Richard and Buckingham

Roslyn wrote:

the biggest question is why did richard trust
buckingham? edward didn't, and had not for years.
buckingham was biggest opportunistic weasel
of the era.

****

I've asked the same question.

One possibility is that Buckingham had gone to France
in Edward IV's 1475 campaign, and shared Richard's
opposition to accepting Louis IX's buy-out. If that's
true, Richard may have believed Buckingham was
trustworthy because he'd shared Richard's opposition
to Edward IV's deal with Louis XI.

This possibility is described in Michael K. Jones'
article "Richard III as a Soldier," published in John
Gillingham's "Richard III : A Medieval Kingship," pp.
93-112. On pp. 97-98 Jones writes:

"The agreement with Louis XI abandoned Edward's
brother-in-law and ally, Charles the Bold of Burgundy,
who had assisted his recovery of the English throne
four years earlier. Richard's opposition showed that
he felt this betrayal particularly deeply. Many
humbler soldiers showed their distaste for the
arrangement by joining Charles the Bold's army and
continuing the campaign.

It is worth considering Commynes' remark that 'other
persons of quality' were opposed to the treaty. The
young Henry, Duke of Buckingham, is known to have
withdrawn from the expedition and left for England
with his retinue before Picquigny was concluded. It
is likely that the intensely ambitious Buckingham was
hoping to win lands and renown through war with
France, just as his grandfather had, and had violently
disagreed with Edward IV over the abandonment of the
campaign. This would explain his subsequent puzzling
absence from court (the brief exception being the
trial of Clarence), his failure to gain office in the
last period of Edward's rule and also his remarkable
sense of common cause with Richard in April 1483, when
he became his closest supporter."

Unfortunately, none of the papers in "Richard III; a
medieval kingship," include footnotes, just a list of
Further Reading at the end of each. So I don't know
what source Jones is quoting for his statement: "The
young Henry, Duke of Buckingham, is known to have
withdrawn from the expedition and left for England
with his retinue before Picquigny was concluded." How
does Jones know this?

Charles Ross also discusses Buckingham's part in the
French expedition in his book, "Edward IV." But his
text and footnotes seem to contradict each other:

On p. 230 he says that Buckingham was absent from a
group that witnessed Edward IV's instructions to the
men who first discussed the treaty with Louis XI. In
his footnote to this statement Ross cites Rymer,
Foedera, XII, 14-15 as the source. [Footnote 2, p.
230] He also writes: "Buckingham was not present on
this occasion [the witnessing of Edward IV's
instructions, 13 Aug. 1475], which confirms the entry
against his retinue in Barnard, op.cit "Returned
Home." In view of his relations with Edward (below,
p. 335), it would be interesting to know why."

On p. 335 Ross writes: [Buckingham] "was mysteriously
absent from the royal invasion army of 1475, having
contracted to go, and was given none of the
employments and responsibilities which a man of his
position might have expected: most remarkable of all
was his exclusion from the commissions of the peace
everywhere except in Stafford."[3] In footnote 3,
Ross writes: "Above, p. 230n."

But footnote 2 on p. 230 sounds as if Buckingham went
to France and left before 13 Aug. 1475. Yet the
sentence on p. 335 sounds as if Buckingham pulled out
of the expedition before leaving England.

Michael K. Jones writes as if he knew that Buckingham
went to France and somehow developed a "sense of
common cause" with Richard. But Jones doesn't give
his source.

Does anyone on the list have access to Rymer, T.,
"Foedera, Conventiones, Literae ... et Acta Publica,"
XII, 14-15 or "Barnard, F.P. "Edward IV's French
Expedition of 1475: the Leaders and their Badges
(1925)? Could you find out if Buckingham never left
England, or if he went to France and left before 13
Aug, and could you post the answer to the list?

TIA!

Marion











__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

PLEASE SCROLL TO END.

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Roslyn wrote:
>
> the biggest question is why did richard trust
> buckingham? edward didn't, and had not for years.
> buckingham was biggest opportunistic weasel
> of the era.
>
> ****
>
> I've asked the same question.
>
> One possibility is that Buckingham had gone to France
> in Edward IV's 1475 campaign, and shared Richard's
> opposition to accepting Louis IX's buy-out. If that's
> true, Richard may have believed Buckingham was
> trustworthy because he'd shared Richard's opposition
> to Edward IV's deal with Louis XI.
>
> This possibility is described in Michael K. Jones'
> article "Richard III as a Soldier," published in John
> Gillingham's "Richard III : A Medieval Kingship," pp.
> 93-112. On pp. 97-98 Jones writes:
>
> "The agreement with Louis XI abandoned Edward's
> brother-in-law and ally, Charles the Bold of Burgundy,
> who had assisted his recovery of the English throne
> four years earlier. Richard's opposition showed that
> he felt this betrayal particularly deeply. Many
> humbler soldiers showed their distaste for the
> arrangement by joining Charles the Bold's army and
> continuing the campaign.
>
> It is worth considering Commynes' remark that 'other
> persons of quality' were opposed to the treaty. The
> young Henry, Duke of Buckingham, is known to have
> withdrawn from the expedition and left for England
> with his retinue before Picquigny was concluded. It
> is likely that the intensely ambitious Buckingham was
> hoping to win lands and renown through war with
> France, just as his grandfather had, and had violently
> disagreed with Edward IV over the abandonment of the
> campaign. This would explain his subsequent puzzling
> absence from court (the brief exception being the
> trial of Clarence), his failure to gain office in the
> last period of Edward's rule and also his remarkable
> sense of common cause with Richard in April 1483, when
> he became his closest supporter."
>
> Unfortunately, none of the papers in "Richard III; a
> medieval kingship," include footnotes, just a list of
> Further Reading at the end of each. So I don't know
> what source Jones is quoting for his statement: "The
> young Henry, Duke of Buckingham, is known to have
> withdrawn from the expedition and left for England
> with his retinue before Picquigny was concluded." How
> does Jones know this?
>
> Charles Ross also discusses Buckingham's part in the
> French expedition in his book, "Edward IV." But his
> text and footnotes seem to contradict each other:
>
> On p. 230 he says that Buckingham was absent from a
> group that witnessed Edward IV's instructions to the
> men who first discussed the treaty with Louis XI. In
> his footnote to this statement Ross cites Rymer,
> Foedera, XII, 14-15 as the source. [Footnote 2, p.
> 230] He also writes: "Buckingham was not present on
> this occasion [the witnessing of Edward IV's
> instructions, 13 Aug. 1475], which confirms the entry
> against his retinue in Barnard, op.cit "Returned
> Home." In view of his relations with Edward (below,
> p. 335), it would be interesting to know why."
>
> On p. 335 Ross writes: [Buckingham] "was mysteriously
> absent from the royal invasion army of 1475, having
> contracted to go, and was given none of the
> employments and responsibilities which a man of his
> position might have expected: most remarkable of all
> was his exclusion from the commissions of the peace
> everywhere except in Stafford."[3] In footnote 3,
> Ross writes: "Above, p. 230n."
>
> But footnote 2 on p. 230 sounds as if Buckingham went
> to France and left before 13 Aug. 1475. Yet the
> sentence on p. 335 sounds as if Buckingham pulled out
> of the expedition before leaving England.
>
> Michael K. Jones writes as if he knew that Buckingham
> went to France and somehow developed a "sense of
> common cause" with Richard. But Jones doesn't give
> his source.
>
> Does anyone on the list have access to Rymer, T.,
> "Foedera, Conventiones, Literae ... et Acta Publica,"
> XII, 14-15 or "Barnard, F.P. "Edward IV's French
> Expedition of 1475: the Leaders and their Badges
> (1925)? Could you find out if Buckingham never left
> England, or if he went to France and left before 13
> Aug, and could you post the answer to the list?

I could look up the Foedera on a later library visit, but I have
Barnard on my bookshelf. It is based on MS. 2.M. 16 College of Arms.
The entry on Buckingham reads:
"Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham (see D.N.B.), does not appear
in the Tellers' Roll for the first quarter of the 'viage', but in our
MS. he contributes 4 knights, 40 other men-at-arms, and 400 archers.
The Roll tells us that he went home. He is not in either Molinet's of
Haynin's lists." (p.14)

I also realised I missed Katy's post on More's account of the Tower
incident being definitely from Morton's perspective. I do agree, but
I don't think we can take it lock stock and barrel at face value
simply because he was there. For one thing, morton was actually
involved in any plot himself, so needed to cover up this fact. For
another, he may have wanted to convince the public that Richzrd had
had Hastings executed because the idea that Hastings was the
ringleader made the claim of a plot look that much more unlikely. The
rusty axe and old block of wood just provide that extra touch of
villainy.
Thirdly, we don't know what More may have added of his own.
His 'Richard III' can't be entirely Morton's work. For instance, his
account of the murder of the Princes makes reference at the end to
Tyrell's downfall, which did not happen until after Morton's death.

I find it interesting that Croyland is the first source to claim a
beheading, and that it lies extremely close to both Ely and Margaret
Beaufort's Lincolnshire home (it actually shared a disputed boundary
with the latter). Even Michael Hicks, at the Foundation's first
bosworth conference, suggested that Croyland's take on events had
probably been influenced by "information" received from Margaret
Beaufort.

The difficulty for me is to know how much of Morton's version of the
events of June 13 is true and how much is what he wanted people to
believe,

Marie

Marie wrote: I could look up the Foedera on a later
library visit, but I have Barnard on my bookshelf. It
is based on MS. 2.M. 16 College of Arms. The entry on
Buckingham reads: "Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of
Buckingham (see D.N.B.), does not appear in the
Tellers' Roll for the first quarter of the 'viage',
but in our MS. he contributes 4 knights, 40 other
men-at-arms, and 400 archers. The Roll tells us that
he went home. He is not in either Molinet's of
Haynin's lists." (p.14)

****

Thanks Marie, I appreciate this. If you have a chance
to look up the Foedera reference when you're at the
library, I'd appreciate it if you'd post that to the
list, too.

