I like that. Historians apply a completely different set of values
when assessing richard III than they do when assessing everybody
else, don't they? Very annoying.
I think the status of oaths is crucial to our understanding of the
period, and is not taken nearly seriously enough by historians. Oaths
were sacred, of course, but it is an idea that went way back beyond
Christianity. The idea that words can affect reality is a very
ancient one. Spells of course are an example of that (think of the
word itself). (And, for another Tolkien analogy, look what happened
to the oath-breakers in the Lord of the Rings.) The story of the Wars
of the Roses is driven by the past oaths of men actually sick and
tired of the cause they're fighting for.
This is in fact why I don't buy into the idea that Richard planned to
seize the throne from the moment he heard of Edward IV's death. He
was very quick to administer oaths of allegiance to Edward V, and
then had to try to persuade those who taken them that they weren't
binding because they'd taken the oath ignorant of the true facts. An
old Yorkist argument, I suppose. Perhaps the fact that most people
who mattered had sworn oaths of allegiance to Edward V, rather than
any real loyalty to the boy, was the cause of much of Richard's
trouble.
However, with regard to Elizabeth Woodville, I don't think Richard's
oath of March 1 1484 is sufficient reason to explain her confidence
in giving her daughters to a man who'd killed her sons. After all,
Richard had previously sworn an oath to Edward V. There are as many
broken oaths as oaths kept in the history of the Wars of the Roses.
Marie
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Young princes, various
>
>
> (Snipped)
>
> I think that structure and form were more important than rights
and
> freedoms in the fifteenth century. Letter of the law seems to
have been
> more important than spirit of the law. The very fact that Richard
was an
> anointed king, coupled with the fact that oaths of allegiance
were sworn
> to him, made him king in the eyes of God and the realm,
regardless of
> what he did or did not do to achieve the office of kingship.
Whatever we
> think of his legitimacy, Richard's actual holding of the kingship
> trumped Edward V's claims.
>
> *******
>
> This brings to mind a discussion I had with an academic some
years ago in which I argued that Henry IV was not a legitimate king,
and the academic replied along the lines above, that
crowning/annointing/oaths, etc., had made him so.
>
> "Oh," I said, "in that case you'll have to agree that Richard III
was a legitimate king."
>
> (Collapse of stout party)
>
> Apparently this rule only applies if your name is Henry.
>
> Brian
I like that. Historians apply a completely different set of values
when assessing richard III than they do when assessing everybody
else, don't they? Very annoying.
I think the status of oaths is crucial to our understanding of the
period, and is not taken nearly seriously enough by historians. Oaths
were sacred, of course, but it is an idea that went way back beyond
Christianity. The idea that words can affect reality is a very
ancient one. Spells of course are an example of that (think of the
word itself). (And, for another Tolkien analogy, look what happened
to the oath-breakers in the Lord of the Rings.) The story of the Wars
of the Roses is driven by the past oaths of men actually sick and
tired of the cause they're fighting for.
This is in fact why I don't buy into the idea that Richard planned to
seize the throne from the moment he heard of Edward IV's death. He
was very quick to administer oaths of allegiance to Edward V, and
then had to try to persuade those who taken them that they weren't
binding because they'd taken the oath ignorant of the true facts. An
old Yorkist argument, I suppose. Perhaps the fact that most people
who mattered had sworn oaths of allegiance to Edward V, rather than
any real loyalty to the boy, was the cause of much of Richard's
trouble.
However, with regard to Elizabeth Woodville, I don't think Richard's
oath of March 1 1484 is sufficient reason to explain her confidence
in giving her daughters to a man who'd killed her sons. After all,
Richard had previously sworn an oath to Edward V. There are as many
broken oaths as oaths kept in the history of the Wars of the Roses.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 17:06:46
Henry of Bolingbroke hardly needed to grow a hump, since he aquired
leprosy in later life, which was seen by contemporaries as God's
judgement on his usurpation of the crown.
Medieval land law is of interest regarding rightful claims to
property (or even the crown itself), in that it gave rise to the
expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
Legal claims to propery were considered to have lapsed after a
certain time if the claimant had not had physically occupied the
manor concerned for the space of a generation. If another party
could show that he/she had unbroken "seisin" of the property from
their father or mother it was virtually impossible to disposses them,
regardless of documented superior claims.
Hence another expression "breaking and entering", a method which was
originally used by property claimants to keep alive their claim on
the lands by physically occupying them, if only for a day. A man who
didn't have a gang of armed ruffians to back up his claims was likely
to be dispossessed, since most lands had some sort of dispute over
their ownership.
Regarding the Crown, the same thing effectively applied here, as no
one could have taken Henry Tudor's claim to be King by heredity
seriously. His victory was seen more as "right of conquest" or as
God's judgement than the establishment of a legal right.
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> Actually I don't want to be too hard on Henry IV. Both Henry and
Richard
> had much to lose if they didn't seize control of events.
>
>
> One of the things that surprised me when I wrote _Fetterlock_was
the extent of the sympathy I felt for Henry Bolingbroke. And yes, I
did find parallels with Richard III - and not only that Shrewsbury
was almost Henry's Bosworth. (Had he lost it I am sure he would have
acquired a hump and the responsibility for several murders in no
time.)
>
> Brian
>
>
>
leprosy in later life, which was seen by contemporaries as God's
judgement on his usurpation of the crown.
Medieval land law is of interest regarding rightful claims to
property (or even the crown itself), in that it gave rise to the
expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
Legal claims to propery were considered to have lapsed after a
certain time if the claimant had not had physically occupied the
manor concerned for the space of a generation. If another party
could show that he/she had unbroken "seisin" of the property from
their father or mother it was virtually impossible to disposses them,
regardless of documented superior claims.
Hence another expression "breaking and entering", a method which was
originally used by property claimants to keep alive their claim on
the lands by physically occupying them, if only for a day. A man who
didn't have a gang of armed ruffians to back up his claims was likely
to be dispossessed, since most lands had some sort of dispute over
their ownership.
Regarding the Crown, the same thing effectively applied here, as no
one could have taken Henry Tudor's claim to be King by heredity
seriously. His victory was seen more as "right of conquest" or as
God's judgement than the establishment of a legal right.
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> Actually I don't want to be too hard on Henry IV. Both Henry and
Richard
> had much to lose if they didn't seize control of events.
>
>
> One of the things that surprised me when I wrote _Fetterlock_was
the extent of the sympathy I felt for Henry Bolingbroke. And yes, I
did find parallels with Richard III - and not only that Shrewsbury
was almost Henry's Bosworth. (Had he lost it I am sure he would have
acquired a hump and the responsibility for several murders in no
time.)
>
> Brian
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 18:29:23
what really needs to happen, is find the application for the dispensation.
then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the woodville descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite simply is little sister..half or not.
woodville may have had an emotional bond with her children, but that doesn't preclude the possibility she didn't particularily like what they did, especially if it endangered her or her other offspring.
dorset "profitted" from his tudor alliance, however, it appears tudor didn't particularily trust him.
dorset being left in france indicates that he
1. was a bargaining chip to control woodville
2. he couldn't be trusted to not "swap" sides.
during this era, switching loyalty from one side to the other was the "in" thing. what ever best benefitted the person from whom the loyalty was needed/demanded.
it is implied with the actions of stanley at bosworth.
of course there was a conspiracy, backroom dealings. it's called hedging your bets. oaths were important, but oaths could be broken, particularily if the breaking of the oath meant you came out on the winning side.
one simply had to go to church afterwards and confess the sin, pay the correct tithe for absolution, and say the correct number of prayers. study martin luther and why he posted his theses. luther wasn't the first to question the validity of the pope, he's just the best known.
the more i study and learn about this era, the more i am convinced these people had a very corporate mentality. everyone was just a cog in the wheel to make it happen.
watch what is going on with the world stage right now. we are in the new feudal era. technopeasants under the technolords.
blair *knew* there were no wmd, and so did bush. but, we the peasants must not question the lords.
both colin powell and condi rice in early 2001 stated publically that iraq was contained. iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. bin laden hated saddam. their religious beliefs were as close as catholics and jehovah witnesses. bin laden wanted saddam disposed too.
the corporations wanted control of the oil fields in the middle east. it's just that simple. research zalmay khailzad. unical oil and where zalmay was even during kosovo...had to keep that gateway from the middle east to europe open for oil pipelines.
the pipelines are now being geared to access the huge chinese/far east demand/market.
