Anne Neville by Hicks

I have sent a letter protesting the shameful accusations Michael
Hicks has made against Richard and Anne in his book, ghastly thing
that it is, but also in the article he has written advertising his
book in the BBC History magazine entitled 'RICHARD III's INCEST'.
Not content with the numerous charges made against Richard Hicks has
decided to act like a tabloid news journalist and make up some new
charges against him, this time attacking his private life, his
morals, and the validity of his marriage. None of these hold water
and simply dredge the depths of sensationalism simply in order to
sell more books.
Should others wish to join my protest you can write to:-

DAVID MUSGROVE
BBC HISTORY MAGAZINE
ORIGIN PUBLISHING LTD
TOWER HOUSE
FAIRFAX STREET
BRISTOL BS1 3BN

or email:- davemusgrove@...

From my point of view Hicks has gone too far and should be ashamed
of himself.
And Ricardians everywhere need to let him know.
Paul Trevor Bale


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

Thanks for the tip-off Paul.

I went into W H Smith and read the offending article at lunchtime.
The headline on the cover said Richard III's Incest. The article was
entitled The Incestuous King Question Mark.

Talk about shock, horror headlines. They make the Sun look like the
Financial Times.

What's laughable is that I read Marie Walsh's article in the Bulletin
yesterday and Hicks is talking out of his cock-eyed hat.

Richard and Anne were not considered brother and sister.

If I've interpreted Marie properly then through marrying Isabel it
was Clarence who became Anne's brother in the eyes of the medieval RC
church.

Isabel became Richard's sister through marrying George.

Richard and Anne still remained cousins.

IIRC this is the same rule that Henry VIII applied and ignored when
it suited him.

By marrying Arthur, Catherine of Aragon became Henry's sister.

(Unless she hadn't slept with Arthur and/or the Pope could dispense a
Levitical degree.)

The same rule even applied to physical relationships outside
marriage. Henry and Anne Boleyn/Bullen were brother and sister, as
far as the Church was concerned, because Henry slept with her sister
Mary. So by his own reasoning he should never have married Anner.

Talk about double standards.

Anyway, back to Hicks. If Marie's right then he is wrong, wrong,
wrong.

Later in the article Hicks goes on about Richard wanting to marry
Elizabeth of York. OK, so if the marriage had taken place this would
have been incest. However, Richard never married her so he didn't
commit this `crime'.

Hicks says uncle/niece marriages were forbidden, like aunt/nephew
marriages. However Afonso V of Portugal IIRC was married/betrothed
to one of the claimants to the throne of Castile, Juana la
Beltraneja, his sister's daughter, his own niece.

Therefore it was known and allowable as a political union in
Richard's time.

Also he fails to point out that the idea had probably been dropped
completely and was never going to happen anyway, because Richard was
negotiating with John II of Portugal (ironically Afonso's son) for
him to marry Princess Joanna, John's sister, and Elizabeth to marry
their cousin Manuel, Duke of Beja.

I would like to complain to BBC magazine too. But I don't want to
come across as "loony Ricardian who won't hear a word of criticism
against knight in shining armour St Richard".

Oh, and I agree with Paul on another thing. I didn't think much of
Hicks' book Anne Neville. Too much speculation and insulting to
Richard, Anne and Elizabeth of York by sanctimoniously criticising
their alleged lack of morals. A real case of stringing out hardly
any facts with plenty of supposition to fill a few pages and earn a
few bob.

Joanne

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> I have sent a letter protesting the shameful accusations Michael
> Hicks has made against Richard and Anne in his book, ghastly thing
> that it is, but also in the article he has written advertising his
> book in the BBC History magazine entitled 'RICHARD III's INCEST'.
> Not content with the numerous charges made against Richard Hicks
has
> decided to act like a tabloid news journalist and make up some new
> charges against him, this time attacking his private life, his
> morals, and the validity of his marriage. None of these hold water
> and simply dredge the depths of sensationalism simply in order to
> sell more books.
> Should others wish to join my protest you can write to:-
>
> DAVID MUSGROVE
> BBC HISTORY MAGAZINE
> ORIGIN PUBLISHING LTD
> TOWER HOUSE
> FAIRFAX STREET
> BRISTOL BS1 3BN
>
> or email:- davemusgrove@...
>
> From my point of view Hicks has gone too far and should be
ashamed
> of himself.
> And Ricardians everywhere need to let him know.
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've calmed down now.

I re-read the Bulletin. The article is by Marie Barnfield not Walsh.

Anyway, in her article she says it was allowable for two siblings to
marry two siblings. She gives an example of Anne Beauchamp and her
brother Henry, Duke of Warwick marrying Richard Neville and his
sister.