But Barnard answers my question. Buckingham went to
France and apparently returned home before the rest of
the English army.

So it's possible Richard developed a "sense of common
cause with Buckingham" in France.

Marion




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
>
> I also realised I missed Katy's post on More's account of the
Tower
> incident being definitely from Morton's perspective. I do agree,
but
> I don't think we can take it lock stock and barrel at face value
> simply because he was there. For one thing, morton was actually
> involved in any plot himself, so needed to cover up this fact. For
> another, he may have wanted to convince the public that Richzrd
had
> had Hastings executed because the idea that Hastings was the
> ringleader made the claim of a plot look that much more unlikely.
The
> rusty axe and old block of wood just provide that extra touch of
> villainy.
> Thirdly, we don't know what More may have added of his own.
> His 'Richard III' can't be entirely Morton's work. For instance,
his
> account of the murder of the Princes makes reference at the end to
> Tyrell's downfall, which did not happen until after Morton's death.


There are two authors at work in The History of King Richard III,
attributed to More. Some historians theorize that More obtained a
written but unpublished account from John Morton (he was Morton's
protoge and spent some years as a member of his household) and added
onto them, then allowed the whole thing to be privately circulated
under his name alone. It's easy to see there are two styles -- the
style changes in the middle of a page so abruptly that the reader
gets whiplash, and the second author starts reiterating what has
already been told, then going on to later events. The second part
is in More's characteristic turgid, hectoring style. The first part
is from the pen of a far more gifted writer, It is positively
cinematic, with vivid action and you-are-there details such as the
rusty axe. That author must be Morton.

There are computer programs for comparing writing styles -- they
have been used to compare the writings of Shakespeare with those of
Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Exeter, and godwot. I think it
would be interesting to compare the first part of the History of
King Richard III with the pertinent portions of the Croyland
Chronicle. Not that I think Morton sat there at the abbey and wrote
it personally...that ground has been pretty well plowed. But I
think it's possible that the Croyland continuator had heard some of
the story from Morton, and may have used some of Morton's vivid
phrases and descriptions.



> I find it interesting that Croyland is the first source to claim
a
> beheading, and that it lies extremely close to both Ely and
Margaret
> Beaufort's Lincolnshire home (it actually shared a disputed
boundary
> with the latter). Even Michael Hicks, at the Foundation's first
> bosworth conference, suggested that Croyland's take on events had
> probably been influenced by "information" received from Margaret
> Beaufort.

Did Margaret Beaufort have a priest in residence, a personal
confessor? Is it possible that such a person could have heard about
the events in the council chamber from Morton, or from a church
person who might have been traveling with Morton, and then brought
the Croyland Abbey up to date on the exciting events at a later
visit?
>
> The difficulty for me is to know how much of Morton's version of
the
> events of June 13 is true and how much is what he wanted people to
> believe,

That is always the problem. Morton had no reason to be an
investigative journalist who would record an unbiased account. And
as someone said, just because something is written in Latin, it is
not necessarily true.

Katy

To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary

I really do think this needs to be discussed on here more fully......We may even get to the bottom of it...or not...Eileen

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
> But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
> What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
> Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary
>

Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham?    Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing?  Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell?  Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
Subject: Richard and Buckingham

 
To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary



Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

Liz....going off from a tangent on your message...but I have just seen a programme coming up December 7 entitled Westminster Abbey....Oh Wow....

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham?    Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing?  Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell?  Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
> Subject: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
> But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
> What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
> Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 1
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>

Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions. It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know. Hilary
 

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 14:02
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 

Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham?    Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing?  Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell?  Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
Subject: Richard and Buckingham

 
To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

I saw the trailer a couple of nights ago.  It looks fascinating.  I  suspect my old boss will be furious that he has retired and won't be on the telly.  I think his job was taken by Ptolemy Dean who has done a lot of tv work so I suspect we will see him in the documentary.

From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 14:17
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

 
Liz....going off from a tangent on your message...but I have just seen a programme coming up December 7 entitled Westminster Abbey....Oh Wow....

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham?    Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing?  Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell?  Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
> Subject: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
> But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
> What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
> Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary
>
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 1
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⬢ Unsubscribe ⬢ Terms of Use ⬢ Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. <snip>

Carol responds: I don't know whether you've seen it since you joined the forum recently, but not long ago we discussed John Ashdown-Hill's theory that Richard came down with the sweating sickness just before Bosworth. You should be able to find that thread with a site search for "sweating sickness" and revive it if you're interested.

As for Buckingham, Kendall (and Sharon Kay Penman, who seems to follow him in many respects) subscribed to the theory that he had George-like charisma. Both of them had a reputation (whether deserved or not, I don't know) as skilled and articulate speakers, so maybe he convinced Richard of his loyalty with his rhetoric. I suspect, though, that there were two reasons. First, Richard needed an ally against the Woodville conspiracy to thwart his Protectorate (evidenced by Dorset's use of his status as Edward V's "uterine brother" to run the kingdom without authority--no wonder he went into hiding and Elizabeth Woodville went into sanctuary when Richard took rightful custody of his nephew--and by the queen's failure to notify Richard of Edward IV's death). Hastings, unavoidably, was in London. No one else even tried to come to Richard's aid. How Buckingham, who had been in Wales, knew what was going on in London, I don't know (spies, I suppose), but he seems to have given Richard valuable information that led to the arrests as Stony Stratford. It's possible that Richard felt (rightly or wrongly) that he owed his life to Buckingham. And later, Buckingham strongly supported Richard's kingship. He may even have persuaded Richard that taking the crown was both his right and his duty. Richard would have interpreted his motive, whatever it really was, as loyalty.

Second, whether or not Buckingham resembled George (physically or in terms of personality), he represented what Richard called "the old royal blood of this royaume"--almost the only adult male descendant of Edward III left in England (except, of course, John, Earl of Lincoln, who was only about twenty and not part of Richard's retinue until Richard became king as far as I'm aware). At any rate, the plot against Richard's life mentioned in Richard's letter of June 11 seems to have included Buckingham (of whom Hastings may well have been jealous). So it was "them" (the Woodvilles and their adherents, possibly now including Hastings et al.) against "us" (the blood royal, rightfully in charge of the kingdom until the "king" came of age, assuming that Stillington hadn't yet dropped his bombshell, or rightfully ruling it if he had).

I suppose that Richard, once he became king, expected Buckingham to fill the role of loyal follower and chief servant of the crown that he had filled for Edward. Poor Richard. He seems to have been (except for his friendship with Francis Lovell and perhaps Richard Ratcliffe) a rather bad judge of character.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."

Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
sufficed?
Doug

Good post Hilary....Im wondering if Richard's new found 'friendship' with Buck would necessarily have made Lovell jealous and I guess a lot depends on Richard's handling of the situation. Even with the great rewards directed in Buck's direction if Richard's attitude did not change towards Lovell and he did not cold shoulder him in anyway, Lovell may have had a big enough heart to accept this course of events without jealousy. In fact after the Coronation when Richard left London to travel north he stayed at Minster Lovel for a while. I would like to think of his stay there included some relaxation and good times with his long standing friend.
Of course some of these nobles did indeed have very large and fragile egos and needed handling with care. Sometimes it is understandable that they did cop the needle...an example here is Edward's treatment of Warwick. After all he had done for him he treated him badly....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new friendship.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 14:02
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>  
>
> Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham?    Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing?  Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell?  Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
> From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
> Subject: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
> But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
> What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
> Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 1
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Buckingham was of royal blood, and immensely rich. Lovel was neither of these things. Lovel has known Richard since boyhood at Middleham, while Buckingham just popped in and out of Richard's life at various times before 1483. Lovel may well have talked about him with Richard, I'm sure he did, but two royal dukes, both uncles to the new king, will have seemed like an unbeatable duo. And for a time it was. But Buckingham kept his ambition buried deep inside for most of his life, and if as charming as it is reported he was, reminding a lot of people of Clarence, I can't blame Richard, or Lovel, for falling for it. There was no other ally as noble or high born, or as wealthy as Buckingham.
Perhaps only Edward had seen the viper lurking inside.
Paul

On 27 Nov 2012, at 14:40, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions. It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 14:02
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>
>
> Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham? Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing? Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell? Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
> From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
> Subject: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
> But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
> What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
> Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
> Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 1
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Lovel was hardly a pauper.  As his coat of arms shows, he was heir to five baronies, and he received large grants from Richard. He was promoted to Viscount, and an earldom would doubtless have followed had the regime prospered.

But Richard would have felt it appropriate to associate with the leading members of the nobility, and this meant Buckingham and, after the elimination of Richard of Shrewsbury, John Howard, Duke of Norfolk.

