Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 05:58:34
My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
"A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
name, both in her handwriting."
Elizabeth's name paired with Richard's motto, in
Elizabeth's handwriting. Obviously this doesn't
_prove_ anything. Maybe Little Liz just liked her
uncle's motto. But... The first thing that came to my
mind when I read about it was a young adolescent girl
writing her first name with her crush's last name. (I
doubt girls did that back then, but even if they did,
it would be kind of pointless in this case!)
I should get some things out of the way before I
continue:
*I don't believe Richard's wife Anne was poisoned. I
haven't seen anybody offer evidence of it, or even
convincing theories.
*Concerning the notorious "letter" which Buck
claimed to have seen, written by Elizabeth of York
and elaborating her impatience to be married to
Richard: I'm not inclined to take one guy's word for
something so important. Hence, my theories allow that
it _might_ have existed, but don't count on it by any
means.
*I don't think Richard ever planned to marry his
neice. Lovely though Elizabeth was, and though it
would remove the threat of Tudor marrying her, it
just doesn't fit with my impression of Richard's
personality.
All this being said, I think it's entirely possible
the Woodvilles could have come up with the idea,
perhaps even Queen Elizabeth herself. Think about it;
before Edward IV died, the Woodvilles had a pretty
good setup for themselves, and with little Edward V
set to accede the throne it didn't look like anything
would change with Edward IV's death.
Obviously, they reckoned without Richard. He swept
in, neatly removed twelve-year-old Edward V from
power and took the throne himself, messing up the
Woodville's power base. Here was a strong, grown man
with little liking for the Woodvilles, a good blood
claim to the throne, Parlaimentary support, and his
own not-inconsiderable power base in the North. What
to do? Naturally, having a healthy sense of
self-preservation, they grabbed their valuables and
scampered off en masse to Sanctuary. (All except
Edward V, of course, as he was already in his uncle's
care.)
There they huddled for a while until it started to
look like Richard didn't intend to drag them out for
summary execution. (One assumes Elizabeth believed
that, or why would she, as a sane woman, release
first her other son, then her daughters into his
care?) At first it seemed that all they could do was
resign themselves to the situation, as indeed Dowager
Queen Elizabeth did when she first released her
children to him, then herself emerged from Sanctuary.
Then Richard's luck took a turn for the worst; first
his only son, then his wife, died within the space of
a year. (Whatever you think happened to the Princes,
it seems obvious to me from Queen Elizabeth's
behavior that she didn't hold Richard responsible for
their disappearance.)
The Woodvilles' good luck had initially been kindled
by a strong Woodville woman taking a lonely
Plantagenet king to husband and influencing him
toward her family's interest. So what could make more
sense than to reclaim their high status the same way?
Not Queen Elizabeth herself; her sisters were all
married; but her daughter... It's not hard to imagine
the Dowager Queen's view; Richard was left without a
wife or heir, and Elizabeth, bastardized or not, was
young, lovely, of good blood, and her mother and
grandmother had both bred lots of healthy children,
and children were what Richard desperately needed.
Richard himself was neither old nor uncomely, not
bearing too close a resemblence to Edward, and since
he had been away from Court for most of Little
Elizabeth's life, there wasn't an overfamiliarity
that might interfere with the marriage. By most
accounts, Richard had taken good care of his first
wife, so while he would probably not be as tractable
to Woodville interests as Edward had been, Elizabeth
of York would be well-cared-for as Richard's wife.
Sure, uncle/neice marriage was awfully close even
for that time, but it wasn't entirely unheard of
either, especially when the pope could be influenced
(read: bribed) to okay the match. People would
grumble, but then there had been complaints about
Edward marrying the older and lower-status widow of a
Lancaster soldier, and there were complaints aplenty
about their subsequent promotions. The Woodvilles
didn't get where they were by worrying what the
neighbors thought! With a sufficiently strong king,
the rabble's complaints would die down in time.
So as I see it, it's entirely possible Dowager Queen
Elizabeth plotted for the marriage, and perhaps even
shared her plans with little Elizabeth. Little
Elizabeth got excited, whispers got out... and
Richard got some backlash for "marriage plans" which
he'd known nothing about. This could even have
spurred him toward the Portugese plans matching both
him and Elizabeth of York with Portugese spouses.