on march 12, 2003 the usa senate passed a resolution almost identically worded to the one they passed to invade iraq...this resolution dealt with the invasion of iran.
so don't sit and think this whole world scenario isn't going to happen. iran will be invaded.
canada is only involved in afghanistan because of a NATO clause. canada was dragged into bush's war. bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, and allowed it to happen. read the PNAC.
even canada we've had our neocon invasion via stephen harper and john reynolds...who went to the september 2004 republican national convention to learn campaign tactics.
i think bill can back me up that he has never seen canada divided politically as we are now. thank mr. bush and bush-lite stephen harper.
while it is seriously entertaining to research the medieval era. people need to also be paying attention to what is going on in our era.
if anyone is interested in the documentation to support what i have stated about our present day "conspiracy," contact me off list and i will happily supply you with substantiating urls/websites of gov produced documentation.
and this whole muslim cartooning thing is total bs too. i've lost count the number of times christian extremists have boycotted movies, products etc.
in fact there are extreme christian based cults who believe it is wrong to let children play with dolls or toy animals..no graven images.
religious dispute is simply..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.
the media/press is playing this fiasco up..because it draws the attention of the ill informed viewer. good for the advertising dollar..and good to manipulate the masses.
the international mainstream media is corporately controlled and interconnected to the politicians we allow to rule our world.
the saudi's are part owners of disney, but that annoying mouse is contraband in extemist muslim countries..no graven images in the muslim culture..but then the first five books of the bible are the foundation of the 3 western religions.
i have the urls available to prove the above statements. i'm not offering you conspiracy theory info, but valid research often originating from universities, recognised research organisations and/or gov websites.
those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
well that's my rant.
back to ric iii.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Marie
It sounds as though we have come to the same conclusion - that there probably was a conspiracy, but no absolute certainty, and that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions about who was involved and what the plan actually was.
I agree with you about Tony Blair - I was simply giving him the benefit of the doubt for rhetorical purposes.
Ann
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
was nothing better
2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
time. Very shaky.
Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
was I'm not sure.
Marie
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
her daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
since the early hours of May Day 1483.
Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
put her right off the Tudor scheme.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the woodville descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite simply is little sister..half or not.
woodville may have had an emotional bond with her children, but that doesn't preclude the possibility she didn't particularily like what they did, especially if it endangered her or her other offspring.
dorset "profitted" from his tudor alliance, however, it appears tudor didn't particularily trust him.
dorset being left in france indicates that he
1. was a bargaining chip to control woodville
2. he couldn't be trusted to not "swap" sides.
during this era, switching loyalty from one side to the other was the "in" thing. what ever best benefitted the person from whom the loyalty was needed/demanded.
it is implied with the actions of stanley at bosworth.
of course there was a conspiracy, backroom dealings. it's called hedging your bets. oaths were important, but oaths could be broken, particularily if the breaking of the oath meant you came out on the winning side.
one simply had to go to church afterwards and confess the sin, pay the correct tithe for absolution, and say the correct number of prayers. study martin luther and why he posted his theses. luther wasn't the first to question the validity of the pope, he's just the best known.
the more i study and learn about this era, the more i am convinced these people had a very corporate mentality. everyone was just a cog in the wheel to make it happen.
watch what is going on with the world stage right now. we are in the new feudal era. technopeasants under the technolords.
blair *knew* there were no wmd, and so did bush. but, we the peasants must not question the lords.
both colin powell and condi rice in early 2001 stated publically that iraq was contained. iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. bin laden hated saddam. their religious beliefs were as close as catholics and jehovah witnesses. bin laden wanted saddam disposed too.
the corporations wanted control of the oil fields in the middle east. it's just that simple. research zalmay khailzad. unical oil and where zalmay was even during kosovo...had to keep that gateway from the middle east to europe open for oil pipelines.
the pipelines are now being geared to access the huge chinese/far east demand/market.
on march 12, 2003 the usa senate passed a resolution almost identically worded to the one they passed to invade iraq...this resolution dealt with the invasion of iran.
so don't sit and think this whole world scenario isn't going to happen. iran will be invaded.
canada is only involved in afghanistan because of a NATO clause. canada was dragged into bush's war. bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, and allowed it to happen. read the PNAC.
even canada we've had our neocon invasion via stephen harper and john reynolds...who went to the september 2004 republican national convention to learn campaign tactics.
i think bill can back me up that he has never seen canada divided politically as we are now. thank mr. bush and bush-lite stephen harper.
while it is seriously entertaining to research the medieval era. people need to also be paying attention to what is going on in our era.
if anyone is interested in the documentation to support what i have stated about our present day "conspiracy," contact me off list and i will happily supply you with substantiating urls/websites of gov produced documentation.
and this whole muslim cartooning thing is total bs too. i've lost count the number of times christian extremists have boycotted movies, products etc.
in fact there are extreme christian based cults who believe it is wrong to let children play with dolls or toy animals..no graven images.
religious dispute is simply..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.
the media/press is playing this fiasco up..because it draws the attention of the ill informed viewer. good for the advertising dollar..and good to manipulate the masses.
the international mainstream media is corporately controlled and interconnected to the politicians we allow to rule our world.
the saudi's are part owners of disney, but that annoying mouse is contraband in extemist muslim countries..no graven images in the muslim culture..but then the first five books of the bible are the foundation of the 3 western religions.
i have the urls available to prove the above statements. i'm not offering you conspiracy theory info, but valid research often originating from universities, recognised research organisations and/or gov websites.
those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
well that's my rant.
back to ric iii.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Marie
It sounds as though we have come to the same conclusion - that there probably was a conspiracy, but no absolute certainty, and that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions about who was involved and what the plan actually was.
I agree with you about Tony Blair - I was simply giving him the benefit of the doubt for rhetorical purposes.
Ann
Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
was nothing better
2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
time. Very shaky.
Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
was I'm not sure.
Marie
>
>
> Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
her daughters
> attended court - anyone know?
>
> As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
>
> Ann
Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
since the early hours of May Day 1483.
Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
put her right off the Tudor scheme.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 19:43:50
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
>
> Medieval land law is of interest regarding rightful claims to
> property (or even the crown itself), in that it gave rise to the
> expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> Legal claims to propery were considered to have lapsed after a
> certain time if the claimant had not had physically occupied the
> manor concerned for the space of a generation. If another party
> could show that he/she had unbroken "seisin" of the property from
> their father or mother it was virtually impossible to disposses
them,
> regardless of documented superior claims.
> Hence another expression "breaking and entering", a method which was
> originally used by property claimants to keep alive their claim on
> the lands by physically occupying them, if only for a day.
Similar rules of land possession extend to the present day. A person
can acquire right to another person's land by occupying it or using it
(as a path or rooadway) for a certain period of time.
Similarly, when my grandfather wanted to acquire more land in Texas in
the early part of the 20th century, he built a cabin on the section
and sent my mother, aged 12, and her brother, aged 15, to live on it
for a year, thus establishing claim.
Katy
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
>
> Medieval land law is of interest regarding rightful claims to
> property (or even the crown itself), in that it gave rise to the
> expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> Legal claims to propery were considered to have lapsed after a
> certain time if the claimant had not had physically occupied the
> manor concerned for the space of a generation. If another party
> could show that he/she had unbroken "seisin" of the property from
> their father or mother it was virtually impossible to disposses
them,
> regardless of documented superior claims.
> Hence another expression "breaking and entering", a method which was
> originally used by property claimants to keep alive their claim on
> the lands by physically occupying them, if only for a day.
Similar rules of land possession extend to the present day. A person
can acquire right to another person's land by occupying it or using it
(as a path or rooadway) for a certain period of time.
Similarly, when my grandfather wanted to acquire more land in Texas in
the early part of the 20th century, he built a cabin on the section
and sent my mother, aged 12, and her brother, aged 15, to live on it
for a year, thus establishing claim.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 21:20:46
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> what really needs to happen, is find the application for the
dispensation.
> then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
> dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the
woodville descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the
signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements
without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite
simply is little sister..half or not.
I agree with you in principal, and that Elizabeth's mother may no
more have been involved in the first dispensation petition than in
the second.
I don't know the exact rules for application, but the young lady's
own views were of primary interest. Marriage had (in theory) to be
consentual. For the later dispensation, two sets of proctors were
appointed to represent Henry and Elizabeth in submitting the
application to the legate, and half a dozen witnesses testified to
the willingness of both parties and their level of relationship. My
concern is simply that none of these people belonged to Elizabeth's
own family.