After being betrayed by Buckingham, Richard clearly went back to the northern followers he knew and trusted, but this may have cost him the support of the old establishment.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 18:41
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

Buckingham was of royal blood, and immensely rich. Lovel was neither of these things. Lovel has known Richard since boyhood at Middleham, while Buckingham just popped in and out of Richard's life at various times before 1483. Lovel may well have talked about him with Richard, I'm sure he did, but two royal dukes, both uncles to the new king, will have seemed like an unbeatable duo. And for a time it was. But Buckingham kept his ambition buried deep inside for most of his life, and if as charming as it is reported he was, reminding a lot of people of Clarence, I can't blame Richard, or Lovel, for falling for it. There was no other ally as noble or high born, or as wealthy as Buckingham.
Perhaps only Edward had seen the viper lurking inside.
Paul

On 27 Nov 2012, at 14:40, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions. It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know. Hilary
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 14:02
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>   
>
> Also, I've always wondered, what did Francis Lovell think when Richard chummed up with Buckingham?    Would Lovell have just accepted it since Buckingham was (n theory at least) of higher standing?  Or was it a different type of relationship to the one Richard and Lovell?  Apart of course from the fact that Lovell was trustworthy?
> From: hjnatdat <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012, 12:58
> Subject: Richard and Buckingham
>
> 
> To me there are two pieces of the R3 jigsaw I can't get my head round. One is the flawed charge at Bosworth (was he ill and wanted it over, or was he acting as he thought a chivalric knight should act - but that's another topic). The other is his friendship with Buckingham. As Ross says, E4 didn't seem to trust Buckingham and only really brought him in to be Constable of the Tower to oversee Clarence's death. That could of course be because Buckingham didn't like Edward re-distributing some of his lands and then of course there was the Woodville marriage.
> But Richard comes across as someone who was careful in his friendships, in fact, as Hiscox and Annette have pointed out, it probably contributed to his lack of popularity amongst the 'southern lot'.
> What do the more erudite of you make of it? Was Buckingham, being 'high-born' the nearest Richard could find to a substitute Clarence, which would mean that he felt Clarence's death more than some give him credit for? Was he the only new supporter Richard could find - seems odd? Was he even a substitute Edward, but there's nothing to suggest he had great charisma? Perhaps Richard, having been a de facto deputy for so long, needed someone to tell him what he was doing was right?
> Whatever it was, he obviously felt the betrayal strongly, which concurs with Hancock's view on his rage at the 'betrayal' of Hastings. It is a very emotional outpouring about a 'colleague'. Over to you. I'd love to hear some views on this. Hilary
>
> Reply via web post  Reply to sender  Reply to group  Start a New Topic  Messages in this topic (5)
> Recent Activity:     * New Members 1     * New Photos 1
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather than write to each of you?

Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor! I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?

One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.

PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'. It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it could be true
Thanks again all Hilary

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
>
> Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> sufficed?
> Doug
>

> The more you research R the more naive he appears.


Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.

Cheers

Jonathan



________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather than write to each of you?

Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor! I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?

One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.

PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'. It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it could be true
Thanks again all Hilary

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
>
> Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> sufficed?
> Doug
>

This is interesting and has got me thinking. Naïve or so sure that when he
believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too? I
have no idea, just throwing that out there.

Karen

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham






> The more you research R the more naive he appears.

Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of
betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the
trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.

Cheers

Jonathan

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham



Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather
than write to each of you?

Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really
hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable
record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his
bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been
recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called
Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in
Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with
Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor!
I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an
idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to
be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?

One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader
(don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the
charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who
propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship
with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop
charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain
ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I
can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I
shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.

PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross
believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did
H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until
he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'.
It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it
could be true
Thanks again all Hilary

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
<destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
>
> Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> sufficed?
> Doug
>

> Naïve or so sure that when he
believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too?


Isn't that a facet of naïveté?

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 12:32
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
This is interesting and has got me thinking. Naïve or so sure that when he
believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too? I
have no idea, just throwing that out there.

Karen

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

> The more you research R the more naive he appears.

Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of
betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the
trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.

Cheers

Jonathan

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather
than write to each of you?

Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really
hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable
record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his
bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been
recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called
Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in
Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with
Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor!
I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an
idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to
be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?

One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader
(don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the
charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who
propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship
with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop
charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain
ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I
can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I
shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.

PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross
believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did
H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until
he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'.
It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it
could be true
Thanks again all Hilary

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
<destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
>
> Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> sufficed?
> Doug
>

It always makes me wonder how Richard could have been so naive. He has been through a lot and knew about treachery so it seems time and again he showed bad judgement by trusting and pardoning malcontents. Nowhere more so than with the Stanley brothers and MB. And then there are rash and impulsive actions like executing Hastings and making the fatal charge at Bosworth. Seems like two different people to me.
In a blog Susan Higginbotham called Richard a " bully" but his behavior shows a policy of appeasement rather than high handed bullying. Well, maybe he acted like a bully in Hasting's case. But that is another thread.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:41 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather than write to each of you?
>
> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor! I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>
> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>
> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'. It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it could be true
> Thanks again all Hilary
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> > to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> > friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> > probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> > trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> > out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> > Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> > doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> > buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> > there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> > It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
> >
> > Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> > remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> > there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> > Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> > presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> > sufficed?
> > Doug
> >
>
>

"Arrogance" for detractors?


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

> > Naïve or so sure that when he
> believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too?
>
> Isn't that a facet of naïveté?
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 12:32
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>
> This is interesting and has got me thinking. Naïve or so sure that when he
> believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too? I
> have no idea, just throwing that out there.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> > The more you research R the more naive he appears.
>
> Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of
> betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the
> trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather
> than write to each of you?
>
> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really
> hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable
> record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his
> bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been
> recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called
> Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in
> Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with
> Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor!
> I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an
> idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to
> be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>
> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader
> (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the
> charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who
> propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship
> with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop
> charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain
> ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I
> can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I
> shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>
> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross
> believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did
> H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until
> he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'.
> It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it
> could be true
> Thanks again all Hilary
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> > to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> > friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> > probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> > trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> > out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> > Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> > doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> > buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> > there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> > It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
> >
> > Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> > remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> > there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> > Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> > presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> > sufficed?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> In a blog Susan Higginbotham called Richard a " bully"


It's an interesting blog.  I think it errs towards the negative, but no more than this list has a positive bias.  Re the specific accusation, "impulsive and emotional" is a better fit for the behaviour pattern.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 12:51
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
It always makes me wonder how Richard could have been so naive. He has been through a lot and knew about treachery so it seems time and again he showed bad judgement by trusting and pardoning malcontents. Nowhere more so than with the Stanley brothers and MB. And then there are rash and impulsive actions like executing Hastings and making the fatal charge at Bosworth. Seems like two different people to me.
In a blog Susan Higginbotham called Richard a " bully" but his behavior shows a policy of appeasement rather than high handed bullying. Well, maybe he acted like a bully in Hasting's case. But that is another thread.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:41 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather than write to each of you?
>
> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor! I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>
> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>
> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'. It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it could be true
> Thanks again all Hilary
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> > to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> > friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> > probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> > trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> > out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> > Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> > doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> > buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> > there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> > It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
> >
> > Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> > remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> > there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> > Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> > presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> > sufficed?
> > Doug
> >
>
>

Ishita, I go with the Hancock theory on Hastings (and Buckingham). To  Richard disloyalty was heresy. Cheers Hilary



________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 12:51
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 

It always makes me wonder how Richard could have been so naive. He has been through a lot and knew about treachery so it seems time and again he showed bad judgement by trusting and pardoning malcontents. Nowhere more so than with the Stanley brothers and MB. And then there are rash and impulsive actions like executing Hastings and making the fatal charge at Bosworth. Seems like two different people to me.
In a blog Susan Higginbotham called Richard a " bully" but his behavior shows a policy of appeasement rather than high handed bullying. Well, maybe he acted like a bully in Hasting's case. But that is another thread.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:41 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather than write to each of you?
>
> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor! I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>
> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>
> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'. It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it could be true
> Thanks again all Hilary
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> > to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> > friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> > probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> > trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> > out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> > Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> > doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> > buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> > there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> > It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
> >
> > Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> > remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> > there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> > Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> > presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> > sufficed?
> > Doug
> >
>
>

> "Arrogance" for detractors?


A detractor might claim that, but I don't see it (at least, not beyond the natural awareness of God-given status that you'd expect a royal duke to have).  Arrogance implies aloofness and a consistency of behaviour.  There's something a little more fragile about Richard - and, in saying that, I certainly don't want to go back to "Richard as victim", which I entirely refute.  There's palpable hurt in his reaction to Buckingham's betrayal.  And, for all we know, he may have felt similarly towards Hastings.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 12:54
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
"Arrogance" for detractors?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

> > Naïve or so sure that when he
> believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too?
>
> Isn't that a facet of naïveté?
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 12:32
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>
> This is interesting and has got me thinking. Naïve or so sure that when he
> believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too? I
> have no idea, just throwing that out there.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> > The more you research R the more naive he appears.
>
> Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of
> betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the
> trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather
> than write to each of you?
>
> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really
> hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable
> record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his
> bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been
> recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called
> Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in
> Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with
> Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor!
> I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an
> idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to
> be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>
> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader
> (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the
> charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who
> propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship
> with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop
> charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain
> ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I
> can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I
> shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>
> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross
> believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did
> H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until
> he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'.
> It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it
> could be true
> Thanks again all Hilary
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> > to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> > friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> > probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> > trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> > out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> > Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> > doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> > buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> > there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> > It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
> >
> > Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> > remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> > there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> > Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> > presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> > sufficed?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Such a bully that he left Stanley, Morton, and Margaret Beaufort alive!
Such accusations have no real idea of what was going on I fell.
Paul


On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:51, Richard Yahoo wrote:

> It always makes me wonder how Richard could have been so naive. He has been through a lot and knew about treachery so it seems time and again he showed bad judgement by trusting and pardoning malcontents. Nowhere more so than with the Stanley brothers and MB. And then there are rash and impulsive actions like executing Hastings and making the fatal charge at Bosworth. Seems like two different people to me.
> In a blog Susan Higginbotham called Richard a " bully" but his behavior shows a policy of appeasement rather than high handed bullying. Well, maybe he acted like a bully in Hasting's case. But that is another thread.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:41 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather than write to each of you?
>>
>> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor! I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>>
>> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>>
>> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'. It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it could be true
>> Thanks again all Hilary
>>
>> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hilary Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
>>> to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
>>> friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
>>> probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
>>> trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
>>> out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
>>> Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
>>> doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
>>> buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
>>> there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
>>> It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
>>>
>>> Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
>>> remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
>>> there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
>>> Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
>>> presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
>>> sufficed?
>>> Doug
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi, Jonathan & Karen & Everyone 



I do believe Richard was more idealistic than most of his fellow nobles and perhaps had some of his ideals shattered as a result of Edward IV's later history. We have read (in Chesterton) that the Yorks tended to believe that no one should separate the monarch from his people; the Lancastrians tended to support the powerful nobility and the church  and they might just possibly be looked at as greedy blood-suckers by the common folk. It's just a thought.