Of course we all know what happened after, leaving
the former Queen with only a Lancastrian mutt to
marry her teenage daughter to. But it's still
interesting to speculate what was going through the
Dowager Queen's mind during the final year of
Richard's reign.
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
"A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
name, both in her handwriting."
Elizabeth's name paired with Richard's motto, in
Elizabeth's handwriting. Obviously this doesn't
_prove_ anything. Maybe Little Liz just liked her
uncle's motto. But... The first thing that came to my
mind when I read about it was a young adolescent girl
writing her first name with her crush's last name. (I
doubt girls did that back then, but even if they did,
it would be kind of pointless in this case!)
I should get some things out of the way before I
continue:
*I don't believe Richard's wife Anne was poisoned. I
haven't seen anybody offer evidence of it, or even
convincing theories.
*Concerning the notorious "letter" which Buck
claimed to have seen, written by Elizabeth of York
and elaborating her impatience to be married to
Richard: I'm not inclined to take one guy's word for
something so important. Hence, my theories allow that
it _might_ have existed, but don't count on it by any
means.
*I don't think Richard ever planned to marry his
neice. Lovely though Elizabeth was, and though it
would remove the threat of Tudor marrying her, it
just doesn't fit with my impression of Richard's
personality.
All this being said, I think it's entirely possible
the Woodvilles could have come up with the idea,
perhaps even Queen Elizabeth herself. Think about it;
before Edward IV died, the Woodvilles had a pretty
good setup for themselves, and with little Edward V
set to accede the throne it didn't look like anything
would change with Edward IV's death.
Obviously, they reckoned without Richard. He swept
in, neatly removed twelve-year-old Edward V from
power and took the throne himself, messing up the
Woodville's power base. Here was a strong, grown man
with little liking for the Woodvilles, a good blood
claim to the throne, Parlaimentary support, and his
own not-inconsiderable power base in the North. What
to do? Naturally, having a healthy sense of
self-preservation, they grabbed their valuables and
scampered off en masse to Sanctuary. (All except
Edward V, of course, as he was already in his uncle's
care.)
There they huddled for a while until it started to
look like Richard didn't intend to drag them out for
summary execution. (One assumes Elizabeth believed
that, or why would she, as a sane woman, release
first her other son, then her daughters into his
care?) At first it seemed that all they could do was
resign themselves to the situation, as indeed Dowager
Queen Elizabeth did when she first released her
children to him, then herself emerged from Sanctuary.
Then Richard's luck took a turn for the worst; first
his only son, then his wife, died within the space of
a year. (Whatever you think happened to the Princes,
it seems obvious to me from Queen Elizabeth's
behavior that she didn't hold Richard responsible for
their disappearance.)
The Woodvilles' good luck had initially been kindled
by a strong Woodville woman taking a lonely
Plantagenet king to husband and influencing him
toward her family's interest. So what could make more
sense than to reclaim their high status the same way?
Not Queen Elizabeth herself; her sisters were all
married; but her daughter... It's not hard to imagine
the Dowager Queen's view; Richard was left without a
wife or heir, and Elizabeth, bastardized or not, was
young, lovely, of good blood, and her mother and
grandmother had both bred lots of healthy children,
and children were what Richard desperately needed.
Richard himself was neither old nor uncomely, not
bearing too close a resemblence to Edward, and since
he had been away from Court for most of Little
Elizabeth's life, there wasn't an overfamiliarity
that might interfere with the marriage. By most
accounts, Richard had taken good care of his first
wife, so while he would probably not be as tractable
to Woodville interests as Edward had been, Elizabeth
of York would be well-cared-for as Richard's wife.
Sure, uncle/neice marriage was awfully close even
for that time, but it wasn't entirely unheard of
either, especially when the pope could be influenced
(read: bribed) to okay the match. People would
grumble, but then there had been complaints about
Edward marrying the older and lower-status widow of a
Lancaster soldier, and there were complaints aplenty
about their subsequent promotions. The Woodvilles
didn't get where they were by worrying what the
neighbors thought! With a sufficiently strong king,
the rabble's complaints would die down in time.