I don't know how it worked when one applied to Rome. Theoretically,
Elizabeth should have been represented by people who had had a chance
to talk to her since the marriage had been broached. Since Dorset had
been in hiding since early summer, he wasn't really in a position to
report her views, but the Pope probably didn't know that. Margaret
Beaufort, or her go-between Dr Lewis, might have fitted the bill.
There is, however, as you suggest, a strong possibility that Henry
and the Woodville males with him in exile proceeded to apply for the
dispensation without checking that Elizabeth herself was still in
favour. This dispensation appears to have come to be considered
invalid or inadequate before the marriage actually took place, and it
sure would be nice to know why. Possibly Elizabeth of York's
emergence to Richard's court in itself might have been held to
indicate rejection of Tudor's suit. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville might
have been having second thoughts about Tudor for a long time, and may
even have sent her daughters out to be married off by Richard (that
was his promise) BECAUSE she heard that a dispensation for the Tudor
marriage had been applied for.
Marie
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> what really needs to happen, is find the application for the
dispensation.
> then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
> dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the
woodville descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the
signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements
without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite
simply is little sister..half or not.
I agree with you in principal, and that Elizabeth's mother may no
more have been involved in the first dispensation petition than in
the second.
I don't know the exact rules for application, but the young lady's
own views were of primary interest. Marriage had (in theory) to be
consentual. For the later dispensation, two sets of proctors were
appointed to represent Henry and Elizabeth in submitting the
application to the legate, and half a dozen witnesses testified to
the willingness of both parties and their level of relationship. My
concern is simply that none of these people belonged to Elizabeth's
own family.
I don't know how it worked when one applied to Rome. Theoretically,
Elizabeth should have been represented by people who had had a chance
to talk to her since the marriage had been broached. Since Dorset had
been in hiding since early summer, he wasn't really in a position to
report her views, but the Pope probably didn't know that. Margaret
Beaufort, or her go-between Dr Lewis, might have fitted the bill.
There is, however, as you suggest, a strong possibility that Henry
and the Woodville males with him in exile proceeded to apply for the
dispensation without checking that Elizabeth herself was still in
favour. This dispensation appears to have come to be considered
invalid or inadequate before the marriage actually took place, and it
sure would be nice to know why. Possibly Elizabeth of York's
emergence to Richard's court in itself might have been held to
indicate rejection of Tudor's suit. Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville might
have been having second thoughts about Tudor for a long time, and may
even have sent her daughters out to be married off by Richard (that
was his promise) BECAUSE she heard that a dispensation for the Tudor
marriage had been applied for.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 22:07:08
Holy smokes, Roslyn. So how do you really feel about things?
Seriously, I do agree with much of what you're saying.
Concerning Stephen Harper: I find it curious how he sloughed off his
right agenda by stating that, no matter what he wanted to do, he would
be constrained by a Liberal senate and a minority government. Bit of a
cop out, that. Allows him to look less dangerous than he might otherwise
appear. Further, I've always known that politics was about winning, and
not about principle.
Like the idea about leaving Dorset behind to neutralize the Woodvilles.
Makes sense. Nice and cynical. As far as Henry was concerned, Dorset was
expendable, so if Henry reneged, and Dorset lost his life, who would
care? No skin off Henry's nose.
You're also right about breaking oaths and seeking forgiveness. It's
like buying indulgences. Again, we're talking about form over substance.
The 'cog in the wheel' metaphor is very much the governing principle
behind the fifteenth century view of world order Concepts such as 'the
body politic' and the 'great chain of being' come readily to mind. Each
part of the whole has its place, and must be content to remain in that
place, else the whole falters.
As for the past repeating itself, read Barbara Tuchman's masterful /*A
Distant Mirror.*/
fayre rose wrote:
> what really needs to happen, is find the application for the dispensation.
> then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
> dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the woodville
> descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the
> signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements
> without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite
> simply is little sister..half or not.
>
> woodville may have had an emotional bond with her children, but that
> doesn't preclude the possibility she didn't particularily like what
> they did, especially if it endangered her or her other offspring.
>
> dorset "profitted" from his tudor alliance, however, it appears
> tudor didn't particularily trust him.
>
> dorset being left in france indicates that he
> 1. was a bargaining chip to control woodville
> 2. he couldn't be trusted to not "swap" sides.
>
> during this era, switching loyalty from one side to the other was
> the "in" thing. what ever best benefitted the person from whom the
> loyalty was needed/demanded.
>
> it is implied with the actions of stanley at bosworth.
>
> of course there was a conspiracy, backroom dealings. it's called
> hedging your bets. oaths were important, but oaths could be broken,
> particularily if the breaking of the oath meant you came out on the
> winning side.
>
> one simply had to go to church afterwards and confess the sin, pay
> the correct tithe for absolution, and say the correct number of
> prayers. study martin luther and why he posted his theses. luther
> wasn't the first to question the validity of the pope, he's just the
> best known.
>
> the more i study and learn about this era, the more i am convinced
> these people had a very corporate mentality. everyone was just a cog
> in the wheel to make it happen.
>
> watch what is going on with the world stage right now. we are in the
> new feudal era. technopeasants under the technolords.
>
> blair *knew* there were no wmd, and so did bush. but, we the
> peasants must not question the lords.
>
> both colin powell and condi rice in early 2001 stated publically
> that iraq was contained. iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
> bin laden hated saddam. their religious beliefs were as close as
> catholics and jehovah witnesses. bin laden wanted saddam disposed too.
>
> the corporations wanted control of the oil fields in the middle
> east. it's just that simple. research zalmay khailzad. unical oil and
> where zalmay was even during kosovo...had to keep that gateway from
> the middle east to europe open for oil pipelines.
>
> the pipelines are now being geared to access the huge chinese/far
> east demand/market.
>
> on march 12, 2003 the usa senate passed a resolution almost
> identically worded to the one they passed to invade iraq...this
> resolution dealt with the invasion of iran.
>
> so don't sit and think this whole world scenario isn't going to
> happen. iran will be invaded.
>
> canada is only involved in afghanistan because of a NATO clause.
> canada was dragged into bush's war. bush knew 9/11 was going to
> happen, and allowed it to happen. read the PNAC.
>
> even canada we've had our neocon invasion via stephen harper and
> john reynolds...who went to the september 2004 republican national
> convention to learn campaign tactics.
>
> i think bill can back me up that he has never seen canada divided
> politically as we are now. thank mr. bush and bush-lite stephen harper.
>
> while it is seriously entertaining to research the medieval era.
> people need to also be paying attention to what is going on in our era.
>
> if anyone is interested in the documentation to support what i have
> stated about our present day "conspiracy," contact me off list and i
> will happily supply you with substantiating urls/websites of gov
> produced documentation.
>
> and this whole muslim cartooning thing is total bs too. i've lost
> count the number of times christian extremists have boycotted movies,
> products etc.
> in fact there are extreme christian based cults who believe it is
> wrong to let children play with dolls or toy animals..no graven images.
>
> religious dispute is simply..my invisible friend is better than your
> invisible friend.
>
> the media/press is playing this fiasco up..because it draws the
> attention of the ill informed viewer. good for the advertising
> dollar..and good to manipulate the masses.
>
> the international mainstream media is corporately controlled and
> interconnected to the politicians we allow to rule our world.
>
> the saudi's are part owners of disney, but that annoying mouse is
> contraband in extemist muslim countries..no graven images in the
> muslim culture..but then the first five books of the bible are the
> foundation of the 3 western religions.
>
> i have the urls available to prove the above statements. i'm not
> offering you conspiracy theory info, but valid research often
> originating from universities, recognised research organisations
> and/or gov websites.
>
> those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
>
> well that's my rant.
> back to ric iii.
> roslyn
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Marie
> It sounds as though we have come to the same conclusion - that
> there probably was a conspiracy, but no absolute certainty, and that
> we should be careful about jumping to conclusions about who was
> involved and what the plan actually was.
>
> I agree with you about Tony Blair - I was simply giving him the
> benefit of the doubt for rhetorical purposes.
>
> Ann
>
>
> Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
> weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
> was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
> administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
> Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
> 1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
> enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
> was nothing better
> 2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
> time. Very shaky.
> Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
> So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
> Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
> closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
> there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
> was I'm not sure.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
> her daughters
> > attended court - anyone know?