There are a lot of factors at play in Richard's last months. I agree with the notion that Richard was trying to be pro-active but was basically forced by quickly evolving circumstance to be reactive.



I haven't been reading about this period, having somehow seemed to have oscillated between Richard's last days (a la JAH) and his early days (Josephine Wilkinson and the early part of Kendall, for example), but given the discussion and my recollection from past reading, I agree that Richard's reaction in ordering the immediate execution seems extreme. Maybe *was* extreme, given that he spared the lives of the other conspirators. Is it likely that Hastings would have made an overt threat at Richard? I don't think so, because I think then the other conspirators would have also been engaged in open treason. I was wondering if Richard's dealing with Hastings in such an uncharacteristically extreme way could have been a result of realizing that Hastings had been Edward's procurer all along and that Hastings had knowledge of the pre-contract which he had withheld. Extrapolating the situation to its furthest, perhaps hooking up Elizabeth Woodville with Edward was actually a Lancastrian plot to seize the Crown by subversion, and Hastings was a willing tool in that effort.



Out there, perhaps, but I do think there must have been something known (and not speculative) to Richard that would have justified the immediate execution. I believe he was an experienced enough judge, and one regarded as a fair-minded, that he would not have executed Hastings summarily without convincing proof of guilt.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham





> The more you research R the more naive he appears.

Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.

Cheers

Jonathan



· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMDh0ODM4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTQxMDUyNDA-?o=6> New Members 1

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYjA4dXBlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQxMDUyNDA-> New Photos 2

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRlZnViBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDEwNTI0MA--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMXJyaDY3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0MTA1MjQw> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=20100/stime=1354105240/nc1=3848614/nc2=5008815/nc3=4025321

I think that's a very good point Karen. Richard seems to have been more than a little pious, whereas Warwick, Edward, Louis were what we'd call 'men of the world'. Cheers Hilary

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> This is interesting and has got me thinking. Naïve or so sure that when he
> believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too? I
> have no idea, just throwing that out there.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The more you research R the more naive he appears.
>
> Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of
> betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the
> trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>
> Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather
> than write to each of you?
>
> Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really
> hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable
> record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his
> bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been
> recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called
> Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in
> Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with
> Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor!
> I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an
> idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to
> be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?
>
> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader
> (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the
> charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who
> propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship
> with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop
> charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain
> ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I
> can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I
> shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.
>
> PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross
> believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did
> H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until
> he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'.
> It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it
> could be true
> Thanks again all Hilary
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> > to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> > friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> > probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> > trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> > out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> > Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> > doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> > buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> > there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> > It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
> >
> > Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> > remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> > there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> > Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> > presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> > sufficed?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary said:
 
'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
 
 
I'd say more like  Bobby Kennedy.  George, of course, was Teddy.
 
Liz

Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary said:
>  
> 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
>  
>  
> I'd say more like  Bobby Kennedy.  George, of course, was Teddy.
>  
> Liz
>
>
>

JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary said:
> >
> > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> >
> >
> > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Our Gordon was tongue in cheek - don't think even Richard was quite that dour - sorry Gordon fans! But they both had high morals. Hilary

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary said:
>  
> 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
>  
>  
> I'd say more like  Bobby Kennedy.  George, of course, was Teddy.
>  
> Liz
>
>
>

Indeed! And the charm - 'love your enemies' a good Edward ploy unless you really overstepped the mark.

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary said:
> > >
> > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?


From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

 
JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary said:
> >
> > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> >
> >
> > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I don't know but Cis did. She had to have her own accountant to keep her in check - I love her Hilary

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
>
>
> From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary said:
> > >
> > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Me too.....'Proud Cis'....the nickname says it all really....! I admire her enormously....Eileen

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know but Cis did. She had to have her own accountant to keep her in check - I love her Hilary
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> >
> >
> > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >  
> > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hilary said:
> > > >
> > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hilary wrote:

<snip>

> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. <snip>

Carol responds:

This idea reminds me of A. R. Myers' theory that Richard was not ruthless and cruel but "an anxious, nervous man" who got in over his head as the events of 1483 escalated out of control (the Peter Principle idea that he was an excellent administrator under someone else but lacked the political skill to be king). So instead of a ruthless, intelligent Richard manipulating events, we have a decent but not overly intelligent Richard compelled to violence because he saw no other way out of a sticky situation.

While I agree that Richard was a poor judge of character, trusting Buckingham (and Catesby?) and underestimating his enemies, especially Morton and Margaret Beaufort, I don't think that this view of him is accurate. Once he became king, we see again just how intelligent and politically aware he was. However, he did make several key mistakes (no doubt we all disagree which ones were most significant) that alienated a small segment of the population--those who rebelled in November 1483 and later joined Henry Tudor's invasion, which otherwise consisted of diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, French mercenaries, and deluded Welshmen hoping for the glorious fulfillment of their legends.

Does anyone have access to Myers' full article? All I have are snippets quoted in Ross and elsewhere.

Carol

I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?

From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

 
JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary said:
> >
> > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> >
> >
> > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Well EW's mother (I dont know whether EW was involved..I would have thought she woudl have known about it at the very least) had a gentleman's home looted and very expensive tapestries stolen. I cannot understand how Edward let this behaviour carry on.
Richard must have remembered this because during his very short reign one law he had made was that when someone was awaiting trial it was forbidden to loot their property...

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>  
> Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
>
> From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary said:
> > >
> > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

R was an excellent soldier and administrator. A scholar and an intellectual. But not a politician. "Nervous man" does not do justice to a man who has fought numerous battles since he was 17.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
Hilary wrote:

<snip>

> One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. <snip>

Carol responds:

This idea reminds me of A. R. Myers' theory that Richard was not ruthless and cruel but "an anxious, nervous man" who got in over his head as the events of 1483 escalated out of control (the Peter Principle idea that he was an excellent administrator under someone else but lacked the political skill to be king). So instead of a ruthless, intelligent Richard manipulating events, we have a decent but not overly intelligent Richard compelled to violence because he saw no other way out of a sticky situation.

While I agree that Richard was a poor judge of character, trusting Buckingham (and Catesby?) and underestimating his enemies, especially Morton and Margaret Beaufort, I don't think that this view of him is accurate. Once he became king, we see again just how intelligent and politically aware he was. However, he did make several key mistakes (no doubt we all disagree which ones were most significant) that alienated a small segment of the population--those who rebelled in November 1483 and later joined Henry Tudor's invasion, which otherwise consisted of diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, French mercenaries, and deluded Welshmen hoping for the glorious fulfillment of their legends.

Does anyone have access to Myers' full article? All I have are snippets quoted in Ross and elsewhere.

Carol

Hi Carol,

I've not heard of Myers and his principle it was just me. I think that deputies can be prodigously intelligent (I think Liz's Bobby Kennedy analogy is v good - many think him much more intelligent and focused than JFK). It's all (probably unjustly) to do with charisma, and often unwarranted charisma at that. I suppose today you'd call it having a good PR machine. I don't think Richard had time to do that, if he'd lived he might have. He certainly had a different personality to that of Edward and I bet there were some who longed for Edward's 'pat on the back', even if it was false.
I don't doubt for a moment that he wanted to do things differently (and better) than Edward. Deputies often sit there smouldering thinking they could do things better. His Parliament to his credit is evidence of that.
I do think his high religious/moral training and beliefs made him more susceptible to thinking the best of people and that did come back and bite him. Richard Haute is a good example; he came from Yorkshire and had been well treated. Sparing Morton etc is another.
So we kinda half agree! Cheers Hilary

In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader (don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> This idea reminds me of A. R. Myers' theory that Richard was not ruthless and cruel but "an anxious, nervous man" who got in over his head as the events of 1483 escalated out of control (the Peter Principle idea that he was an excellent administrator under someone else but lacked the political skill to be king). So instead of a ruthless, intelligent Richard manipulating events, we have a decent but not overly intelligent Richard compelled to violence because he saw no other way out of a sticky situation.
>
> While I agree that Richard was a poor judge of character, trusting Buckingham (and Catesby?) and underestimating his enemies, especially Morton and Margaret Beaufort, I don't think that this view of him is accurate. Once he became king, we see again just how intelligent and politically aware he was. However, he did make several key mistakes (no doubt we all disagree which ones were most significant) that alienated a small segment of the population--those who rebelled in November 1483 and later joined Henry Tudor's invasion, which otherwise consisted of diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, French mercenaries, and deluded Welshmen hoping for the glorious fulfillment of their legends.
>
> Does anyone have access to Myers' full article? All I have are snippets quoted in Ross and elsewhere.
>
> Carol
>

You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>  
> Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
>
> From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary said:
> > >
> > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have this wicked vision of R senior saying 'Cecily darling, about that dress you bought last week, I've had Price Waterhouse on the phone. We may have to sell Fotheringhay'

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> Me too.....'Proud Cis'....the nickname says it all really....! I admire her enormously....Eileen
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know but Cis did. She had to have her own accountant to keep her in check - I love her Hilary
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > >  
> > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >
> >  
> > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> >
> > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >  
> > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hilary said:
> > > >
> > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Oh yeah...Here's a nice thought.....R senior thoroughly indulging his wife.....If Cis wants it Cis can have it...:0)

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have this wicked vision of R senior saying 'Cecily darling, about that dress you bought last week, I've had Price Waterhouse on the phone. We may have to sell Fotheringhay'
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > Me too.....'Proud Cis'....the nickname says it all really....! I admire her enormously....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know but Cis did. She had to have her own accountant to keep her in check - I love her Hilary
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liz
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray' permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
>
> No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > >
> > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > >  
> > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray' permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > >
> > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liz
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Thomas Cook!

