Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Elizabeth Woodville & Desmond

I think for many years this story was discredited, but there was an article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which gave evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth did it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for the article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.

Brian W


----- Original Message -----
From: eileen
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: Elizabeth Woodville & Desmond


Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story that Woodville signed
Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result being that not only was he
executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking the executioner to take care as
he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?

This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because Edward had asked his
opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered something on lines of although
the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of higher rank - Edward then,
foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife) informed her of the
conversation.

I have come across this story several times but Im confused as to how true it is if at all? If
you know what I mean?

Eileen

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> I think for many years this story was discredited, but there was an
article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which gave
evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth did
it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for the
article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.
>
> Brian W
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: eileen
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
> Subject: Elizabeth Woodville & Desmond
>
>
> Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story that
Woodville signed
> Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result being
that not only was he
> executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking the
executioner to take care as
> he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?
>
> This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because
Edward had asked his
> opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered something on
lines of although
> the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of higher
rank - Edward then,
> foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife)
informed her of the
> conversation.
>
> I have come across this story several times but Im confused as to
how true it is if at all? If
> you know what I mean?
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The article was in the 2005 Ricardian, by J.A-H and Annette Carson,
beginning on page 70.

Hi,

My understanding form our recent research on Sir John Tiptoft was that
Tiptoft was sent over to Ireland as contable and promptly had Desmond
attainted and executed. It seems likely he did this on the authority
of Elizabeth Woodville who was rather put out when she discovered that
Desmond had diapproved of her marriage to Edward.

It's not clear, but some sources suggest Tiptoft may have been trying
to gain favour with Woodville or was tricked inot thinking thta he had
the blessing of Edward when he did it. However, it seems Edward was
not amused when he discovered what had taken place.

Whether Tiptoft was aware of the full circumstances or whther he was
tricked or whether he was just trying to curry favour with Elizabeth
for his own ends I can't find out any evidence for in any direction.
however, I think it unlikley he was used as a pawn as he was widely
aknowledged to be one of the greatest scholars and cleverest men of
his time, so he may have been working towards his own ends.

It does seem that Elizabeth was behind the Desomond episode one way or
another however.


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@> wrote:
> >
> > I think for many years this story was discredited, but there was an
> article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which gave
> evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth did
> it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for the
> article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: eileen
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
> > Subject: Elizabeth Woodville & Desmond
> >
> >
> > Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story that
> Woodville signed
> > Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result being
> that not only was he
> > executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking the
> executioner to take care as
> > he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?
> >
> > This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because
> Edward had asked his
> > opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered something on
> lines of although
> > the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of higher
> rank - Edward then,
> > foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife)
> informed her of the
> > conversation.
> >
> > I have come across this story several times but Im confused as to
> how true it is if at all? If
> > you know what I mean?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> The article was in the 2005 Ricardian, by J.A-H and Annette Carson,
> beginning on page 70.
>

--- In , "John Horgan" <elhoggo@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> It does seem that Elizabeth was behind the Desomond episode one way or
> another however.
>

Hmmmm I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt but I dont know now - what
about the children though? It seems too awful to be true.

Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> > <Brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think for many years this story was discredited, but there was an
> > article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which gave
> > evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth did
> > it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for the
> > article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: eileen
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
> > > Subject: Elizabeth Woodville & Desmond
> > >
> > >
> > > Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story that
> > Woodville signed
> > > Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result being
> > that not only was he
> > > executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking the
> > executioner to take care as
> > > he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?
> > >
> > > This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because
> > Edward had asked his
> > > opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered something on
> > lines of although
> > > the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of higher
> > rank - Edward then,
> > > foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife)
> > informed her of the
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > I have come across this story several times but Im confused as to
> > how true it is if at all? If
> > > you know what I mean?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > The article was in the 2005 Ricardian, by J.A-H and Annette Carson,
> > beginning on page 70.
> >
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "John Horgan"
<elhoggo@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It does seem that Elizabeth was behind the Desomond episode one
way or
> > another however.
> >
>
> Hmmmm I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt but I dont
know now - what
> about the children though? It seems too awful to be true.
>
> Eileen

The article in question was by John Ashdown-Hill, I seem to remember.

I've personally always believed there was something in the Elizabeth
Woodville story (in which I follow Kendall). I just don't know what
else to make of Richard's letter as King to the executed earl's son.

I'm not sure, though, that I go as far as J A-H in accepting the
story that Tiptfort also had two of Desmond's infant sons put to
death. Why infant sons? Desmond had some quite mature sons who would
have been fairer game, and no sons whose existence is recorded died
at that time. Richard doesn't mention it in that letter.
There doesn't seem to be any really early evidence for this
additional lurid detail, and I suspect it first surfaced in Ireland
after 1483/4 as a moral tale - ie Elizabeth Woodville suffered the
murder of her young two sons because she had had two of Desmond's
young sons murdered.