So as I see it, it's entirely possible Dowager Queen
Elizabeth plotted for the marriage, and perhaps even
shared her plans with little Elizabeth. Little
Elizabeth got excited, whispers got out... and
Richard got some backlash for "marriage plans" which
he'd known nothing about. This could even have
spurred him toward the Portugese plans matching both
him and Elizabeth of York with Portugese spouses.
Of course we all know what happened after, leaving
the former Queen with only a Lancastrian mutt to
marry her teenage daughter to. But it's still
interesting to speculate what was going through the
Dowager Queen's mind during the final year of
Richard's reign.
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 10:44:21
I think from Elizabeth's point of view she was determined to become a
queen, even if it meant marrying her Uncle. She and her sisters were
frequently included in treaties Edward IV drew up with foreign
rulers, so she was brought up expecting to be married to a King.
And after all she did end up marrying Henry Tudor even if, as queen,
she was soon eclipsed by her ferocious mother-in-law.
--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
>
> My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
>
> "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> name, both in her handwriting."
>
> Elizabeth's name paired with Richard's motto, in
> Elizabeth's handwriting. Obviously this doesn't
> _prove_ anything. Maybe Little Liz just liked her
> uncle's motto. But... The first thing that came to my
> mind when I read about it was a young adolescent girl
> writing her first name with her crush's last name. (I
> doubt girls did that back then, but even if they did,
> it would be kind of pointless in this case!)
>
> I should get some things out of the way before I
> continue:
>
> *I don't believe Richard's wife Anne was poisoned. I
> haven't seen anybody offer evidence of it, or even
> convincing theories.
>
> *Concerning the notorious "letter" which Buck
> claimed to have seen, written by Elizabeth of York
> and elaborating her impatience to be married to
> Richard: I'm not inclined to take one guy's word for
> something so important. Hence, my theories allow that
> it _might_ have existed, but don't count on it by any
> means.
>
> *I don't think Richard ever planned to marry his
> neice. Lovely though Elizabeth was, and though it
> would remove the threat of Tudor marrying her, it
> just doesn't fit with my impression of Richard's
> personality.
>
> All this being said, I think it's entirely possible
> the Woodvilles could have come up with the idea,
> perhaps even Queen Elizabeth herself. Think about it;
> before Edward IV died, the Woodvilles had a pretty
> good setup for themselves, and with little Edward V
> set to accede the throne it didn't look like anything
> would change with Edward IV's death.
>
> Obviously, they reckoned without Richard. He swept
> in, neatly removed twelve-year-old Edward V from
> power and took the throne himself, messing up the
> Woodville's power base. Here was a strong, grown man
> with little liking for the Woodvilles, a good blood
> claim to the throne, Parlaimentary support, and his
> own not-inconsiderable power base in the North. What
> to do? Naturally, having a healthy sense of
> self-preservation, they grabbed their valuables and
> scampered off en masse to Sanctuary. (All except
> Edward V, of course, as he was already in his uncle's
> care.)
>
> There they huddled for a while until it started to
> look like Richard didn't intend to drag them out for
> summary execution. (One assumes Elizabeth believed
> that, or why would she, as a sane woman, release
> first her other son, then her daughters into his
> care?) At first it seemed that all they could do was
> resign themselves to the situation, as indeed Dowager
> Queen Elizabeth did when she first released her
> children to him, then herself emerged from Sanctuary.
>
> Then Richard's luck took a turn for the worst; first
> his only son, then his wife, died within the space of
> a year. (Whatever you think happened to the Princes,
> it seems obvious to me from Queen Elizabeth's
> behavior that she didn't hold Richard responsible for
> their disappearance.)
>
> The Woodvilles' good luck had initially been kindled
> by a strong Woodville woman taking a lonely
> Plantagenet king to husband and influencing him
> toward her family's interest. So what could make more
> sense than to reclaim their high status the same way?
> Not Queen Elizabeth herself; her sisters were all
> married; but her daughter... It's not hard to imagine
> the Dowager Queen's view; Richard was left without a
> wife or heir, and Elizabeth, bastardized or not, was
> young, lovely, of good blood, and her mother and
> grandmother had both bred lots of healthy children,
> and children were what Richard desperately needed.