On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo
> <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > To: "" <
> >
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > To: "" <
> >
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> well be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
"In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas Cook!
>
> On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo
> > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > To: "" <
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > well be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > Hilary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

The case was that of Sir Thomas Cook. The judge was ?John Markham. The story of Jascquetta coveting the tapestry comes from Fabyan, but Fabyan had been Cook's apprentice at the time in question.
There is an article on the case by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-fuchs which I think is in the Society library.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray' permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > To: "" <>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > To: "" <>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I've tried the Queen Mary trick but it doesn't work for me.  Perhaps I should try again whilst wearing a tiara "I REALLY like your diamond earrings" .....



________________________________
From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 18:36
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

 

No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >
> >  
> > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> >
> > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >  
> > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as well be.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions. Hilary
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hilary said:
> > > >
> > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

£800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 



________________________________
From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

 
Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
"In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas Cook!
>
> On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > well be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > Hilary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen

Carol responds:

I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At any rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul he's made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent victim. I wish that Annette were here to comment.

Carol

http://www.xenograg.com/118/excerpts/medieval-english-currency

This should give us a rough idea.

I remember reading that a knight of this period had to be able to afford the
purchase price of a castle, which averaged 25 pounds or so. I 'd like to
remember *where* I found that.

Just for more context, in Castile, don Alvaro de Luna, favorite of Juan II
of Castile; Master of Santiago; Constable of Castile; the richest Castilian
of his time, often counted his worth in thousands and thousands of maravedis,
the rough equivalent of a few cents.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM, liz williams <
ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> ý800? Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what
> it would be equivalent to now?
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
>
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it
> was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to
> the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of
> theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of
> the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing ý800. It was of 'unusual
> beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer
> which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being
> tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to
> ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> plate and jewels to the value of ý700 and the gold-worked
> tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but
> it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The
> Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Cook!
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember
> the
> > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the
> suspect
> > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> <b.eileen25@>
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas
> Queen
> > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then
> the
> > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got
> away
> > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a
> while
> > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita
> Bandyo
>
> > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ý
> > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ý
> > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > well be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > Hilary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was
> Teddy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.

Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Cook!
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > well be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > Hilary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry Carol...Margaret of Anjou...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At any rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul he's made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent victim. I wish that Annette were here to comment.
>
> Carol
>

I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html

Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one which
occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original story
has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook were
concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive tapestry that
Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more complicated.
According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook for his
refusal to sell her the arras, but Cookýs arrest was only one of many in a
time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were afoot, and
he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cookýs house
was searched and agents of Jacquettaýs husband Richard Woodville (who had
been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized Cookýs
goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was convicted by a
jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note, Fabian
never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired the
coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cookýs fine
for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of the
charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her husband (and
the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the arras,
Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when he
died ten years later. He was back in Edward IVýs good graces at the time,
having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and appointed
to a royal commission in 1475.

Always 2 sides to a story...!





On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and
> it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated
> to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the
> Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of
> the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing ý800. It was of 'unusual
> beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer
> which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being
> tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to
> ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> plate and jewels to the value of ý700 and the gold-worked
> tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but
> it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At any
> rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul he's
> made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent victim. I
> wish that Annette were here to comment.
>
> Carol
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Hi Lisa...I see that Mary Clive in her book This Sun of York does say that it appears that Edward did try to break Cook financially but Cook did indeed go on to become an alderman....so yes, they must have made their peace eventually...I wonder what become of Judge Markham?
Eileen

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html
>
> Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one which
> occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original story
> has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook were
> concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive tapestry that
> Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more complicated.
> According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook for his
> refusal to sell her the arras, but Cook's arrest was only one of many in a
> time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were afoot, and
> he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cook's house
> was searched and agents of Jacquetta's husband Richard Woodville (who had
> been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized Cook's
> goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was convicted by a
> jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note, Fabian
> never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired the
> coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cook's fine
> for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of the
> charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her husband (and
> the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the arras,
> Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when he
> died ten years later. He was back in Edward IV's good graces at the time,
> having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and appointed
> to a royal commission in 1475.
>
> Always 2 sides to a story...!
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> > >
> > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and
> > it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated
> > to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the
> > Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> > Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of
> > the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual
> > beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer
> > which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being
> > tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> > under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to
> > ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> > plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked
> > tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but
> > it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At any
> > rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul he's
> > made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent victim. I
> > wish that Annette were here to comment.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

hmmmn - no refs to him on google... probably ended up in the Tower! :-O
Did find this rather neat site A who's Who of Tudor Women
http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenWi-Z.htm
that mentions Jacquetta & her many offspring, plus a few Markhams but no
judges... quite interesting..



On 28 November 2012 17:38, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi Lisa...I see that Mary Clive in her book This Sun of York does say that
> it appears that Edward did try to break Cook financially but Cook did
> indeed go on to become an alderman....so yes, they must have made their
> peace eventually...I wonder what become of Judge Markham?
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
> > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html
> >
> > Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one which
> > occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original
> story
> > has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook were
> > concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive tapestry
> that
> > Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more complicated.
> > According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook for
> his
> > refusal to sell her the arras, but Cook's arrest was only one of many in
> a
> > time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were afoot,
> and
> > he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cook's house
> > was searched and agents of Jacquetta's husband Richard Woodville (who had
> > been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized Cook's
> > goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was convicted
> by a
> > jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note, Fabian
> > never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired the
> > coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cook's fine
> > for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of the
> > charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her husband
> (and
> > the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the arras,
> > Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when he
> > died ten years later. He was back in Edward IV's good graces at the time,
> > having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and appointed
> > to a royal commission in 1475.
> >
> > Always 2 sides to a story...!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random
> and
> > > it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were
> implicated
> > > to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the
> > > Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> > > Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold
> of
> > > the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing ý800. It was of
> 'unusual
> > > beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an
> offer
> > > which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during
> being
> > > tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> > > under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents
> to
> > > ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> > > plate and jewels to the value of ý700 and the gold-worked
> > > tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that
> part but
> > > it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At
> any
> > > rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul
> he's
> > > made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent
> victim. I
> > > wish that Annette were here to comment.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

What a piece of work Elizabeth was.  When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.  

________________________________
From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 
Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.

Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Cook!
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > well be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > Hilary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed


 

What a piece of work Elizabeth was.  When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.  

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 
Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.

Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Cook!
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > well be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > Hilary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Does anyone?
Didn't she put Desmond and his infant sons put to death too? It's terrible that she lost her sons but she was not an angle either.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:57 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> What a piece of work Elizabeth was. When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
>
>
> Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
> with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.
>
> Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
> Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > £800? Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now?Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> > Â
> > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Cook!
> > >
> > > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > > well be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > > Hilary
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Talk about going off at a tangent!  But we still haven't really answered your question about Buckingham have we?  (Short of a time machine, we probably never will)



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:10
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 
I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!


________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed


 

What a piece of work Elizabeth was.  When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.  

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 
Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.

Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Cook!
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > well be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > Hilary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yep...I can'd find much at all. But I have checked Paul Murrey Kendall....page 70...and his views are the same as Elizabeth Jenkins....Kendall wrote "Earl Rivers was able to persuade the King that the unfortunate merchant was re-arrested. Rivers motives of cupidity and personal revenge were nicely balanced.Rivers wife, the Dowager Duchess of Bedford 'ever was extremely again (against)..Sir Thomas and all because she might not have certain arras at her pleasure and price belonging unto Sir Thomas' Under the guise of seeking evidence Rivers and his relative by marriage, Sir John Fogge, Treasurer of the Royal Household spoiled Cook's town and country houses. Besides plate and other goods, Rivers and Fogge seized the 'aforesaid arras which the DoB desired'. When Sir Thomas was brought before Judge Markham, famed for his honesty, judge Markham ordered the jury to return a verdict of misprision of treason only. Rivers promptly had Cook committed to the King's Bench prison to exact the dreadful fine of £8,000 and then EW by archaic right of the Queen's Gold mulcted him of £100 of every £1,000 of fine. Rivers crowned this victory by driving from office the Chief Justice to had dared to cross him..."

Eileen

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> hmmmn - no refs to him on google... probably ended up in the Tower! :-O
> Did find this rather neat site A who's Who of Tudor Women
> http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenWi-Z.htm
> that mentions Jacquetta & her many offspring, plus a few Markhams but no
> judges... quite interesting..
>
>
>
> On 28 November 2012 17:38, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi Lisa...I see that Mary Clive in her book This Sun of York does say that
> > it appears that Edward did try to break Cook financially but Cook did
> > indeed go on to become an alderman....so yes, they must have made their
> > peace eventually...I wonder what become of Judge Markham?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
> > > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html
> > >
> > > Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one which
> > > occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original
> > story
> > > has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook were
> > > concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive tapestry
> > that
> > > Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more complicated.
> > > According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook for
> > his
> > > refusal to sell her the arras, but Cook's arrest was only one of many in
> > a
> > > time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were afoot,
> > and
> > > he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cook's house
> > > was searched and agents of Jacquetta's husband Richard Woodville (who had
> > > been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized Cook's
> > > goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was convicted
> > by a
> > > jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note, Fabian
> > > never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired the
> > > coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cook's fine
> > > for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of the
> > > charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her husband
> > (and
> > > the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the arras,
> > > Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when he
> > > died ten years later. He was back in Edward IV's good graces at the time,
> > > having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and appointed
> > > to a royal commission in 1475.
> > >
> > > Always 2 sides to a story...!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random
> > and
> > > > it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were
> > implicated
> > > > to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the
> > > > Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> > > > Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold
> > of
> > > > the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of
> > 'unusual
> > > > beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an
> > offer
> > > > which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during
> > being
> > > > tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> > > > under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents
> > to
> > > > ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> > > > plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked
> > > > tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that
> > part but
> > > > it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At
> > any
> > > > rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul
> > he's
> > > > made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent
> > victim. I
> > > > wish that Annette were here to comment.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > <
> > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

Not the Woodvilles finest hour Liz....