Marie

PS. I'm not saying that not a word of the Tudor histories is true,
but I am saying there is no way of rigorously demonstrating the truth
of any of it other than finding more solid sources that say the same
thing.
I don't agree with you on the speeches, by the way. Even if some of
them were related from someone's memory, they were made up to the
extent that they had not been taken down by clerks at the time.
Nobody can remember accurately the actual words spoken at a past
event. Some are disappointingly useless. There's a lovely bit in Hall
before Wakefield where Richard duke of York turns to his right-hand
man 'Sir David Hall' (the historian's reputed ancestor) when he tries
to advise him not to give battle: "Ah, Davy, Davy, hast thou known me
so long [or something], and wouldst now see me a coward? etc etc "
Here I'm making it up too as I don't have Hall to hand. But it's a
very moving speech to an old and trusted councillor.
Trouble is, much study has been done in recent years on York's
household - his annuitants, officers, councillors, etc - and there
isn't a Hall to be had amongst them. If Edward Hall's ancestor was a
retainer of York's it must have been at quite a lowly level. I did
find a couple of Halls amongst a list of men taken on by Humphrey
Duke of Gloucester, and I believe a lot of Duke Humphrey's men
transferred to York. But they were nonentities really. This whole
conversation with his ancestor is pure wishful thinking. But it's a
beautiful passage, and so beguiling you just so want to believe it.
At best, Hall's ancestor may have overheard a conversation between
York and one of his real councillors, but how do you prove it?

Marie








> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> > > <Brian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think for many years this story was discredited, but there
was an
> > > article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which
gave
> > > evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth
did
> > > it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for
the
> > > article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.
> > > >
> > > > Brian W
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: eileen
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
> > > > Subject: Elizabeth Woodville &
Desmond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story
that
> > > Woodville signed
> > > > Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result
being
> > > that not only was he
> > > > executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking
the
> > > executioner to take care as
> > > > he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?
> > > >
> > > > This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because
> > > Edward had asked his
> > > > opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered
something on
> > > lines of although
> > > > the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of
higher
> > > rank - Edward then,
> > > > foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife)
> > > informed her of the
> > > > conversation.
> > > >
> > > > I have come across this story several times but Im confused
as to
> > > how true it is if at all? If
> > > > you know what I mean?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The article was in the 2005 Ricardian, by J.A-H and Annette
Carson,
> > > beginning on page 70.
> > >
> >
>

snip for brevity.

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: Marie

PS. I'm not saying that not a word of the Tudor histories is true,
but I am saying there is no way of rigorously demonstrating the truth
of any of it other than finding more solid sources that say the same
thing.
I don't agree with you on the speeches, by the way. Even if some of
them were related from someone's memory, they were made up to the
extent that they had not been taken down by clerks at the time.
Nobody can remember accurately the actual words spoken at a past
event. Some are disappointingly useless. There's a lovely bit in Hall
before Wakefield where Richard duke of York turns to his right-hand
man 'Sir David Hall' (the historian's reputed ancestor) when he tries
to advise him not to give battle: "Ah, Davy, Davy, hast thou known me
so long [or something], and wouldst now see me a coward? etc etc "
Here I'm making it up too as I don't have Hall to hand. But it's a
very moving speech to an old and trusted councillor.
Trouble is, much study has been done in recent years on York's
household - his annuitants, officers, councillors, etc - and there
isn't a Hall to be had amongst them. If Edward Hall's ancestor was a
retainer of York's it must have been at quite a lowly level. I did
find a couple of Halls amongst a list of men taken on by Humphrey
Duke of Gloucester, and I believe a lot of Duke Humphrey's men
transferred to York. But they were nonentities really. This whole
conversation with his ancestor is pure wishful thinking. But it's a
beautiful passage, and so beguiling you just so want to believe it.
At best, Hall's ancestor may have overheard a conversation between
York and one of his real councillors, but how do you prove it?

Marie
marie,
while you can not directly prove that hall's ancestor knew/spoke with richard of york; you can't quite disprove either.
you have found halls amongst humphrey's retainers. this is not to say there aren't halls amongst other retainers for the lords who did side with richard.
via the speech you are quasi-quoting. richard says..you've known me a long time davy.
so davy/david hall is at least as old as richard or older. big deal really.
but, one must also consider aural traditions amongst families. these people lived in a time of no radio, tv, computers, mp3 etc. etc. story telling was an important art.
who knows it may be the story of davy that inspired/intrigued hall to write his chronicle.
davy's son may have been a witness to the conversation between richard and davey.
i do not see it as being unlikely that the davey story was passed from generation to generation, sometimes with embellishment and sometimes with missing pieces.
i will grant you hall may have "filled" in some details. but, unless hall's genealogy is researched and you can prove he has no david ancestor, direct or close collateral you can not wholesale dismiss the davey story.
i often ponder how we often accept aborginal memories/aural traditions, but we refuse to acknowledge our ancestors could have done the same thing.
where would alex haley and his "roots" story have been without the aural tradition.
sometimes we get too "academic" and miss the grains of truth. we are often so busy discounting something that it can become believable to others.
such as the many researchers/people who are interested in ric iii or any other historical topic are often experts at reciting what they've read in a book..book learned vs getting down in the trenches, i.e. the archives.
i believe if one reads the tudor histories with a jaundiced eye, knowing there are many historical errors..one can still find the grains of truth. the histories were not completely made up. they had sources of info..and that info could often become twisted to suit the purpose of the tudor monarchs.
the trick is to read between the lines and to get out of "our modern" think.
these people had a significantly different culture than ours, and moreover we have been led to believe it was very virtuous.
the deeper i get into this research the more i am finding the lords spiritual played a significant role in manipulating not only the temporal government, but also our history.
if the "church" backed one leader over another..how difficult would it be for the lower ranking clergy in villages/hamlets/counties to go forth to their flocks to preach that one temporal noble was evil, while the other was good?
as some one said..morton deserves a book. and in it should be included how the common masses, as well as, lords were manipulated to serve the despotic popes of the era.
roslyn