> >
> > As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
> impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
> >
> > Ann
>
> Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
> witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
> let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
> since the early hours of May Day 1483.
> Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
> Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
> Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
> made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
> be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
> with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
> French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
> Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
> put her right off the Tudor scheme.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Seriously, I do agree with much of what you're saying.
Concerning Stephen Harper: I find it curious how he sloughed off his
right agenda by stating that, no matter what he wanted to do, he would
be constrained by a Liberal senate and a minority government. Bit of a
cop out, that. Allows him to look less dangerous than he might otherwise
appear. Further, I've always known that politics was about winning, and
not about principle.
Like the idea about leaving Dorset behind to neutralize the Woodvilles.
Makes sense. Nice and cynical. As far as Henry was concerned, Dorset was
expendable, so if Henry reneged, and Dorset lost his life, who would
care? No skin off Henry's nose.
You're also right about breaking oaths and seeking forgiveness. It's
like buying indulgences. Again, we're talking about form over substance.
The 'cog in the wheel' metaphor is very much the governing principle
behind the fifteenth century view of world order Concepts such as 'the
body politic' and the 'great chain of being' come readily to mind. Each
part of the whole has its place, and must be content to remain in that
place, else the whole falters.
As for the past repeating itself, read Barbara Tuchman's masterful /*A
Distant Mirror.*/
fayre rose wrote:
> what really needs to happen, is find the application for the dispensation.
> then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
> dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the woodville
> descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the
> signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements
> without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite
> simply is little sister..half or not.
>
> woodville may have had an emotional bond with her children, but that
> doesn't preclude the possibility she didn't particularily like what
> they did, especially if it endangered her or her other offspring.
>
> dorset "profitted" from his tudor alliance, however, it appears
> tudor didn't particularily trust him.
>
> dorset being left in france indicates that he
> 1. was a bargaining chip to control woodville
> 2. he couldn't be trusted to not "swap" sides.
>
> during this era, switching loyalty from one side to the other was
> the "in" thing. what ever best benefitted the person from whom the
> loyalty was needed/demanded.
>
> it is implied with the actions of stanley at bosworth.
>
> of course there was a conspiracy, backroom dealings. it's called
> hedging your bets. oaths were important, but oaths could be broken,
> particularily if the breaking of the oath meant you came out on the
> winning side.
>
> one simply had to go to church afterwards and confess the sin, pay
> the correct tithe for absolution, and say the correct number of
> prayers. study martin luther and why he posted his theses. luther
> wasn't the first to question the validity of the pope, he's just the
> best known.
>
> the more i study and learn about this era, the more i am convinced
> these people had a very corporate mentality. everyone was just a cog
> in the wheel to make it happen.
>
> watch what is going on with the world stage right now. we are in the
> new feudal era. technopeasants under the technolords.
>
> blair *knew* there were no wmd, and so did bush. but, we the
> peasants must not question the lords.
>
> both colin powell and condi rice in early 2001 stated publically
> that iraq was contained. iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
> bin laden hated saddam. their religious beliefs were as close as
> catholics and jehovah witnesses. bin laden wanted saddam disposed too.
>
> the corporations wanted control of the oil fields in the middle
> east. it's just that simple. research zalmay khailzad. unical oil and
> where zalmay was even during kosovo...had to keep that gateway from
> the middle east to europe open for oil pipelines.
>
> the pipelines are now being geared to access the huge chinese/far
> east demand/market.
>
> on march 12, 2003 the usa senate passed a resolution almost
> identically worded to the one they passed to invade iraq...this
> resolution dealt with the invasion of iran.
>
> so don't sit and think this whole world scenario isn't going to
> happen. iran will be invaded.
>
> canada is only involved in afghanistan because of a NATO clause.
> canada was dragged into bush's war. bush knew 9/11 was going to
> happen, and allowed it to happen. read the PNAC.
>
> even canada we've had our neocon invasion via stephen harper and
> john reynolds...who went to the september 2004 republican national
> convention to learn campaign tactics.
>
> i think bill can back me up that he has never seen canada divided
> politically as we are now. thank mr. bush and bush-lite stephen harper.
>
> while it is seriously entertaining to research the medieval era.
> people need to also be paying attention to what is going on in our era.
>
> if anyone is interested in the documentation to support what i have
> stated about our present day "conspiracy," contact me off list and i
> will happily supply you with substantiating urls/websites of gov
> produced documentation.
>
> and this whole muslim cartooning thing is total bs too. i've lost
> count the number of times christian extremists have boycotted movies,
> products etc.
> in fact there are extreme christian based cults who believe it is
> wrong to let children play with dolls or toy animals..no graven images.
>
> religious dispute is simply..my invisible friend is better than your
> invisible friend.
>
> the media/press is playing this fiasco up..because it draws the
> attention of the ill informed viewer. good for the advertising
> dollar..and good to manipulate the masses.
>
> the international mainstream media is corporately controlled and
> interconnected to the politicians we allow to rule our world.
>
> the saudi's are part owners of disney, but that annoying mouse is
> contraband in extemist muslim countries..no graven images in the
> muslim culture..but then the first five books of the bible are the
> foundation of the 3 western religions.
>
> i have the urls available to prove the above statements. i'm not
> offering you conspiracy theory info, but valid research often
> originating from universities, recognised research organisations
> and/or gov websites.
>
> those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
>
> well that's my rant.
> back to ric iii.
> roslyn
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Marie
> It sounds as though we have come to the same conclusion - that
> there probably was a conspiracy, but no absolute certainty, and that
> we should be careful about jumping to conclusions about who was
> involved and what the plan actually was.
>
> I agree with you about Tony Blair - I was simply giving him the
> benefit of the doubt for rhetorical purposes.
>
> Ann
>
>
> Actually, I don't think Tony Blair absolutely believed there were
> weapons of mass destruction. I believe he HOPED there were because he
> was committed to the war, both because of pressure from the Bush
> administration and his own belief that he would be a hero, saving the
> Iraqi people from a tyrant. I base this belief on two things:-
> 1) The pathetic nature of the evidence he produced. He's bright
> enough to have known it was pathetic, and that it was strange there
> was nothing better
> 2) His voice and body language on the TV interview he gave at that
> time. Very shaky.
> Therefore I wouldn't accept this as an analagous case.
> So no proof of a conspiracy, but I must say since coming back to
> Ricardian matters a couple of years or so ago and looking more
> closely, I've rather changed my mind on this one and I now think
> there very probably was a conspiracy, though what its exect nature
> was I'm not sure.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Actually what was the time span she was in sanctuary, came out and
> her daughters
> > attended court - anyone know?
> >
> > As usual, I'm at work without reference books to hand, but my
> impression is that La Woodville came out of sanctuary early in 1484.
> >
> > Ann
>
> Richard's promise to Elizabeth Woodville was signed by him and
> witnessed by the City corporation on 1 March 1484. So she probably
> let out her daughters shortly after that. She had been in sanctuary
> since the early hours of May Day 1483.
> Henry's solemn oath to marry Elizabeth of York had been made on
> Christmas Day 1483. A dispensation for their marriage was issued in
> Rome on 27 March 1484. Elizabeth Woodville must have known, as she
> made her deal with Richard, that this had been applied for and might
> be issued at any time. Also Henry was busy at this time negotiating
> with Francis of Brittany for money for a new expedition, and the
> French were supporting the idea. So it was a very strange time for
> Elizabeth Woodville to surrender her daughters unless something had
> put her right off the Tudor scheme.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 22:11:06
see below
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> what really needs to happen, is find the application for the
dispensation.
> then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
> dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the
woodville descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the
signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements
without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite
simply is little sister..half or not.
I agree with you in principal, and that Elizabeth's mother may no
more have been involved in the first dispensation petition than in
the second.
I don't know the exact rules for application, but the young lady's
own views were of primary interest. Marriage had (in theory) to be
consentual. For the later dispensation, two sets of proctors were
appointed to represent Henry and Elizabeth in submitting the
application to the legate, and half a dozen witnesses testified to
the willingness of both parties and their level of relationship. My
concern is simply that none of these people belonged to Elizabeth's
own family.
I don't know how it worked when one applied to Rome. Theoretically,
Elizabeth should have been represented by people who had had a chance
to talk to her since the marriage had been broached. Since Dorset had
been in hiding since early summer, he wasn't really in a position to
report her views, but the Pope probably didn't know that. Margaret
Beaufort, or her go-between Dr Lewis, might have fitted the bill.