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> What a piece of work Elizabeth was.  When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
>
>  
> Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
> with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.
>
> Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
> Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >  
> > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Cook!
> > >
> > > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > > well be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > > Hilary
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry...what was the question? :0)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Talk about going off at a tangent!  But we still haven't really answered your question about Buckingham have we?  (Short of a time machine, we probably never will)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
>
>  
> I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
>
>
>  
>
> What a piece of work Elizabeth was.  When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
>
>  
> Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
> with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.
>
> Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
> Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >  
> > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Cook!
> > >
> > > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > > well be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > > Hilary
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If Lovell was jealous of Buck and R3's friendship......?

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:24 PM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> Sorry...what was the question? :0)
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Talk about going off at a tangent! But we still haven't really answered your question about Buckingham have we? (Short of a time machine, we probably never will)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:10
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> >
> >
> > I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What a piece of work Elizabeth was. When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> >
> >
> > Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
> > with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.
> >
> > Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
> > Eileen
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > £800? Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now?Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Cook!
> > > >
> > > > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > > > well be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > > > Hilary
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lisa
> > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > >
> > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

There are two sides - Sutton & Visser-fuchs wrote after Kendall and Jenkins, after trawling through the trial records, not just relying on Fabyan, and although they may be a little naive in their conclusions that all was as it should have been I too am rather inclined to suspect that Cook may actually have been involved in something. Markham lost his position as Chief Justice of King's Bench the following year, which does perhaps suggest political interference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Markham
Marie


--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> Yep...I can'd find much at all. But I have checked Paul Murrey Kendall....page 70...and his views are the same as Elizabeth Jenkins....Kendall wrote "Earl Rivers was able to persuade the King that the unfortunate merchant was re-arrested. Rivers motives of cupidity and personal revenge were nicely balanced.Rivers wife, the Dowager Duchess of Bedford 'ever was extremely again (against)..Sir Thomas and all because she might not have certain arras at her pleasure and price belonging unto Sir Thomas' Under the guise of seeking evidence Rivers and his relative by marriage, Sir John Fogge, Treasurer of the Royal Household spoiled Cook's town and country houses. Besides plate and other goods, Rivers and Fogge seized the 'aforesaid arras which the DoB desired'. When Sir Thomas was brought before Judge Markham, famed for his honesty, judge Markham ordered the jury to return a verdict of misprision of treason only. Rivers promptly had Cook committed to the King's Bench prison to exact the dreadful fine of £8,000 and then EW by archaic right of the Queen's Gold mulcted him of £100 of every £1,000 of fine. Rivers crowned this victory by driving from office the Chief Justice to had dared to cross him..."
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > hmmmn - no refs to him on google... probably ended up in the Tower! :-O
> > Did find this rather neat site A who's Who of Tudor Women
> > http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenWi-Z.htm
> > that mentions Jacquetta & her many offspring, plus a few Markhams but no
> > judges... quite interesting..
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 17:38, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Lisa...I see that Mary Clive in her book This Sun of York does say that
> > > it appears that Edward did try to break Cook financially but Cook did
> > > indeed go on to become an alderman....so yes, they must have made their
> > > peace eventually...I wonder what become of Judge Markham?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
> > > > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one which
> > > > occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original
> > > story
> > > > has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook were
> > > > concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive tapestry
> > > that
> > > > Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more complicated.
> > > > According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook for
> > > his
> > > > refusal to sell her the arras, but Cook's arrest was only one of many in
> > > a
> > > > time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were afoot,
> > > and
> > > > he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cook's house
> > > > was searched and agents of Jacquetta's husband Richard Woodville (who had
> > > > been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized Cook's
> > > > goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was convicted
> > > by a
> > > > jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note, Fabian
> > > > never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired the
> > > > coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cook's fine
> > > > for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of the
> > > > charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her husband
> > > (and
> > > > the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the arras,
> > > > Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when he
> > > > died ten years later. He was back in Edward IV's good graces at the time,
> > > > having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and appointed
> > > > to a royal commission in 1475.
> > > >
> > > > Always 2 sides to a story...!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random
> > > and
> > > > > it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > > > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > > > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were
> > > implicated
> > > > > to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the
> > > > > Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> > > > > Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold
> > > of
> > > > > the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of
> > > 'unusual
> > > > > beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an
> > > offer
> > > > > which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during
> > > being
> > > > > tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> > > > > under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents
> > > to
> > > > > ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> > > > > plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked
> > > > > tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that
> > > part but
> > > > > it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At
> > > any
> > > > > rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul
> > > he's
> > > > > made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent
> > > victim. I
> > > > > wish that Annette were here to comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lisa
> > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > >
> > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > <
> > > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham





Hilary said:

'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.


I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.

Liz

Well George was obvously the most immature so that equates him to Teddy. I must confess I'd forgotten about Joe Jr and poor Edmund! 
 
Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?    Although I don't see Cis as Rose Kennedy although they were both very religious.  Everything I've read about Rose suggests to me she was a real cold fish which I don't think Cis was.  And of course Richard of York was no Joe Sr.


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham

 
And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

Hilary said:

'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.


I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.

Liz

O...I did answer that....I said possibly not as it depended on Richard's handling of the situation...i.e.not giving Lovell the cold shoulder etc., making him feel left out...that sort of thing. And remember when Richard left London after the Coronation he went to Minster Lovell and stayed there for a while....and I hope having a nice time with his old friend...Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If Lovell was jealous of Buck and R3's friendship......?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:24 PM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> > Sorry...what was the question? :0)
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Talk about going off at a tangent! But we still haven't really answered your question about Buckingham have we? (Short of a time machine, we probably never will)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:10
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> > >
> > >
> > > I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What a piece of work Elizabeth was. When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> > >
> > >
> > > Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
> > > with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.
> > >
> > > Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > £800? Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now?Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas Cook!
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > > > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > > > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > > > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > > > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > > > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > > > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > > > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > > > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > > > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > > > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > > > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > > > > well be.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > > > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > > > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > > > > Hilary
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > > > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Lisa
> > > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > > >
> > > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

If Cook was involved in something....which is very possible, didnt the Woodvilles milk the situation for all it was worth!

Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There are two sides - Sutton & Visser-fuchs wrote after Kendall and Jenkins, after trawling through the trial records, not just relying on Fabyan, and although they may be a little naive in their conclusions that all was as it should have been I too am rather inclined to suspect that Cook may actually have been involved in something. Markham lost his position as Chief Justice of King's Bench the following year, which does perhaps suggest political interference.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Markham
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep...I can'd find much at all. But I have checked Paul Murrey Kendall....page 70...and his views are the same as Elizabeth Jenkins....Kendall wrote "Earl Rivers was able to persuade the King that the unfortunate merchant was re-arrested. Rivers motives of cupidity and personal revenge were nicely balanced.Rivers wife, the Dowager Duchess of Bedford 'ever was extremely again (against)..Sir Thomas and all because she might not have certain arras at her pleasure and price belonging unto Sir Thomas' Under the guise of seeking evidence Rivers and his relative by marriage, Sir John Fogge, Treasurer of the Royal Household spoiled Cook's town and country houses. Besides plate and other goods, Rivers and Fogge seized the 'aforesaid arras which the DoB desired'. When Sir Thomas was brought before Judge Markham, famed for his honesty, judge Markham ordered the jury to return a verdict of misprision of treason only. Rivers promptly had Cook committed to the King's Bench prison to exact the dreadful fine of £8,000 and then EW by archaic right of the Queen's Gold mulcted him of £100 of every £1,000 of fine. Rivers crowned this victory by driving from office the Chief Justice to had dared to cross him..."
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > hmmmn - no refs to him on google... probably ended up in the Tower! :-O
> > > Did find this rather neat site A who's Who of Tudor Women
> > > http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenWi-Z.htm
> > > that mentions Jacquetta & her many offspring, plus a few Markhams but no
> > > judges... quite interesting..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28 November 2012 17:38, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lisa...I see that Mary Clive in her book This Sun of York does say that
> > > > it appears that Edward did try to break Cook financially but Cook did
> > > > indeed go on to become an alderman....so yes, they must have made their
> > > > peace eventually...I wonder what become of Judge Markham?
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > > > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
> > > > > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one which
> > > > > occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original
> > > > story
> > > > > has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook were
> > > > > concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive tapestry
> > > > that
> > > > > Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more complicated.
> > > > > According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook for
> > > > his
> > > > > refusal to sell her the arras, but Cook's arrest was only one of many in
> > > > a
> > > > > time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were afoot,
> > > > and
> > > > > he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cook's house
> > > > > was searched and agents of Jacquetta's husband Richard Woodville (who had
> > > > > been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized Cook's
> > > > > goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was convicted
> > > > by a
> > > > > jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note, Fabian
> > > > > never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired the
> > > > > coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cook's fine
> > > > > for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of the
> > > > > charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her husband
> > > > (and
> > > > > the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the arras,
> > > > > Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when he
> > > > > died ten years later. He was back in Edward IV's good graces at the time,
> > > > > having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and appointed
> > > > > to a royal commission in 1475.
> > > > >
> > > > > Always 2 sides to a story...!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random
> > > > and
> > > > > > it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > > > > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > > > > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were
> > > > implicated
> > > > > > to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of the
> > > > > > Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his
> > > > > > Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold
> > > > of
> > > > > > the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of
> > > > 'unusual
> > > > > > beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an
> > > > offer
> > > > > > which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during
> > > > being
> > > > > > tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers
> > > > > > under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents
> > > > to
> > > > > > ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths,
> > > > > > plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked
> > > > > > tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that
> > > > part but
> > > > > > it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep. At
> > > > any
> > > > > > rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul
> > > > he's
> > > > > > made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent
> > > > victim. I
> > > > > > wish that Annette were here to comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Lisa
> > > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > > >
> > > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > > <
> > > > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen


> Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
>
> or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> Hilary said:
>
> 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
>
>
> I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I hope you weren't a Lancastrian .....