> Richard himself was neither old nor uncomely, not
> bearing too close a resemblence to Edward, and since
> he had been away from Court for most of Little
> Elizabeth's life, there wasn't an overfamiliarity
> that might interfere with the marriage. By most
> accounts, Richard had taken good care of his first
> wife, so while he would probably not be as tractable
> to Woodville interests as Edward had been, Elizabeth
> of York would be well-cared-for as Richard's wife.
>
> Sure, uncle/neice marriage was awfully close even
> for that time, but it wasn't entirely unheard of
> either, especially when the pope could be influenced
> (read: bribed) to okay the match. People would
> grumble, but then there had been complaints about
> Edward marrying the older and lower-status widow of a
> Lancaster soldier, and there were complaints aplenty
> about their subsequent promotions. The Woodvilles
> didn't get where they were by worrying what the
> neighbors thought! With a sufficiently strong king,
> the rabble's complaints would die down in time.
>
> So as I see it, it's entirely possible Dowager Queen
> Elizabeth plotted for the marriage, and perhaps even
> shared her plans with little Elizabeth. Little
> Elizabeth got excited, whispers got out... and
> Richard got some backlash for "marriage plans" which
> he'd known nothing about. This could even have
> spurred him toward the Portugese plans matching both
> him and Elizabeth of York with Portugese spouses.
>
> Of course we all know what happened after, leaving
> the former Queen with only a Lancastrian mutt to
> marry her teenage daughter to. But it's still
> interesting to speculate what was going through the
> Dowager Queen's mind during the final year of
> Richard's reign.
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Audaces Fortuna Juvat
>
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
queen, even if it meant marrying her Uncle. She and her sisters were
frequently included in treaties Edward IV drew up with foreign
rulers, so she was brought up expecting to be married to a King.
And after all she did end up marrying Henry Tudor even if, as queen,
she was soon eclipsed by her ferocious mother-in-law.
--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
>
> My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
>
> "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> name, both in her handwriting."
>
> Elizabeth's name paired with Richard's motto, in
> Elizabeth's handwriting. Obviously this doesn't
> _prove_ anything. Maybe Little Liz just liked her
> uncle's motto. But... The first thing that came to my
> mind when I read about it was a young adolescent girl
> writing her first name with her crush's last name. (I
> doubt girls did that back then, but even if they did,
> it would be kind of pointless in this case!)
>
> I should get some things out of the way before I
> continue:
>
> *I don't believe Richard's wife Anne was poisoned. I
> haven't seen anybody offer evidence of it, or even
> convincing theories.
>
> *Concerning the notorious "letter" which Buck
> claimed to have seen, written by Elizabeth of York
> and elaborating her impatience to be married to
> Richard: I'm not inclined to take one guy's word for
> something so important. Hence, my theories allow that
> it _might_ have existed, but don't count on it by any
> means.
>
> *I don't think Richard ever planned to marry his
> neice. Lovely though Elizabeth was, and though it
> would remove the threat of Tudor marrying her, it
> just doesn't fit with my impression of Richard's
> personality.
>
> All this being said, I think it's entirely possible
> the Woodvilles could have come up with the idea,
> perhaps even Queen Elizabeth herself. Think about it;
> before Edward IV died, the Woodvilles had a pretty
> good setup for themselves, and with little Edward V
> set to accede the throne it didn't look like anything
> would change with Edward IV's death.
>
> Obviously, they reckoned without Richard. He swept
> in, neatly removed twelve-year-old Edward V from
> power and took the throne himself, messing up the
> Woodville's power base. Here was a strong, grown man
> with little liking for the Woodvilles, a good blood
> claim to the throne, Parlaimentary support, and his
> own not-inconsiderable power base in the North. What
> to do? Naturally, having a healthy sense of
> self-preservation, they grabbed their valuables and
> scampered off en masse to Sanctuary. (All except
> Edward V, of course, as he was already in his uncle's
> care.)
>
> There they huddled for a while until it started to
> look like Richard didn't intend to drag them out for
> summary execution. (One assumes Elizabeth believed
> that, or why would she, as a sane woman, release
> first her other son, then her daughters into his
> care?) At first it seemed that all they could do was
> resign themselves to the situation, as indeed Dowager
> Queen Elizabeth did when she first released her
> children to him, then herself emerged from Sanctuary.