There is, however, as you suggest, a strong possibility that Henry
and the Woodville males with him in exile proceeded to apply for the
dispensation without checking that Elizabeth herself was still in
favour. This dispensation appears to have come to be considered
invalid or inadequate before the marriage actually took place, and it
sure would be nice to know why. Possibly Elizabeth of York's
emergence to Richard's court in itself might have been held to
indicate rejection of Tudor's suit.
----------
there is the possibility that richard as king, forbade the marriage and let rome know his displeasure.
likewise another scenario could be as part of the agreement of safety was that elizabeth and her mother would also write rome disavowing the application.
this could also be the reason h7 took so long to honour his 1483 christmas vow to marry elizabeth. she spurned him, ergo his promise to him was no longer valid in his eyes, however, politically it was deemed necessary, ergo the application for the second dispensation and the eventual marriage.
elizabeth may not have wanted to marry tudor. which is why she was in hiding even after bosworth.
the consent of the female was of importance, but not necessarily always heard. women were chattel.
marital contracts were sometimes made even before children were born. or they could be beaten into agreement. i'm thinking of the legend of lady jane grey.
elizabeth had very little power. titulus regis declared her illegitimate. quite simply she was the king's pawn..whatever king was in power.
btw, i learned yesterday of a john leland, h8's antiquary who travelled england (1535 - 1543)seeking documents and books held by churches and monastaries. those not deemed of value were burned/destroyed.
scroll down to the year 1534 for more information at:
http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/visit/1216-1539.cfm
roslyn
--------------------
Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville might
have been having second thoughts about Tudor for a long time, and may
even have sent her daughters out to be married off by Richard (that
was his promise) BECAUSE she heard that a dispensation for the Tudor
marriage had been applied for.
Marie
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> what really needs to happen, is find the application for the
dispensation.
> then we'll learn who requested it. who signed for it.
> dorset was with tudor. as the eldest surviving male in the
woodville descent line, it is highly likely that dorset is one of the
signatories. his maleness was completely valid in making agreements
without his mother aka female person's consent. e of y was quite
simply is little sister..half or not.
I agree with you in principal, and that Elizabeth's mother may no
more have been involved in the first dispensation petition than in
the second.
I don't know the exact rules for application, but the young lady's
own views were of primary interest. Marriage had (in theory) to be
consentual. For the later dispensation, two sets of proctors were
appointed to represent Henry and Elizabeth in submitting the
application to the legate, and half a dozen witnesses testified to
the willingness of both parties and their level of relationship. My
concern is simply that none of these people belonged to Elizabeth's
own family.
I don't know how it worked when one applied to Rome. Theoretically,
Elizabeth should have been represented by people who had had a chance
to talk to her since the marriage had been broached. Since Dorset had
been in hiding since early summer, he wasn't really in a position to
report her views, but the Pope probably didn't know that. Margaret
Beaufort, or her go-between Dr Lewis, might have fitted the bill.
There is, however, as you suggest, a strong possibility that Henry
and the Woodville males with him in exile proceeded to apply for the
dispensation without checking that Elizabeth herself was still in
favour. This dispensation appears to have come to be considered
invalid or inadequate before the marriage actually took place, and it
sure would be nice to know why. Possibly Elizabeth of York's
emergence to Richard's court in itself might have been held to
indicate rejection of Tudor's suit.
----------
there is the possibility that richard as king, forbade the marriage and let rome know his displeasure.
likewise another scenario could be as part of the agreement of safety was that elizabeth and her mother would also write rome disavowing the application.
this could also be the reason h7 took so long to honour his 1483 christmas vow to marry elizabeth. she spurned him, ergo his promise to him was no longer valid in his eyes, however, politically it was deemed necessary, ergo the application for the second dispensation and the eventual marriage.
elizabeth may not have wanted to marry tudor. which is why she was in hiding even after bosworth.
the consent of the female was of importance, but not necessarily always heard. women were chattel.
marital contracts were sometimes made even before children were born. or they could be beaten into agreement. i'm thinking of the legend of lady jane grey.
elizabeth had very little power. titulus regis declared her illegitimate. quite simply she was the king's pawn..whatever king was in power.
btw, i learned yesterday of a john leland, h8's antiquary who travelled england (1535 - 1543)seeking documents and books held by churches and monastaries. those not deemed of value were burned/destroyed.
scroll down to the year 1534 for more information at:
http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/visit/1216-1539.cfm
roslyn
--------------------
Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville might
have been having second thoughts about Tudor for a long time, and may
even have sent her daughters out to be married off by Richard (that
was his promise) BECAUSE she heard that a dispensation for the Tudor
marriage had been applied for.
Marie
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 22:35:43
'Squatting' certainly occurred in the settlement of Ontario as well. I
suppose it that it was a means of ensuring that land development
actually occurred.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Medieval land law is of interest regarding rightful claims to
> > property (or even the crown itself), in that it gave rise to the
> > expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> > Legal claims to propery were considered to have lapsed after a
> > certain time if the claimant had not had physically occupied the
> > manor concerned for the space of a generation. If another party
> > could show that he/she had unbroken "seisin" of the property from
> > their father or mother it was virtually impossible to disposses
> them,
> > regardless of documented superior claims.
> > Hence another expression "breaking and entering", a method which was
> > originally used by property claimants to keep alive their claim on
> > the lands by physically occupying them, if only for a day.
>
>
> Similar rules of land possession extend to the present day. A person
> can acquire right to another person's land by occupying it or using it
> (as a path or rooadway) for a certain period of time.
>
> Similarly, when my grandfather wanted to acquire more land in Texas in
> the early part of the 20th century, he built a cabin on the section
> and sent my mother, aged 12, and her brother, aged 15, to live on it
> for a year, thus establishing claim.
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
suppose it that it was a means of ensuring that land development
actually occurred.
oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Medieval land law is of interest regarding rightful claims to
> > property (or even the crown itself), in that it gave rise to the
> > expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> > Legal claims to propery were considered to have lapsed after a
> > certain time if the claimant had not had physically occupied the
> > manor concerned for the space of a generation. If another party
> > could show that he/she had unbroken "seisin" of the property from
> > their father or mother it was virtually impossible to disposses
> them,
> > regardless of documented superior claims.
> > Hence another expression "breaking and entering", a method which was
> > originally used by property claimants to keep alive their claim on
> > the lands by physically occupying them, if only for a day.
>
>
> Similar rules of land possession extend to the present day. A person
> can acquire right to another person's land by occupying it or using it
> (as a path or rooadway) for a certain period of time.
>
> Similarly, when my grandfather wanted to acquire more land in Texas in
> the early part of the 20th century, he built a cabin on the section
> and sent my mother, aged 12, and her brother, aged 15, to live on it
> for a year, thus establishing claim.
>
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 23:11:12
> there is the possibility that richard as king, forbade the
marriage and let rome know his displeasure.
>
> likewise another scenario could be as part of the agreement of
safety was that elizabeth and her mother would also write rome
disavowing the application.
>
> this could also be the reason h7 took so long to honour his 1483
christmas vow to marry elizabeth. she spurned him, ergo his promise
to him was no longer valid in his eyes, however, politically it was
deemed necessary, ergo the application for the second dispensation
and the eventual marriage.
>
> elizabeth may not have wanted to marry tudor. which is why she
was in hiding even after bosworth.
>
> the consent of the female was of importance, but not necessarily
always heard. women were chattel.
>
> marital contracts were sometimes made even before children were
born. or they could be beaten into agreement. i'm thinking of the
legend of lady jane grey.
That's not quite fair (in principle - fair in practice in many
instances I'll grant). Consent by both parties was essential. How it
was obtained we don't always know, but childhood marriages were not
ultimately binding. The children could renounce these contracts when
(or even before) they reached the age of consent(12 for girls, 13 or
14 for boys - my memory's hazy). Margaret Beaufort did exactly that
with her marriage to John de la Pole (under guidance, admittedly, but
it had to be her renouncement). There were divorce cases where the
woman successfully pleaded constraint.
It would theoretically have been possible for Elizabeth of York to
refuse to marry Henry Tudor, but very difficult in practice after
Bosworth. She may have renounced the first dispensation during
Richard's reign, whether from free choice or because Richard told her
to.
I have to own that don't like the rather glib use of the
term "chattel status". Chattels were moveable goods - "stuff" or
animals. Women did not have that status in law, however disadvantaged
they might have been in law and in practice. In a later period,
slaves were chattel status, but not people's wives. How women were
treated depended very largely on the character of the males involved.