roslyn


> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> > > <Brian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think for many years this story was discredited, but there
was an
> > > article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which
gave
> > > evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth
did
> > > it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for
the
> > > article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.
> > > >
> > > > Brian W
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: eileen
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
> > > > Subject: Elizabeth Woodville &
Desmond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story
that
> > > Woodville signed
> > > > Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result
being
> > > that not only was he
> > > > executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking
the
> > > executioner to take care as
> > > > he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?
> > > >
> > > > This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because
> > > Edward had asked his
> > > > opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered
something on
> > > lines of although
> > > > the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of
higher
> > > rank - Edward then,
> > > > foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife)
> > > informed her of the
> > > > conversation.
> > > >
> > > > I have come across this story several times but Im confused
as to
> > > how true it is if at all? If
> > > > you know what I mean?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The article was in the 2005 Ricardian, by J.A-H and Annette
Carson,
> > > beginning on page 70.
> > >
> >
>

I think you're missing my point entirely Roslyn. It isn't for me to
disprove Hall. It's for me to verify any story of Hall's before I use
it in evidence.
Hall states that his ancestor was one of York's chief councillors, his
right-hand man & bosom buddy. Not a lowly retainer, and not a retainer
of one of York's fellow lords. He can't have been. So he can't he been
in a position to be giving the mighty duke of York that sort of man-to-
man advice. I have, in my post, given a possible ID - ie that he may
have been a retainer of Duke Humphrey's who transferred to York.
We all have family traditions. But we have to be aware that people
whose backgrounds were fairly lowly tended to embroider because lineage
meant so much.

Marie

Personally I can't find any real evidence for the fact that Desmond's
infant sons were also killed, I think it's exaggeration, partly to
bred alongside Tiptoft's "butcher of England" image. In fact, from
reading about Tiptoft, it seems he was an extremely intelligent and
pious man, and I think his "cruelty" was actually a mistaken sense of
duty. He was way ahead of his time and saw himself as part of the
renaissance beginning in Italy. The Italians showed a great deal of
cruelty to their prisoners, and punished heresy vehemently and I think
Tiptoft saw this as the way forward for England. A sort of fanatical
duty to Crown and God.

However, the Lancastrians wanted to paint a much crueller picture of
him, as a sadistic murderer rather than a fanatical inquisitor if you
like, and I think stories like the Desmond children one have grown
along with the Lancastrian need to vilify Tiptoft.

I'm not trying to excuse his actions, as he clearly executed many
prisoners in rather unpleasant ways, but I am convinced it was not out
of a personal sense of sadistic satisfaction, as history would have us
believe.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "John Horgan"
<elhoggo@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It does seem that Elizabeth was behind the Desomond episode one way or
> > another however.
> >
>
> Hmmmm I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt but I dont
know now - what
> about the children though? It seems too awful to be true.
>
> Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> > > <Brian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think for many years this story was discredited, but there
was an
> > > article in the Ricardian (I think) an issue or 2 back which gave
> > > evidence to suggest the story was true after all, and Elizabeth did
> > > it! I'm sure someone will be able to give chapter and verse for the
> > > article, but I suspect it's in either the 2004 or 2005 edition.
> > > >
> > > > Brian W
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: eileen
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:43 AM
> > > > Subject: Elizabeth Woodville &
Desmond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of truth/lies how much truth is there in the story
that
> > > Woodville signed
> > > > Desmonds death warrant - unbeknown to Edward - the result being
> > > that not only was he
> > > > executed but his two small sons - the youngest one asking the
> > > executioner to take care as
> > > > he had a boil on his neck. Is it true? Is it lie?
> > > >
> > > > This was (supposedly) because she had it in for him because
> > > Edward had asked his
> > > > opionion of the (new) Queen and Desmond had answered
something on
> > > lines of although
> > > > the queen was beautiful he should have married someone of
higher
> > > rank - Edward then,
> > > > foolishly (maybe misjudging true character of his new wife)
> > > informed her of the
> > > > conversation.
> > > >
> > > > I have come across this story several times but Im confused
as to
> > > how true it is if at all? If
> > > > you know what I mean?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The article was in the 2005 Ricardian, by J.A-H and Annette Carson,
> > > beginning on page 70.
> > >
> >
>