________________________________
From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:58
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

 
Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen

> Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
>
> or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> Hilary said:
>
> 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
>
>
> I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wanna be regressed! I was somewhere near Dickon.......

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:09 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> I hope you weren't a Lancastrian .....
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:58
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
> Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen
>
> > Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> > Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> > Â
> > And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> > to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> > simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> > think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
> >
> > or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> > Hilary said:
> >
> > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> >
> >
> > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

you've found the word of the day 'mulcted': To penalize by fining or
demanding forfeiture - excellent...!

On 28 November 2012 18:21, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Yep...I can'd find much at all. But I have checked Paul Murrey
> Kendall....page 70...and his views are the same as Elizabeth
> Jenkins....Kendall wrote "Earl Rivers was able to persuade the King that
> the unfortunate merchant was re-arrested. Rivers motives of cupidity and
> personal revenge were nicely balanced.Rivers wife, the Dowager Duchess of
> Bedford 'ever was extremely again (against)..Sir Thomas and all because she
> might not have certain arras at her pleasure and price belonging unto Sir
> Thomas' Under the guise of seeking evidence Rivers and his relative by
> marriage, Sir John Fogge, Treasurer of the Royal Household spoiled Cook's
> town and country houses. Besides plate and other goods, Rivers and Fogge
> seized the 'aforesaid arras which the DoB desired'. When Sir Thomas was
> brought before Judge Markham, famed for his honesty, judge Markham ordered
> the jury to return a verdict of misprision of treason only. Rivers promptly
> had Cook committed to the King's Bench prison to exact the dreadful fine of
> ý8,000 and then EW by archaic right of the Queen's Gold mulcted him of ý100
> of every ý1,000 of fine. Rivers crowned this victory by driving from office
> the Chief Justice to had dared to cross him..."
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > hmmmn - no refs to him on google... probably ended up in the Tower! :-O
> > Did find this rather neat site A who's Who of Tudor Women
> > http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenWi-Z.htm
> > that mentions Jacquetta & her many offspring, plus a few Markhams but no
> > judges... quite interesting..
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 17:38, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Lisa...I see that Mary Clive in her book This Sun of York does say
> that
> > > it appears that Edward did try to break Cook financially but Cook did
> > > indeed go on to become an alderman....so yes, they must have made their
> > > peace eventually...I wonder what become of Judge Markham?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I found Susan Higginbothams website with a section on this incident:
> > > > http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/jacqwoodville.html
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the most damaging incident associated with Jacquetta is one
> which
> > > > occurred in 1468: the arrest of Thomas Cook for treason. The original
> > > story
> > > > has been distorted to suggest that the treason charges against Cook
> were
> > > > concocted to allow Jacquetta to lay her hands on an expensive
> tapestry
> > > that
> > > > Cook had refused to sell her, but reality, as usual, is more
> complicated.
> > > > According to the Great Chronicle, Jacquetta did indeed dislike Cook
> for
> > > his
> > > > refusal to sell her the arras, but Cook's arrest was only one of
> many in
> > > a
> > > > time when Edward IV genuinely feared that Lancastrian plots were
> afoot,
> > > and
> > > > he was implicated by one John Hawkins, a Lancastrian agent. Cook's
> house
> > > > was searched and agents of Jacquetta's husband Richard Woodville
> (who had
> > > > been created Earl Rivers and made the treasurer of England) seized
> Cook's
> > > > goods, including the infamous tapestry. Ultimately, Cook was
> convicted
> > > by a
> > > > jury of misprision. As Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs note,
> Fabian
> > > > never says in the Great Chronicle that Jacquetta actually acquired
> the
> > > > coveted arras; rather, he implies that it was used to set off Cook's
> fine
> > > > for misprision. Fabian also does not state that Cook was innocent of
> the
> > > > charges on which he was convicted, only that Jacquetta and her
> husband
> > > (and
> > > > the king) were displeased by the verdict. Whatever the fate of the
> arras,
> > > > Cook was not ruined by the episode, but was still a wealthy man when
> he
> > > > died ten years later. He was back in Edward IV's good graces at the
> time,
> > > > having been pardoned for his Lancastrian activities in 1472 and
> appointed
> > > > to a royal commission in 1475.
> > > >
> > > > Always 2 sides to a story...!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 28 November 2012 17:06, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at
> random
> > > and
> > > > > it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > > > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > > > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were
> > > implicated
> > > > > to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master
> of the
> > > > > Draper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in
> his
> > > > > Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with
> gold
> > > of
> > > > > the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing ý800. It was of
> > > 'unusual
> > > > > beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an
> > > offer
> > > > > which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA
> during
> > > being
> > > > > tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord
> Rivers
> > > > > under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their
> agents
> > > to
> > > > > ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200
> broadcloths,
> > > > > plate and jewels to the value of ý700 and the gold-worked
> > > > > tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that
> > > part but
> > > > > it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't figure out what MoA stands for. Maybe my brain is asleep.
> At
> > > any
> > > > > rate, this story shows that Anthony Woodville wasn't the pious soul
> > > he's
> > > > > made out to be by those who want to see him as Richard's innocent
> > > victim. I
> > > > > wish that Annette were here to comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lisa
> > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > >
> > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > <
> > >
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

I do, in fact, though I try to maintain a healthy skepticism toward the subject. But too many things in my life only make sense in the light of this possibility. 

Stories? Oy. I got stories. But I'd rather not creep everyone out. I had a therapist so convinced, at one point, he volunteered to regress me...but we never got a good opportunity, and I do not hypnotize easily....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen

> Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
>
> or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
> Hilary said:
>
> 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
>
>
> I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've been regressed as well, but Dickon wasn't around. Then again, the sessions didn't go back that far.

If I were anywhere near Dickon, with my luck I'd have been a scullery maid who died in a snowdrift while trying to get employed at Middleham.

And hey, Ishita, being regressed was both exciting and disappointing for me. All I learned can be summarized this way: the issues left unresolved when I died were brought forward to the next life and the next, as many times as were necessary, until I learned the lessons necessary to resolve those issues.

Drat it.

~Wednesday

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I wanna be regressed! I was somewhere near Dickon.......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:09 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > I hope you weren't a Lancastrian .....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:58
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >
> > Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen
> >
> > > Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> > > Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > > Â
> > > And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> > > to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> > > simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> > > think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
> > >
> > > or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > > Hilary said:
> > >
> > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

My earliest "memory" is of being a slave girl in ancient Greece....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


 
I've been regressed as well, but Dickon wasn't around. Then again, the sessions didn't go back that far.

If I were anywhere near Dickon, with my luck I'd have been a scullery maid who died in a snowdrift while trying to get employed at Middleham.

And hey, Ishita, being regressed was both exciting and disappointing for me. All I learned can be summarized this way: the issues left unresolved when I died were brought forward to the next life and the next, as many times as were necessary, until I learned the lessons necessary to resolve those issues.

Drat it.

~Wednesday

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I wanna be regressed! I was somewhere near Dickon.......
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:09 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > I hope you weren't a Lancastrian .....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:58
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> >
> >
> > Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen
> >
> > > Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> > > Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > > Ã
> > > And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> > > to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> > > simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> > > think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > > Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
> > >
> > > or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > > Hilary said:
> > >
> > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Ooh! I don't think I have resolved any issues in my past lives...... I have too many of those in this life:)

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:54 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> I've been regressed as well, but Dickon wasn't around. Then again, the sessions didn't go back that far.
>
> If I were anywhere near Dickon, with my luck I'd have been a scullery maid who died in a snowdrift while trying to get employed at Middleham.
>
> And hey, Ishita, being regressed was both exciting and disappointing for me. All I learned can be summarized this way: the issues left unresolved when I died were brought forward to the next life and the next, as many times as were necessary, until I learned the lessons necessary to resolve those issues.
>
> Drat it.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wanna be regressed! I was somewhere near Dickon.......
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:09 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I hope you weren't a Lancastrian .....
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:58
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen
> > >
> > > > Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> > > > Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> > > > to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> > > > simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> > > > think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > > Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > > Hilary said:
> > > >
> > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

My earliest "memory" was of being a foot soldier who deserted his army to live with some peasant girl in a one-room wooden dwelling with a loft where the animals were kept downstairs and they slept upstairs. It leaked. A lot. After she died, he sold the livestock and bought poison to kill himself.

I guess it's no wonder I had to come back.