Richard doesn't have a track record of mistreating women. In fact he
promised in his oath to Elizabeth Woodville (paraphrased off top of
my head) to enjoin their husbands "lovingly to entreat them, as wives
and my kinswomen".
We are still, however, down to the fact that Elizabeth Woodville sent
her daughters out of sanctuary to be married off by Richard in March
1484, when the Tudor "rescue" was imminent. Whatever demands Richard
might have made afterwards, well that's another question entirely.
The dispensation had been applied for quite slyly, with the couple
giving only first names & surnames, so there's no reason to suppose
Richard would have come to hear of it unless told by one of the
interested parties.
Marie
marriage and let rome know his displeasure.
>
> likewise another scenario could be as part of the agreement of
safety was that elizabeth and her mother would also write rome
disavowing the application.
>
> this could also be the reason h7 took so long to honour his 1483
christmas vow to marry elizabeth. she spurned him, ergo his promise
to him was no longer valid in his eyes, however, politically it was
deemed necessary, ergo the application for the second dispensation
and the eventual marriage.
>
> elizabeth may not have wanted to marry tudor. which is why she
was in hiding even after bosworth.
>
> the consent of the female was of importance, but not necessarily
always heard. women were chattel.
>
> marital contracts were sometimes made even before children were
born. or they could be beaten into agreement. i'm thinking of the
legend of lady jane grey.
That's not quite fair (in principle - fair in practice in many
instances I'll grant). Consent by both parties was essential. How it
was obtained we don't always know, but childhood marriages were not
ultimately binding. The children could renounce these contracts when
(or even before) they reached the age of consent(12 for girls, 13 or
14 for boys - my memory's hazy). Margaret Beaufort did exactly that
with her marriage to John de la Pole (under guidance, admittedly, but
it had to be her renouncement). There were divorce cases where the
woman successfully pleaded constraint.
It would theoretically have been possible for Elizabeth of York to
refuse to marry Henry Tudor, but very difficult in practice after
Bosworth. She may have renounced the first dispensation during
Richard's reign, whether from free choice or because Richard told her
to.
I have to own that don't like the rather glib use of the
term "chattel status". Chattels were moveable goods - "stuff" or
animals. Women did not have that status in law, however disadvantaged
they might have been in law and in practice. In a later period,
slaves were chattel status, but not people's wives. How women were
treated depended very largely on the character of the males involved.
Richard doesn't have a track record of mistreating women. In fact he
promised in his oath to Elizabeth Woodville (paraphrased off top of
my head) to enjoin their husbands "lovingly to entreat them, as wives
and my kinswomen".
We are still, however, down to the fact that Elizabeth Woodville sent
her daughters out of sanctuary to be married off by Richard in March
1484, when the Tudor "rescue" was imminent. Whatever demands Richard
might have made afterwards, well that's another question entirely.
The dispensation had been applied for quite slyly, with the couple
giving only first names & surnames, so there's no reason to suppose
Richard would have come to hear of it unless told by one of the
interested parties.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-03 23:55:08
It was not just women wo needed protection against forced marriages.
There is a programme on British TV called History Mysteries. It's
only half an hour and it invites people who want a local mystery
explained, to ask the team to get to the bottom of it.
Today's programme was about William Canynge of Bristol. He died in
1474. He has the unusual distinction of having two tombs and someone
wanted to know why.
Turns out William was a very wealthy ship owner. When his wife died,
he was ordered by the king to re-marry. He refused to do so, and
instead became a monk. He was a friend of William of Worcester. Now
I've heard of women taking refuge in, or being forced to, a convent,
but this is the first time I've heard of a grown man doing so. I
assume he took his money into the church with him.
Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
There is a programme on British TV called History Mysteries. It's
only half an hour and it invites people who want a local mystery
explained, to ask the team to get to the bottom of it.
Today's programme was about William Canynge of Bristol. He died in
1474. He has the unusual distinction of having two tombs and someone
wanted to know why.
Turns out William was a very wealthy ship owner. When his wife died,
he was ordered by the king to re-marry. He refused to do so, and
instead became a monk. He was a friend of William of Worcester. Now
I've heard of women taking refuge in, or being forced to, a convent,
but this is the first time I've heard of a grown man doing so. I
assume he took his money into the church with him.
Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 00:13:01
--- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
turfrey@...> wrote:
>
> Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
> didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
Do we have any contemporary evidence that he was forced into his
marriage to Katherine Woodville? Or is that a view that comes from
some recent historian, and has gelled into a "fact" through repetition?
Katy
>
turfrey@...> wrote:
>
> Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
> didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
Do we have any contemporary evidence that he was forced into his
marriage to Katherine Woodville? Or is that a view that comes from
some recent historian, and has gelled into a "fact" through repetition?
Katy
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 00:36:19
--- In , "dixonian2004" <sally-
turfrey@...> wrote:
>
> It was not just women wo needed protection against forced
marriages.
>
> There is a programme on British TV called History Mysteries. It's
> only half an hour and it invites people who want a local mystery
> explained, to ask the team to get to the bottom of it.
>
> Today's programme was about William Canynge of Bristol. He died in
> 1474. He has the unusual distinction of having two tombs and
someone
> wanted to know why.
>
> Turns out William was a very wealthy ship owner. When his wife
died,
> he was ordered by the king to re-marry. He refused to do so, and
> instead became a monk. He was a friend of William of Worcester.
Now
> I've heard of women taking refuge in, or being forced to, a
convent,
> but this is the first time I've heard of a grown man doing so. I
> assume he took his money into the church with him.
>
> Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
> didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
For the usual reason. His father and grandfather were dead, and as
an "orphan" his wardship was the King's. He was not only married to
the queen's sister, he was being brought up in the Queen's household.
Therefore, he may have had a legal right but not much actual
opportunity to renounce his marriage.
And, yes, you're right: boys were forced into marriage every bit as
much as girls. There's only so much a law can do to protect
individuals who are not economically independent when the culture
pushes the other way.
Apart from Margaret Beaufort, who renounced her marriage to John de
la Pole because the King now wanted her to marry Edmund Beaufort, I
don't know of a case of one of these childhood marriages being
renounced by the bride or groom. What I'm saying is that LEGALLY the
marriage wasn't settled until the parties had reached the age of
consent and consummated (this being held to imply consent). There was
a gap between law and practice, because the age of sexual consent was
well below the age of majority and kids would have found it difficult
to reject the mariage against the wishes of the guardian.
But "chattel status" is a legal term, and I am anxious that a culture
(amongst the landed classes) of pushing their children into arranged
marriages shouldn't be confused with chattel or slave status of women.
Women did obtain annulments on the grounds of coercion, but not
surprisingly all such cases that I've read of were of mature women
(widows) better equipped to speak up for themselves.
By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained by
women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
officially classed as unable to consummate. An example is Edward's
mistress, Elizabeth Shore, who divorced her husband William Shore on
grounds of impotence and in Richard's reign, still during Shore's
lifetime, married Thomas Lynom. Shore, on the other hand, was never
able to remarry.
In cases of serious physical abuse, the Church also granted
women "divorce at bed and board", a sort of legal separation with
distraining order which stopped short of actually annulling the
marriage.
So the marriage business was not such a clearcut case of ownership of
females by males as it is sometimes painted, though a woman's legal
independence within marriage was severely restricted.
Marie
>
turfrey@...> wrote:
>
> It was not just women wo needed protection against forced
marriages.
>
> There is a programme on British TV called History Mysteries. It's
> only half an hour and it invites people who want a local mystery
> explained, to ask the team to get to the bottom of it.
>
> Today's programme was about William Canynge of Bristol. He died in
> 1474. He has the unusual distinction of having two tombs and
someone
> wanted to know why.
>
> Turns out William was a very wealthy ship owner. When his wife
died,
> he was ordered by the king to re-marry. He refused to do so, and
> instead became a monk. He was a friend of William of Worcester.
Now
> I've heard of women taking refuge in, or being forced to, a
convent,
> but this is the first time I've heard of a grown man doing so. I
> assume he took his money into the church with him.
>
> Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
> didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
For the usual reason. His father and grandfather were dead, and as
an "orphan" his wardship was the King's. He was not only married to
the queen's sister, he was being brought up in the Queen's household.
Therefore, he may have had a legal right but not much actual
opportunity to renounce his marriage.
