queen anne's influence

I am a newbie to this group and a novice to the story of richard
III, so forgive me if I pose a stupid question...but I just read the
article Hicks wrote on Queen Anne and it has me wondering even more
about this woman and how she has been portrayed...I mean, she had
this larger than life, ahead of his time father... could she have
been a wimp? How disappointing. She had seen so many of her loved
ones die due to the War of the Roses and she had seen and felt the
impact of how quickly loyalties could shift... what influence might
she have had on the fate of the Princes...if I were in her
postition, I would love to stick it to the Woodvilles and Edward IV
and I would want to protect my OWN son from the constant war that
the life and support of those princes would have brought him if he
would have lived to be king. I have to say, I would have told my
husband to get rid of the boys. I wish we could know more about this
woman and her life. With her father and her husband...it must have
been adventurous and tragic. Sorry if I am posing something that has
been beaten to death already but it is something I often think about
when I consider this cast of characters.

Another stupid and off subject question...did ANY of Richard's
offspring have children of their own?

Angie

--- In , "artipcat1"
<aflanagan7372@...> wrote:
>
> I am a newbie to this group and a novice to the story of richard
> III, so forgive me if I pose a stupid question...but I just read
the
> article Hicks wrote on Queen Anne and it has me wondering even more
> about this woman and how she has been portrayed...I mean, she had
> this larger than life, ahead of his time father... could she have
> been a wimp? How disappointing. She had seen so many of her loved
> ones die due to the War of the Roses and she had seen and felt the
> impact of how quickly loyalties could shift... what influence might
> she have had on the fate of the Princes...if I were in her
> postition, I would love to stick it to the Woodvilles and Edward IV
> and I would want to protect my OWN son from the constant war that
> the life and support of those princes would have brought him if he
> would have lived to be king. I have to say, I would have told my
> husband to get rid of the boys. I wish we could know more about
this
> woman and her life. With her father and her husband...it must have
> been adventurous and tragic. Sorry if I am posing something that
has
> been beaten to death already but it is something I often think
about
> when I consider this cast of characters.
>
> Another stupid and off subject question...did ANY of Richard's
> offspring have children of their own?
>
> Angie

It seems not, unless Richard had any children we don't know about.

This is unlikely because his "mistresses" (or other partners) tended
to be single or widowed and so did he at the time - all of these
children could have been legitimate because he and the mothers were
all free to marry at the time of the childrens' birth.

Other monarchs did not operate in this way. A classical "mistress" is
the additional partner of a married man; sometimes she is married as
well which raises paternity questions. Henry VIII's illegitimate line
may well include the late Queen Mother.

To summarise:
Edward of Middleham died at a maximum age of ten - no issue.
Catherine married William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon - seemingly no
issue.
John of Gloucester - no evidence of marriage or issue.
However we are always open to new revelations.

I find it surprising that no Tudor supporters have yet cast Anne as a Lady Macbeth type. In a story (set in the afterlife) that I'm writing, she fulfills a benign version of that role.

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote: --- In , "artipcat1"
<aflanagan7372@...> wrote:
>
> I am a newbie to this group and a novice to the story of richard
> III, so forgive me if I pose a stupid question...but I just read
the
> article Hicks wrote on Queen Anne and it has me wondering even more
> about this woman and how she has been portrayed...I mean, she had
> this larger than life, ahead of his time father... could she have
> been a wimp? How disappointing. She had seen so many of her loved
> ones die due to the War of the Roses and she had seen and felt the
> impact of how quickly loyalties could shift... what influence might
> she have had on the fate of the Princes...if I were in her
> postition, I would love to stick it to the Woodvilles and Edward IV
> and I would want to protect my OWN son from the constant war that
> the life and support of those princes would have brought him if he
> would have lived to be king. I have to say, I would have told my
> husband to get rid of the boys. I wish we could know more about
this
> woman and her life. With her father and her husband...it must have
> been adventurous and tragic. Sorry if I am posing something that
has
> been beaten to death already but it is something I often think
about
> when I consider this cast of characters.
>
> Another stupid and off subject question...did ANY of Richard's
> offspring have children of their own?
>
> Angie

It seems not, unless Richard had any children we don't know about.

This is unlikely because his "mistresses" (or other partners) tended
to be single or widowed and so did he at the time - all of these
children could have been legitimate because he and the mothers were
all free to marry at the time of the childrens' birth.

Other monarchs did not operate in this way. A classical "mistress" is
the additional partner of a married man; sometimes she is married as
well which raises paternity questions. Henry VIII's illegitimate line
may well include the late Queen Mother.

To summarise:
Edward of Middleham died at a maximum age of ten - no issue.
Catherine married William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon - seemingly no
issue.
John of Gloucester - no evidence of marriage or issue.
However we are always open to new revelations.