~Weds

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> My earliest "memory" is of being a slave girl in ancient Greece....
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie

Paddle faster I hear banjos
G

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> My earliest "memory" is of being a slave girl in ancient Greece....
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>
>
> I've been regressed as well, but Dickon wasn't around. Then again, the sessions didn't go back that far.
>
> If I were anywhere near Dickon, with my luck I'd have been a scullery maid who died in a snowdrift while trying to get employed at Middleham.
>
> And hey, Ishita, being regressed was both exciting and disappointing for me. All I learned can be summarized this way: the issues left unresolved when I died were brought forward to the next life and the next, as many times as were necessary, until I learned the lessons necessary to resolve those issues.
>
> Drat it.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wanna be regressed! I was somewhere near Dickon.......
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:09 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I hope you weren't a Lancastrian .....
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:58
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I do...I have been regressed.....Eileen
> > >
> > > > Anyone here subscribe to the reincarnation theory that we keep meeting the same people over and over again in each of our lives?
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:43
> > > > Subject: RE: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > > Ã
> > > > And by extension, John was Edward. Other than the fact that Bobby was next
> > > > to John in age and Teddy was the youngest, it makes for an interesting
> > > > simile. (And btw, I suppose that Joe, who died fighting valiantly in WWII (I
> > > > think he was a pilot) represents Edmund of Rutland.)
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > > Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:06 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > >
> > > > Hilary said:
> > > >
> > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > >
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> .
>
> Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...


Some writer, I forget who, described the family as "the omnivorous Woodvilles"

Katy

Or is that, perhaps, part of a definition of 'naïve'?

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:32:34 +1100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham






This is interesting and has got me thinking. Naïve or so sure that when he
believes he's right it's so obvious that other people will see it too? I
have no idea, just throwing that out there.

Karen

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@... <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
>
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham

> The more you research R the more naive he appears.

Hugely naive and, perhaps by extension, deeply wounded by any hint of
betrayal - which, even more than his loyal service in the north, makes the
trad view of the serial plotter utterly implausible.

Cheers

Jonathan

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 11:41
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham


Many thanks all of you for your response. Can I give just one reply rather
than write to each of you?

Yes I buy the duke/Plantagenet blood theory but what I still find really
hard is why he trusted him so soon with so much. Hastings had an impeccable
record of loyalty and had held high office, Lovell seems to have been his
bosom pal. The more you research R the more naive he appears. I've been
recently looking at a will of Sir Richard Haute (who also had a wife called
Katherine, but probably not THE Katherine). Haute was knighted by R in
Scotland and given high office in the new regime. He rebelled with
Buckingham, R pardoned him and he turned up at Bosworth fighting for Tudor!
I know we all have PhDs in hindsight, but at times R comes across like an
idealist schoolboy who doesn't realise the world isn't like it's supposed to
be. Perhaps that's what endears him to us?

One theory I have is that R was a born deputy rather than a born leader
(don't mean military leader). The 'team' of Edward and R was great, the
charismatic, people person leader and the quiet, hardworking deputy who
propped him up and didn't seek the limelight. Did R want that relationship
with Buckingham; if he did he was on to a loser? He couldn't just develop
charisma and Buck would want a big share of the limelight. It has a certain
ring of a political situation that happened in the UK not too long ago. I
can see the guardian headline now 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'. Sorry - I
shall finish the post - I'm turning into David Starkey.

PS Carol - I've only just joined the forum but I have read JAH. Ross
believes E4 could have had malaria contracted in France, and so we think did
H8. Did R? His medical records wouldn't have been in the public domain until
he was King. But I have no idea how long malaria attacks take to 'come on'.
It's just the well, like the cookshop and the strawberries, is so bizarre it
could be true
Thanks again all Hilary

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
<destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Liz, That's exactly where I'm coming from. Whatever form Lovell's devotion
> to Richard took he can't fail to have been jealous of this sudden new
> friendship. To me it is so very odd, so very odd. I know Richard was
> probably naive and needed all the support he could get, but he gave his
> trust completely to one he can't have known that well. As some have pointed
> out, they had probably met before at occasions such as the Richard of
> Salisbury/Mowbray wedding, and some have Buckingham in France in 1475 (Ross
> doesn't) but there's nothing I can find to suggest R and Buckingham were
> buddies prior to Edward's death. I was hoping that some of our friends out
> there who have trawled more documents could come up with some suggestions.
> It just doesn't gel with the Richard we think we know."
>
> Is it possible that Richard presumed that, as Buckingham was the only
> remaining royal Duke, their interests would tend to coincide? Then, too,
> there's the, well, prestige value is the best I can come up with, in having
> Buckingham as a supporter. From what I've read about Buckingham though, and
> presuming he hadn't rebelled, I rather wonder just how long THAT would have
> sufficed?
> Doug
>

I wasn't being ironic - I didn't know that about EW (I haven't really dug into her that much) so I've learned something today. And no we never will know the answer unless another personal letter emerges from an attic. But good wide-ranging debate(Kennedys, EW, Queen Mary) though.  Cheers Hilary



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:19
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed


 

Talk about going off at a tangent!  But we still haven't really answered your question about Buckingham have we?  (Short of a time machine, we probably never will)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:10
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 
I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 

What a piece of work Elizabeth was.  When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.  

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed

 
Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.

Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> £800?  Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
>
>  
> Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Cook!
> >
> > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > well be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > Hilary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The person I showed my book to at the lit advisory agent said she'd heard someone suggest that Lovell was gay!  Oh no, I haven't started another topic, have I?


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:29
Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed


 

If Lovell was jealous of Buck and R3's friendship......?

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:24 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Sorry...what was the question? :0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Talk about going off at a tangent! But we still haven't really answered your question about Buckingham have we? (Short of a time machine, we probably never will)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 22:10
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> >
> >
> > I never knew I'd flush all this out with a post on Buckingham - fascinating!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:57
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What a piece of work Elizabeth was. When you read stuff like this, I don't know how anyone could defend her at all.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:b.eileen25%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 21:08
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham/Woodville Greed
> >
> >
> > Liz...thats not all. Ive gleaned the following from Elizabeth Jenkins book. Cook was brought to trial before Sir John Markham who found Cook not guilty. This jury were dismissed and another enpanelled. This 2nd jury were put under enormous pressure but only found Cook guilty of 'misprision' only. Cook was then sentenced to an enormous fine and returned to prison until he paid up. An independent enquiry was set up to estimate the loss he had suffered through the robbery of his town house. The ravaging of another house, Gidea Hall, was not considered and thus not set off against the fine. Cooke claimed this loss was £14,000! This left him still liable to a fine of £8,000. The Woodvilles were not yet finished with him because the Queen revived an ancient demand known as Queen's Gold which allowed her to claim £1,000 for every £1,000 exacted by the King. In spite of the successful looting of Cook's house, the Queen and her relatives were dissatisfied
> > with the verdict because if Sir Thomas had been found guilty the whole of his fortune would have been forfeit to the Crown and they would have then relied on further pickings. They were so enraged against the judge Sir Thomas Markham that they importuned the King to dismiss him which Edward did later that year.
> >
> > Elizabeth Jenkins goes on to say that "The Woodville party was inspired by naked, shameless rapacity. The affair brought them an increase of their evil reputation and they could not afford it"....Very well put I think...
> > Eileen
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > £800? Dear God that must have been a fortune in those days? I wonder what it would be equivalent to now?Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 19:11
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Aw...your NEVER going to believe this...I opened the book at random and it was the correct page...yikes..creepy..
> > > From the Princes in the Tower...Elizabeth Jenkins..
> > > "In the greatest scandal of 1468 the Queen & her family were implicated to the hilt. Sir Thomas Cook was a very wealthy draper, a Master of theDraper's Company, who had been Lord Mayor of London....Cook had in his Broad Street house, a tapestry "wrought in most richest wise with gold of the whole story of the seige of Jerusalem" costing £800. It was of 'unusual beauty and sumptuousness...Jacquetta hankered after it and made an offer which was refused. Later on someone said to be an agent of MoA during being tortured mentioned Cook's name. Cooke was thrown in prison. Lord Rivers under pretence of searching for evidence of treason, sent their agents to ransack Cook's house and run amok. "They carried away 200 broadcloths, plate and jewels to the value of £700 and the gold-worked tapestry"......There is more to this story but I wont go into that part but it did cause an enormous amount of scandal...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Cook!
> > > >
> > > > On 28 November 2012 14:51, EileenB <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this case was particularly outrageous....with Jacquetta being
> > > > > involved..and the tapestries being being fabulous....I can't remember the
> > > > > gentleman's name Marie...I'll have a lookup later....I also vaguely
> > > > > remember that a judge got himself into trouble when he defended this
> > > > > man...in fact I'll go and check it out now...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was normal procedure for property to be seized as soon as the suspect
> > > > > was arrested. I think it was not unusual for some items to 'go astray'
> > > > > permanently. Hence Richard's change in the law.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No..very different....The gentleman's house was looted...whereas Queen
> > > > > Mary used to just merely say how much she liked something....and then the
> > > > > owner was obligated to hand it over. I wonder how many times Mary got away
> > > > > with this....I can imagine everyone cottoning on to this fact after a while
> > > > > and if expecting a visit from her hiding everything they liked or was
> > > > > expensive out of sight. She was very naughty wasnt she? Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean like old Queen Mary used to 'borrow' people's antiques?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am sure of it! And she stole from London merchants!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:01 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > Do you think Elizabeth Woodville spent as much money as Jackie?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > > > > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2012, 16:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Buckingham
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > JFK being Edward4? Eh, with his amorous adventures he might as
> > > > > well be.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:
> > > > > hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Brilliant! You know I always thought of the Yorks as the
> > > > > Kennedys - each one expected to step up and fulfil parental ambitions.
> > > > > Hilary
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
> > > > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hilary said:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 'Richard III was Gordon Brown'.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd say more like Bobby Kennedy. George, of course, was Teddy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Liz
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lisa
> > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > >
> > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>