And, yes, you're right: boys were forced into marriage every bit as
much as girls. There's only so much a law can do to protect
individuals who are not economically independent when the culture
pushes the other way.
Apart from Margaret Beaufort, who renounced her marriage to John de
la Pole because the King now wanted her to marry Edmund Beaufort, I
don't know of a case of one of these childhood marriages being
renounced by the bride or groom. What I'm saying is that LEGALLY the
marriage wasn't settled until the parties had reached the age of
consent and consummated (this being held to imply consent). There was
a gap between law and practice, because the age of sexual consent was
well below the age of majority and kids would have found it difficult
to reject the mariage against the wishes of the guardian.
But "chattel status" is a legal term, and I am anxious that a culture
(amongst the landed classes) of pushing their children into arranged
marriages shouldn't be confused with chattel or slave status of women.
Women did obtain annulments on the grounds of coercion, but not
surprisingly all such cases that I've read of were of mature women
(widows) better equipped to speak up for themselves.
By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained by
women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
officially classed as unable to consummate. An example is Edward's
mistress, Elizabeth Shore, who divorced her husband William Shore on
grounds of impotence and in Richard's reign, still during Shore's
lifetime, married Thomas Lynom. Shore, on the other hand, was never
able to remarry.
In cases of serious physical abuse, the Church also granted
women "divorce at bed and board", a sort of legal separation with
distraining order which stopped short of actually annulling the
marriage.
So the marriage business was not such a clearcut case of ownership of
females by males as it is sometimes painted, though a woman's legal
independence within marriage was severely restricted.
Marie
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 05:30:23
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> Apart from Margaret Beaufort, who renounced her marriage to John de
> la Pole because the King now wanted her to marry Edmund Beaufort
Edmund Tudor, wasn't it?
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> Apart from Margaret Beaufort, who renounced her marriage to John de
> la Pole because the King now wanted her to marry Edmund Beaufort
Edmund Tudor, wasn't it?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 05:43:41
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>> By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained
by
> women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> officially classed as unable to consummate.
I think it's interesting that a man was likewise able to obtain a
divorce or annulment on the grounds that his wife was barren, the
woman seems perfectly able to remarry (and try again).
I'm thinking in particular of Isabelle of Gloucester, the first wife
of King John. She produced no children and John became smitten with
12-year-old Isabele of Angouleme, so he had their marriage annulled
(on grounds of consanguinity, not her barrenness, I now
discover...there goes my point). She was married twice more but ever
did produce a child, at any rate,
Katy
<marie@...> wrote:
>> By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained
by
> women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> officially classed as unable to consummate.
I think it's interesting that a man was likewise able to obtain a
divorce or annulment on the grounds that his wife was barren, the
woman seems perfectly able to remarry (and try again).
I'm thinking in particular of Isabelle of Gloucester, the first wife
of King John. She produced no children and John became smitten with
12-year-old Isabele of Angouleme, so he had their marriage annulled
(on grounds of consanguinity, not her barrenness, I now
discover...there goes my point). She was married twice more but ever
did produce a child, at any rate,
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 06:21:09
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >> By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained
> by
> > women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> > tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> > whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> > officially classed as unable to consummate.
>
>
> I think it's interesting that a man was likewise able to obtain a
> divorce or annulment on the grounds that his wife was barren, the
> woman seems perfectly able to remarry (and try again).
>
> I'm thinking in particular of Isabelle of Gloucester, the first
wife
> of King John. She produced no children and John became smitten
with
> 12-year-old Isabele of Angouleme, so he had their marriage
annulled
> (on grounds of consanguinity, not her barrenness, I now
> discover...there goes my point). She was married twice more but
ever
> did produce a child, at any rate,
>
> Katy
No, barrenness didn't count. It couldn't be proved, and didn't
prevent consummation.
And yes, of course, it was Edmud Tudor.
>
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >> By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained
> by
> > women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> > tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> > whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> > officially classed as unable to consummate.
>
>
> I think it's interesting that a man was likewise able to obtain a
> divorce or annulment on the grounds that his wife was barren, the
> woman seems perfectly able to remarry (and try again).
>
> I'm thinking in particular of Isabelle of Gloucester, the first
wife
> of King John. She produced no children and John became smitten
with
> 12-year-old Isabele of Angouleme, so he had their marriage
annulled
> (on grounds of consanguinity, not her barrenness, I now
> discover...there goes my point). She was married twice more but
ever
> did produce a child, at any rate,
>
> Katy
No, barrenness didn't count. It couldn't be proved, and didn't
prevent consummation.
And yes, of course, it was Edmud Tudor.
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 10:05:17
Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often cited
as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
Richard's takeover.
Legally he could have backed out of the marriage, but this would
have incurred the king's displeasure, and in that age the king's will
was still effectively the law of the land.
Kings had always been able to overthrow land and marriage law if it
suited their interests to do so, as for example Edward I's
notorious "policy" towards the earls when he effectively cheated
several magnate families of their legal inheritance so he could award
their estates and earldoms to his own sons.
Edward IV persued the same policy to the ultimate cost of his sons,
so forcing a young duke to marry his sister-in-law would have been
easy enough. Buckingham was just one of many magnates who had a
vested interest in the overthrow of the Woodville clan.
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
<sally-
> turfrey@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
> > didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
>
> Do we have any contemporary evidence that he was forced into his
> marriage to Katherine Woodville? Or is that a view that comes
from
> some recent historian, and has gelled into a "fact" through
repetition?
>
> Katy
> >
>
as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
Richard's takeover.
Legally he could have backed out of the marriage, but this would
have incurred the king's displeasure, and in that age the king's will
was still effectively the law of the land.
Kings had always been able to overthrow land and marriage law if it
suited their interests to do so, as for example Edward I's
notorious "policy" towards the earls when he effectively cheated
several magnate families of their legal inheritance so he could award
their estates and earldoms to his own sons.
Edward IV persued the same policy to the ultimate cost of his sons,
so forcing a young duke to marry his sister-in-law would have been
easy enough. Buckingham was just one of many magnates who had a
vested interest in the overthrow of the Woodville clan.
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
<sally-
> turfrey@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Also, if it was possible to escape from a childhood marriage, why
> > didn't Buckimgham take that way out?
>
> Do we have any contemporary evidence that he was forced into his
> marriage to Katherine Woodville? Or is that a view that comes
from
> some recent historian, and has gelled into a "fact" through
repetition?
>
> Katy
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 16:09:37
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
> By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained by
> women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> officially classed as unable to consummate.
I'm shamefully intrigued by this. How was the unfortunate man, accused
of impotence, put to the test? Talk about potential performance
anxiety!
Who says history is a dull (I was going to say dry) subject?
Katy
<marie@...> wrote:
> By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained by
> women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> officially classed as unable to consummate.
I'm shamefully intrigued by this. How was the unfortunate man, accused
of impotence, put to the test? Talk about potential performance
anxiety!
Who says history is a dull (I was going to say dry) subject?
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 16:16:05
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often cited
> as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> Richard's takeover.
I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it is
accurate. (Have I discussed the phenomenon of "fox-terriering"
lately?) It's a logical supposition that he sided with Richard
against the Woodvilles because he detested them/his wife/his
childhood marriage to same/all of the above, but is there any
contemporary evidence of any of that? Maybe he had another motive
that should be explored.
The trouble with a theory or conjecture being repeated over and over
is that pretty quickly it hardens into an established "fact", as we
know from examining all the :"facts:" "everyone knows" about our
favorite period of history.
Katy
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often cited
> as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> Richard's takeover.
I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it is
accurate. (Have I discussed the phenomenon of "fox-terriering"
lately?) It's a logical supposition that he sided with Richard
against the Woodvilles because he detested them/his wife/his
childhood marriage to same/all of the above, but is there any
contemporary evidence of any of that? Maybe he had another motive
that should be explored.
The trouble with a theory or conjecture being repeated over and over
is that pretty quickly it hardens into an established "fact", as we
know from examining all the :"facts:" "everyone knows" about our
favorite period of history.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 17:00:36
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often
cited
> > as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> > Richard's takeover.
>
>
> I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it
is
> accurate. (Have I discussed the phenomenon of "fox-terriering"
> lately?) It's a logical supposition that he sided with Richard
> against the Woodvilles because he detested them/his wife/his
> childhood marriage to same/all of the above, but is there any
> contemporary evidence of any of that? Maybe he had another motive
> that should be explored.