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


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

--- In , "artipcat1" <aflanagan7372@...> wrote:
>
> I am a newbie to this group and a novice to the story of richard
> III,

Angie - being a 'newbie' I wonder if you have read an excellent article by Helen Maurier
entitled 'Whodunit? The suspects in the case" which you will find if you google for the
Richard lll Society American Branch. You will see from that, if you have not already read it,
there are others who would have had as much cause if not more to have the boys
murdered - if they were murdered - which I, personally, doubt. One reason, amongst
others, I wonder why Richard, without or without Anne's urging, would have had children
done to death whilst, it would seem, let other adults who were guilty of plotting against
him live. Now if I had been in Anne's shoes there are definitely some I would have done
my best to see outed such as Margaret Beaufort, the Stanleys, Morton and Jane Shore. If
Anne had been more like Elizabeth Woodville this is what would have happened. Maybe
we can glean something of Anne's nature by the fact that these vile traitors were allowed
to live and indeed they all outlived Richard, Anne and their son.

Regarding Anne being a wimp - she is usually portrayed as such in fiction - but consider
what she went through, for example the awful sea journey to Calais with her sister in
labour, the baby dying. The aftermath of the Battle of Tewkesbury when it must have
seemed to her all was lost. The episode of the kitchen maid etc., These episodes in her
early life might well have toughened her up - its possible.

I dont really take Hicks too seriously - the stuff he writes you would think he was a mind
reader of people who have been dead for over 500 years.


Sorry if I am posing something that has
> been beaten to death already but it is something I often think about
> when I consider this cast of characters.

Yes its all been gone over many times but because its all so mysterious I think the subject
will always continue to fascinate.

Eileen
>
> Another stupid and off subject question...did ANY of Richard's
> offspring have children of their own?
>
> Angie
>

--- In , "artipcat1"
<aflanagan7372@...> wrote:
>
> I am a newbie to this group and a novice to the story of richard
> III, so forgive me if I pose a stupid question...but I just read
the
> article Hicks wrote on Queen Anne and it has me wondering even more
> about this woman and how she has been portrayed...I mean, she had
> this larger than life, ahead of his time father... could she have
> been a wimp? How disappointing. She had seen so many of her loved
> ones die due to the War of the Roses and she had seen and felt the
> impact of how quickly loyalties could shift... what influence might
> she have had on the fate of the Princes...if I were in her
> postition, I would love to stick it to the Woodvilles and Edward IV
> and I would want to protect my OWN son from the constant war that
> the life and support of those princes would have brought him if he
> would have lived to be king. I have to say, I would have told my
> husband to get rid of the boys. I wish we could know more about
this
> woman and her life. With her father and her husband...it must have
> been adventurous and tragic. Sorry if I am posing something that
has
> been beaten to death already but it is something I often think
about



I think it's always interesting to step outside the usually-accepted
version of almost anything and look at it from a different
perspective. There is more than one interpretation of most things.
I'm a big fan of what-iffing. As someone said, when everyone thinks
alike, no one is thinking very much.

Katy

On 17 Apr 2006, at 00:07, eileen wrote:

> I dont really take Hicks too seriously - the stuff he writes you
> would think he was a mind
> reader of people who have been dead for over 500 years.


I agree here Eileen. reading his biography of Anne Neville (or rather
ploughing through it!) he on many occasions states as fact something
that is mere supposition, uses "probably" and "most certainly"
without back up references so many times I've lost count, Anne
"cannot have been a virgin" when she married the "already sexually
active" and "predatory seducer" Richard Duke of Gloucester.
He clearly has a time machine that takes him back to the Gloucester's
bedrooms both before and after they married each other!!
Paul


"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

"Predatory seducer?" There's a new one, especially since (and I've never read Hicks' work; it's hard to come by around here) I've gotten the impression that Hicks belongs to the "hump" camp.

For the sake of fiction, I tend to imply that Anne had to consummate with Edouard of Lancaster, but to write something like that as a serious statement of fact, to say you KNOW it was as such, is absolute bollocks.

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

On 17 Apr 2006, at 00:07, eileen wrote:

> I dont really take Hicks too seriously - the stuff he writes you
> would think he was a mind
> reader of people who have been dead for over 500 years.


I agree here Eileen. reading his biography of Anne Neville (or rather
ploughing through it!) he on many occasions states as fact something
that is mere supposition, uses "probably" and "most certainly"
without back up references so many times I've lost count, Anne
"cannot have been a virgin" when she married the "already sexually
active" and "predatory seducer" Richard Duke of Gloucester.
He clearly has a time machine that takes him back to the Gloucester's
bedrooms both before and after they married each other!!
Paul


"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"




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


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

On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:31, Megan Lerseth wrote:

> "Predatory seducer?" There's a new one, especially since (and I've
> never read Hicks' work; it's hard to come by around here) I've
> gotten the impression that Hicks belongs to the "hump" camp.

Oh yes Megan, he's that too!
One of the many disabled people of the period who put on armour and
fought in hand to hand battles! (that's me being facetious in case
you didn't realise it!)
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

(Facetious here too) Yeah. Chicks dig the hump.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2006, at 15:31, Megan Lerseth wrote:

> "Predatory seducer?" There's a new one, especially since (and I've
> never read Hicks' work; it's hard to come by around here) I've
> gotten the impression that Hicks belongs to the "hump" camp.