>
> Then Richard's luck took a turn for the worst; first
> his only son, then his wife, died within the space of
> a year. (Whatever you think happened to the Princes,
> it seems obvious to me from Queen Elizabeth's
> behavior that she didn't hold Richard responsible for
> their disappearance.)
>
> The Woodvilles' good luck had initially been kindled
> by a strong Woodville woman taking a lonely
> Plantagenet king to husband and influencing him
> toward her family's interest. So what could make more
> sense than to reclaim their high status the same way?
> Not Queen Elizabeth herself; her sisters were all
> married; but her daughter... It's not hard to imagine
> the Dowager Queen's view; Richard was left without a
> wife or heir, and Elizabeth, bastardized or not, was
> young, lovely, of good blood, and her mother and
> grandmother had both bred lots of healthy children,
> and children were what Richard desperately needed.
> Richard himself was neither old nor uncomely, not
> bearing too close a resemblence to Edward, and since
> he had been away from Court for most of Little
> Elizabeth's life, there wasn't an overfamiliarity
> that might interfere with the marriage. By most
> accounts, Richard had taken good care of his first
> wife, so while he would probably not be as tractable
> to Woodville interests as Edward had been, Elizabeth
> of York would be well-cared-for as Richard's wife.
>
> Sure, uncle/neice marriage was awfully close even
> for that time, but it wasn't entirely unheard of
> either, especially when the pope could be influenced
> (read: bribed) to okay the match. People would
> grumble, but then there had been complaints about
> Edward marrying the older and lower-status widow of a
> Lancaster soldier, and there were complaints aplenty
> about their subsequent promotions. The Woodvilles
> didn't get where they were by worrying what the
> neighbors thought! With a sufficiently strong king,
> the rabble's complaints would die down in time.
>
> So as I see it, it's entirely possible Dowager Queen
> Elizabeth plotted for the marriage, and perhaps even
> shared her plans with little Elizabeth. Little
> Elizabeth got excited, whispers got out... and
> Richard got some backlash for "marriage plans" which
> he'd known nothing about. This could even have
> spurred him toward the Portugese plans matching both
> him and Elizabeth of York with Portugese spouses.
>
> Of course we all know what happened after, leaving
> the former Queen with only a Lancastrian mutt to
> marry her teenage daughter to. But it's still
> interesting to speculate what was going through the
> Dowager Queen's mind during the final year of
> Richard's reign.
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Audaces Fortuna Juvat
>
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 14:47:40
Happy Holidays to all!
Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
- (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
defender of Richard III but there it is.
I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
importance.
Janet T.
Janet M. Trimbath
Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
- (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
defender of Richard III but there it is.
I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
importance.
Janet T.
Janet M. Trimbath
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 15:04:41
You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
Janet T. wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays to all!
> Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> defender of Richard III but there it is.
> I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> importance.
>
> Janet T.
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
Janet T. wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays to all!
> Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> defender of Richard III but there it is.
> I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> importance.
>
> Janet T.
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 15:55:20
comments interspersed..see below.
Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
"A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
name, both in her handwriting."
Elizabeth's name paired with Richard's motto, in
Elizabeth's handwriting. Obviously this doesn't
_prove_ anything. Maybe Little Liz just liked her
uncle's motto. But... The first thing that came to my
mind when I read about it was a young adolescent girl
writing her first name with her crush's last name. (I
doubt girls did that back then, but even if they did,
it would be kind of pointless in this case!)
=======
don't dismiss out of hand the doodlings of a 15thC teen. some of magick's rituals include writing and rewriting of a name or thing desired.
===================
I should get some things out of the way before I
continue:
*I don't believe Richard's wife Anne was poisoned. I
haven't seen anybody offer evidence of it, or even
convincing theories.
============
political poisonings were often done to rid a person of an individual who was "blocking" the way to a desired result. it wasn't only the british peerage that did this, but all over medieval europe, including lords temporal and spiritual.
here's an interesting antidote to any type of poisoning.
_An especiall Medicine for all manner of Poyson_.