>
> The trouble with a theory or conjecture being repeated over and
over
> is that pretty quickly it hardens into an established "fact", as we
> know from examining all the :"facts:" "everyone knows" about our
> favorite period of history.
>
> Katy
I discovered this comes from Mancini. Buckingham's wife doesn't seem
to have attended Richard's coronation, by the way.
>
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often
cited
> > as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> > Richard's takeover.
>
>
> I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it
is
> accurate. (Have I discussed the phenomenon of "fox-terriering"
> lately?) It's a logical supposition that he sided with Richard
> against the Woodvilles because he detested them/his wife/his
> childhood marriage to same/all of the above, but is there any
> contemporary evidence of any of that? Maybe he had another motive
> that should be explored.
>
> The trouble with a theory or conjecture being repeated over and
over
> is that pretty quickly it hardens into an established "fact", as we
> know from examining all the :"facts:" "everyone knows" about our
> favorite period of history.
>
> Katy
I discovered this comes from Mancini. Buckingham's wife doesn't seem
to have attended Richard's coronation, by the way.
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 17:01:04
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> > By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained
by
> > women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> > tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> > whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> > officially classed as unable to consummate.
>
>
> I'm shamefully intrigued by this. How was the unfortunate man,
accused
> of impotence, put to the test? Talk about potential performance
> anxiety!
>
> Who says history is a dull (I was going to say dry) subject?
>
> Katy
There's been a very interesting programme about this on BBC Radio 4.
They focused on a case in York in the earlier 1430s. Apparently the
offending husband was sent round to certain "matrons" of the city who
did their level best to give him an erection (the details were
provided in the prog). They then reported back their failure to the
Church court, and his wife got her divorce.
Apparently in France it was quite common for the couple to be
required to attempt sexual intercourse in front of the court itself.
Oh, those medieval priests!
Marie
>
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> > By the way, there were also many annulments or divorces obtained
by
> > women on the grounds of their husbands' impotence. This had to be
> > tested, of course, but it left the woman totally free to remarry,
> > whereas the stigmatised husband could not remarry as he was
> > officially classed as unable to consummate.
>
>
> I'm shamefully intrigued by this. How was the unfortunate man,
accused
> of impotence, put to the test? Talk about potential performance
> anxiety!
>
> Who says history is a dull (I was going to say dry) subject?
>
> Katy
There's been a very interesting programme about this on BBC Radio 4.
They focused on a case in York in the earlier 1430s. Apparently the
offending husband was sent round to certain "matrons" of the city who
did their level best to give him an erection (the details were
provided in the prog). They then reported back their failure to the
Church court, and his wife got her divorce.
Apparently in France it was quite common for the couple to be
required to attempt sexual intercourse in front of the court itself.
Oh, those medieval priests!
Marie
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-04 20:23:29
the odnb articles on katherine woodville and henry stafford, 2nd d of b.
cite some sources for the rumoured displeasure of buckingham v woodville and ric iii.
i'm not sure if i'd be breaking copywrite to share these bios on this list.
i also have a copy of the article "by the vise" discovered by richard firth. again, i think it is copywrite material.
i do know from what i've read/found on buckingham, i strongly believe he and katherine were responsible for the death of the princes. that ric had entrusted the boys to the couple to deliver them to a "safe home." they were most likely escorted by james tyrrell. this is why tyrrell "confessed" to the killing of the boys..and why tyrrell could not reveal where they were buried. tyrrell had returned to ric. and then as the saying goes..all hell broke loose.
i also think ric iii was upset, but not shocked to learn h and k had done in the lads. he knew the risk, but trusted h and k, particularily k to protect her nephews. e. woodville in my opinion was the nicer, less arrogant of the two sisters. e had "humble beginnings, and had grown up so. k. on the other hand was raised in high society coupled with the woodville arrogance/power.
my conjecture is, k may have demanded she be married to the boy, henry. age difference didn't matter to social climbers. consider the brother, john if i recall, marrying the elderly duchess of norfolk.
consider a young ambitious (and most likely very attractive) woman 12 years the senior of her young husband. i think we have a touch of reverse cuckholding occurring here.
buckingham was also raised in the courtly intrigue/double dealing influence of the woodville family. ergo, soon learned loyalty to one's self was the most important factor in medieval survival.
buckingham also had successfully concealled just how much of a duplicitious weasel he really was...some of this thought is based on reasoned conjecture, some on fact..with still a lot more verification research to go.
i have to wonder if buckingham might have appealled to rome for an annullment if he had survived longer in ric iii's reign.
we do know k married jaspar tudor after h. was executed. what is needed is to find out where k was during and after the rebellion.
regards
roslyn
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often cited
> as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> Richard's takeover.
I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it is
accurate. (Have I discussed the phenomenon of "fox-terriering"
lately?) It's a logical supposition that he sided with Richard
against the Woodvilles because he detested them/his wife/his
childhood marriage to same/all of the above, but is there any
contemporary evidence of any of that? Maybe he had another motive
that should be explored.
The trouble with a theory or conjecture being repeated over and over
is that pretty quickly it hardens into an established "fact", as we
know from examining all the :"facts:" "everyone knows" about our
favorite period of history.
Katy
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.
---------------------------------
cite some sources for the rumoured displeasure of buckingham v woodville and ric iii.
i'm not sure if i'd be breaking copywrite to share these bios on this list.
i also have a copy of the article "by the vise" discovered by richard firth. again, i think it is copywrite material.
i do know from what i've read/found on buckingham, i strongly believe he and katherine were responsible for the death of the princes. that ric had entrusted the boys to the couple to deliver them to a "safe home." they were most likely escorted by james tyrrell. this is why tyrrell "confessed" to the killing of the boys..and why tyrrell could not reveal where they were buried. tyrrell had returned to ric. and then as the saying goes..all hell broke loose.
i also think ric iii was upset, but not shocked to learn h and k had done in the lads. he knew the risk, but trusted h and k, particularily k to protect her nephews. e. woodville in my opinion was the nicer, less arrogant of the two sisters. e had "humble beginnings, and had grown up so. k. on the other hand was raised in high society coupled with the woodville arrogance/power.
my conjecture is, k may have demanded she be married to the boy, henry. age difference didn't matter to social climbers. consider the brother, john if i recall, marrying the elderly duchess of norfolk.
consider a young ambitious (and most likely very attractive) woman 12 years the senior of her young husband. i think we have a touch of reverse cuckholding occurring here.
buckingham was also raised in the courtly intrigue/double dealing influence of the woodville family. ergo, soon learned loyalty to one's self was the most important factor in medieval survival.
buckingham also had successfully concealled just how much of a duplicitious weasel he really was...some of this thought is based on reasoned conjecture, some on fact..with still a lot more verification research to go.
i have to wonder if buckingham might have appealled to rome for an annullment if he had survived longer in ric iii's reign.
we do know k married jaspar tudor after h. was executed. what is needed is to find out where k was during and after the rebellion.
regards
roslyn
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often cited
> as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> Richard's takeover.
I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it is
accurate. (Have I discussed the phenomenon of "fox-terriering"
lately?) It's a logical supposition that he sided with Richard
against the Woodvilles because he detested them/his wife/his
childhood marriage to same/all of the above, but is there any
contemporary evidence of any of that? Maybe he had another motive
that should be explored.
The trouble with a theory or conjecture being repeated over and over
is that pretty quickly it hardens into an established "fact", as we
know from examining all the :"facts:" "everyone knows" about our
favorite period of history.
Katy
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.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Young princes, various
2006-02-05 00:24:53
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
> > --- In , "theblackprussian"
> > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often
> cited
> > > as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> > > Richard's takeover.
> >
> >
> > I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it
> is
> > accurate. >
> I discovered this comes from Mancini. Buckingham's wife doesn't
seem
> to have attended Richard's coronation, by the way.
In that case, I'll accept it as fact, or at least contemporaneous
gossip.
Katy
<marie@...> wrote:
> > --- In , "theblackprussian"
> > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Buckingham's displeasure with his Woodville marriage is often
> cited
> > > as a prime reason for his joining (or perhaps even initiating)
> > > Richard's takeover.
> >
> >
> > I know it is often cited, but that is not really evidence that it
> is
> > accurate. >
> I discovered this comes from Mancini. Buckingham's wife doesn't
seem
> to have attended Richard's coronation, by the way.
In that case, I'll accept it as fact, or at least contemporaneous
gossip.
Katy
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.