Oh yes Megan, he's that too!
One of the many disabled people of the period who put on armour and
fought in hand to hand battles! (that's me being facetious in case
you didn't realise it!)
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"




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


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> Regarding Anne being a wimp - she is usually portrayed as such in
fiction - but consider
> what she went through, for example the awful sea journey to Calais
with her sister in
> labour, the baby dying. The aftermath of the Battle of Tewkesbury
when it must have
> seemed to her all was lost. The episode of the kitchen maid etc.,
These episodes in her
> early life might well have toughened her up - its possible.


The recent discussione of Anne Neville remind me of something I have
been meaning to mention.

I think many of us tend to look back at the past and think "I
couldn't have done that!" I have been organizing and transcribing
the autobiography (though she wouldn't have given it such a name) my
mother wrote during the last year of her life, in the form of little
anecdotes each a few pages long. She always said she had lived just
an ordinary life, never had any adventures and never traveled much.
But her ordinary life (she was born in 1905) in West Texas involved
accomplishment and hardships that seem amazing from my lifetime. I
once said the usual "I couldn't done that or coped with that" and she
replied that of course I could, everyone did, they were not unusual,
and what choice would you have?

I believe its the same with our views of the lives of people in the
past of any remove. They lived the lives of their time. In our
favorite era, it was not at all unusual for a lucky individual to
outlive several spouses and several children. Up to the advent of
anesthesia and antisepsis in the mid 19th century, a pregnant woman
had a one-in-five chance of dying in in childbirth or from
complications of pregnancy. Not in her lifetime -- with each
pregnancy. The wheel of fortune was a popular and well-understood
symbol...in every life fortune would wax and wane. As the old
children's story said "This, too, shall pass." People expected to
live through all sorts of good times and bad.

Anne Neville lived through some turns of the wheel of fortune, but so
did everyone else. Some of the events of her life seem to indicate
that she had some backbone, such as hiding out as a kitchen wench.
Or maybe that proves she was passive and submissive, and she didn't
hide, she was hidden. But I think it's a fallacy to think we
couldn't have done what she did.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --
>
>
> The recent discussione of Anne Neville remind me of something I have
> been meaning to mention.
>
. The wheel of fortune was a popular and well-understood
> symbol...in every life fortune would wax and wane. As the old
> children's story said "This, too, shall pass." People expected to
> live through all sorts of good times and bad.
>
> > Katy
>

Following on from what you said Katy - there does not seem to be any indications that
people suffered 'nervous breakdowns' to the extent that they do today. This seems to be
a modern day thing. It certainly does not seem to have been recognised in the first world
war where soldiers obviously sufffering some sort of breakdown were branded as cowards
and tied to posts and shot, some of whom had been fighting for long periods of time
without beingbranded as cowards. You hear about it every day now people suffering from
stress and so forth - but the older generation seem to be made of sterner stuff. For
example what my mum's generation (talking specifically of Londoners here) went through
during the Blitz must have been nerve wracking but you never hear any of them saying
they had suffered nervous breakdowns.

Of course it may not have been recognised in previous centuries as nervous breakdowns!

Eileen

>

Following on from what you said Katy - there does not seem to be any indications that
people suffered 'nervous breakdowns' to the extent that they do today.



I think they did Eileen - it's just that they interpreted it differently.
Oliver Cromwell had one (or something very like one) before he rose to fame - he interpreted it as a religious "rebirth". The rest is history.

Reading Saul's _Richard II_ convinced me that whatever else Richard II was, he suffered from a number of depressive episodes. However, he had no access to counselling or ADs.

Apparently, if you don't treat depression it does go away (on average) after about eight months. This was probably the cure for those of our ancestors who didn't find another means to "end it."

Brian W

>  Reading Saul's _Richard II_ convinced me that whatever else Richard II was, he suffered from a number of depressive episodes. However, he had no access to counselling or ADs.
>
>  Apparently, if you don't treat depression it does go away (on average) after about eight months. This was probably the cure for those of our ancestors who didn't find another means to "end it."
>
>  Brian W
====================================

When the controversy about medicating post-partum depression was making the rounds a few months ago, an Indian woman spoke about it being common enough, but that an extended family in the Indian tradition made the syndrome easier for both the mother and the baby. It's possible that a sort of natural or artificial order of things in earlier times may have helped or hindered certain things like depression.

That said, it's been suggested that Isabel of Portugal, mother of Isabel the Catholic, may have suffered post-partum depression and that it affected her mental state for the rest of her life.

The Marques of Cadiz went into extended shock after the battle of Axarquia (I think it was), when the Moors caught his army in an ambush and killed off not only a huge number of his men but several family members as well. He died in 1492, within months of the taking of Granada, at about the age of 50. It's been speculated that he never completely recovered from the catastrophe.

Maria
elena@...