Take _Hemp seed_, dry it very well, and get off the husks, and
beat the _Hemp seed_ into fine powder, take _Mintes_ also, dry them,
and make them into powder, boyle a spoonfull of either of these
in halfe a pint of _Goats_ milk, a pretty while, then put the milk into
a cup to coole, and put into it a spoonfull of _Treacle_, and stir
them together till it be coole enough, then drink it in the morning
fasting, and eat nothing till noon, or at least two hours; doe
the like at night, and use it so three dayes, and it will kill and
overcome
any poyson.
http://www.fullbooks.com/A-Book-of-Fruits-and-Flowers.html
this book was published in 1653. "science/medicine" had not advanced greatly in 150 years, ergo i have to wonder how many of our subjects of interest may have used such a remedy for suspected or real poisonings, accidental or otherwise.
even eliz1 had food tasters. if you couldn't shoot, knife your opposition, then you poisoned them..or as in the case of guy fawkes..try to blow em to smithereens. look at some of the bizarre attempts on e1. one of her gowns was loaded with poison.
====================
*Concerning the notorious "letter" which Buck
claimed to have seen, written by Elizabeth of York
and elaborating her impatience to be married to
Richard: I'm not inclined to take one guy's word for
something so important. Hence, my theories allow that
it _might_ have existed, but don't count on it by any
means.
============
it was known titilus regis had existed, but it wasn't until the 19thC that a copy of it was found. what i would love to know is the full text of the letter vs extracts. then one could read the comments in their full context vs the opinion of geo. buck.
===============
*I don't think Richard ever planned to marry his
neice. Lovely though Elizabeth was, and though it
would remove the threat of Tudor marrying her, it
just doesn't fit with my impression of Richard's
personality.
All this being said, I think it's entirely possible
the Woodvilles could have come up with the idea,
perhaps even Queen Elizabeth herself. Think about it;
before Edward IV died, the Woodvilles had a pretty
good setup for themselves, and with little Edward V
set to accede the throne it didn't look like anything
would change with Edward IV's death.
Obviously, they reckoned without Richard. He swept
in, neatly removed twelve-year-old Edward V from
power and took the throne himself, messing up the
Woodville's power base. Here was a strong, grown man
with little liking for the Woodvilles, a good blood
claim to the throne, Parlaimentary support, and his
own not-inconsiderable power base in the North. What
to do? Naturally, having a healthy sense of
self-preservation, they grabbed their valuables and
scampered off en masse to Sanctuary. (All except
Edward V, of course, as he was already in his uncle's
care.)
There they huddled for a while until it started to
look like Richard didn't intend to drag them out for
summary execution. (One assumes Elizabeth believed
that, or why would she, as a sane woman, release
first her other son, then her daughters into his
care?) At first it seemed that all they could do was
resign themselves to the situation, as indeed Dowager
Queen Elizabeth did when she first released her
children to him, then herself emerged from Sanctuary.
Then Richard's luck took a turn for the worst; first
his only son, then his wife, died within the space of
a year. (Whatever you think happened to the Princes,
it seems obvious to me from Queen Elizabeth's
behavior that she didn't hold Richard responsible for
their disappearance.)
The Woodvilles' good luck had initially been kindled
by a strong Woodville woman taking a lonely
Plantagenet king to husband and influencing him
toward her family's interest.
=============
i don't know if i'd exactly call e4 lonely. in today's teenage lingo..he'd be known as a man whore. e4 had concubines and conquests a plenty. he just ran into one who would and could say no, while playing a teasingly virtuous role. oh what a turn on to many men. woodville was looking for "power" and she used "hers" to net a man who appears to have thought hormonally rather than logically.
================
So what could make more
sense than to reclaim their high status the same way?
===========
yes, definitely a bewitching gold-digger.
=============
Not Queen Elizabeth herself; her sisters were all
married; but her daughter... It's not hard to imagine
the Dowager Queen's view; Richard was left without a
wife or heir, and Elizabeth, bastardized or not, was
young, lovely, of good blood, and her mother and
grandmother had both bred lots of healthy children,
and children were what Richard desperately needed.
==========
hmm..see the conspiracy..anne stood in the way of e of y. personally after a bit of thought, i'm beginning to think old lizzie and her daughter may have been "slandered" and it is possible catherine woodville was behind the "matchmaking" she stood to gain the most from a marriage of lil liz and r3. her former husband was an executed felon accused of killing her nephews.
if catherine could "arrange" the "e and r marriage". there could be certain perks coming her way. again...i'd really like to know where catherine was from 1484 until her marriage to jasper tudor before nov.7, 1485.