Hicks is the biographer of Warwick the Kingmaker. He knows about
this. He knows it was perfectly dispensable. Yet he slanders
Richard III and Anne Neville. Even though it was an analogous
situation.

It seems to me that he is twisting things just so he can have a go at
Richard.







--- In , "jotwo2003"
<jsummerill@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the tip-off Paul.
>
> I went into W H Smith and read the offending article at lunchtime.
> The headline on the cover said Richard III's Incest. The article
was
> entitled The Incestuous King Question Mark.
>
> Talk about shock, horror headlines. They make the Sun look like
the
> Financial Times.
>
> What's laughable is that I read Marie Walsh's article in the
Bulletin
> yesterday and Hicks is talking out of his cock-eyed hat.
>
> Richard and Anne were not considered brother and sister.
>
> If I've interpreted Marie properly then through marrying Isabel it
> was Clarence who became Anne's brother in the eyes of the medieval
RC
> church.
>
> Isabel became Richard's sister through marrying George.
>
> Richard and Anne still remained cousins.
>
> IIRC this is the same rule that Henry VIII applied and ignored when
> it suited him.
>
> By marrying Arthur, Catherine of Aragon became Henry's sister.
>
> (Unless she hadn't slept with Arthur and/or the Pope could dispense
a
> Levitical degree.)
>
> The same rule even applied to physical relationships outside
> marriage. Henry and Anne Boleyn/Bullen were brother and sister, as
> far as the Church was concerned, because Henry slept with her
sister
> Mary. So by his own reasoning he should never have married Anner.
>
> Talk about double standards.
>
> Anyway, back to Hicks. If Marie's right then he is wrong, wrong,
> wrong.
>
> Later in the article Hicks goes on about Richard wanting to marry
> Elizabeth of York. OK, so if the marriage had taken place this
would
> have been incest. However, Richard never married her so he didn't
> commit this `crime'.
>
> Hicks says uncle/niece marriages were forbidden, like aunt/nephew
> marriages. However Afonso V of Portugal IIRC was married/betrothed
> to one of the claimants to the throne of Castile, Juana la
> Beltraneja, his sister's daughter, his own niece.
>
> Therefore it was known and allowable as a political union in
> Richard's time.
>
> Also he fails to point out that the idea had probably been dropped
> completely and was never going to happen anyway, because Richard
was
> negotiating with John II of Portugal (ironically Afonso's son) for
> him to marry Princess Joanna, John's sister, and Elizabeth to marry
> their cousin Manuel, Duke of Beja.
>
> I would like to complain to BBC magazine too. But I don't want to
> come across as "loony Ricardian who won't hear a word of criticism
> against knight in shining armour St Richard".
>
> Oh, and I agree with Paul on another thing. I didn't think much of
> Hicks' book Anne Neville. Too much speculation and insulting to
> Richard, Anne and Elizabeth of York by sanctimoniously criticising
> their alleged lack of morals. A real case of stringing out hardly
> any facts with plenty of supposition to fill a few pages and earn a
> few bob.
>
> Joanne
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > I have sent a letter protesting the shameful accusations Michael
> > Hicks has made against Richard and Anne in his book, ghastly
thing
> > that it is, but also in the article he has written advertising
his
> > book in the BBC History magazine entitled 'RICHARD III's INCEST'.
> > Not content with the numerous charges made against Richard Hicks
> has
> > decided to act like a tabloid news journalist and make up some
new
> > charges against him, this time attacking his private life, his
> > morals, and the validity of his marriage. None of these hold
water
> > and simply dredge the depths of sensationalism simply in order
to
> > sell more books.
> > Should others wish to join my protest you can write to:-
> >
> > DAVID MUSGROVE
> > BBC HISTORY MAGAZINE
> > ORIGIN PUBLISHING LTD
> > TOWER HOUSE
> > FAIRFAX STREET
> > BRISTOL BS1 3BN
> >
> > or email:- davemusgrove@
> >
> > From my point of view Hicks has gone too far and should be
> ashamed
> > of himself.
> > And Ricardians everywhere need to let him know.
> > Paul Trevor Bale
> >
> >
> > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

So write to the BBC History Magazine and let him know what we think
of his lies and slanders!
Paul

On 9 Jun 2006, at 09:25, jotwo2003 wrote:

> Hicks is the biographer of Warwick the Kingmaker. He knows about
> this. He knows it was perfectly dispensable. Yet he slanders
> Richard III and Anne Neville. Even though it was an analogous
> situation.
>
> It seems to me that he is twisting things just so he can have a go at
> Richard.

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