==================
Richard himself was neither old nor uncomely, not
bearing too close a resemblence to Edward, and since
he had been away from Court for most of Little
Elizabeth's life, there wasn't an overfamiliarity
that might interfere with the marriage. By most
accounts, Richard had taken good care of his first
wife, so while he would probably not be as tractable
to Woodville interests as Edward had been, Elizabeth
of York would be well-cared-for as Richard's wife.
=========
yes, it does look as if richard had a bad case of morals and ethics in a society that for the most part lacked them..or at least bought "forgiveness" via the local high ranking clergy.
================
Sure, uncle/neice marriage was awfully close even
for that time, but it wasn't entirely unheard of
either, especially when the pope could be influenced
(read: bribed) to okay the match. People would
grumble, but then there had been complaints about
Edward marrying the older and lower-status widow of a
Lancaster soldier, and there were complaints aplenty
about their subsequent promotions. The Woodvilles
didn't get where they were by worrying what the
neighbors thought!
====
yes, yes, yes..and double yes.
they each had a whatever it takes mentality.
============
With a sufficiently strong king,
the rabble's complaints would die down in time.
So as I see it, it's entirely possible Dowager Queen
Elizabeth plotted for the marriage, and perhaps even
shared her plans with little Elizabeth. Little
Elizabeth got excited, whispers got out... and
Richard got some backlash for "marriage plans" which
he'd known nothing about.
============
i don't know if richard was entirely ignorant of what the woodville witches were up to. maybe as to how they were proceding behind the scenes, but i can imagine some of the "game playing" going on. remember lil liz was very much alike in looks and build to anne. grief is an awesome time for a predator to make a move on an emotionally fragile person.
========
This could even have
spurred him toward the Portugese plans matching both
him and Elizabeth of York with Portugese spouses.
========
exactly, if not initiated by richard, then by someone who had a more "stable eye" on the situation. working/acting in a protective way for not only the king's interests, but possibly their own.
==============
Of course we all know what happened after, leaving
the former Queen with only a Lancastrian mutt to
marry her teenage daughter to. But it's still
interesting to speculate what was going through the
Dowager Queen's mind during the final year of
Richard's reign.
======
i think woodville herself, gets too much credit for the "sins" in this era..and this maybe blinding us to others in her circle who were plotting for their own gain.
===========
Take care,
Kat
===
back attcha
roslyn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:
My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
"A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
name, both in her handwriting."
Elizabeth's name paired with Richard's motto, in
Elizabeth's handwriting. Obviously this doesn't
_prove_ anything. Maybe Little Liz just liked her
uncle's motto. But... The first thing that came to my
mind when I read about it was a young adolescent girl
writing her first name with her crush's last name. (I
doubt girls did that back then, but even if they did,
it would be kind of pointless in this case!)
=======
don't dismiss out of hand the doodlings of a 15thC teen. some of magick's rituals include writing and rewriting of a name or thing desired.
===================
I should get some things out of the way before I
continue:
*I don't believe Richard's wife Anne was poisoned. I
haven't seen anybody offer evidence of it, or even
convincing theories.
============
political poisonings were often done to rid a person of an individual who was "blocking" the way to a desired result. it wasn't only the british peerage that did this, but all over medieval europe, including lords temporal and spiritual.
here's an interesting antidote to any type of poisoning.
_An especiall Medicine for all manner of Poyson_.
Take _Hemp seed_, dry it very well, and get off the husks, and
beat the _Hemp seed_ into fine powder, take _Mintes_ also, dry them,
and make them into powder, boyle a spoonfull of either of these
in halfe a pint of _Goats_ milk, a pretty while, then put the milk into
a cup to coole, and put into it a spoonfull of _Treacle_, and stir
them together till it be coole enough, then drink it in the morning
fasting, and eat nothing till noon, or at least two hours; doe
the like at night, and use it so three dayes, and it will kill and
overcome
any poyson.
http://www.fullbooks.com/A-Book-of-Fruits-and-Flowers.html
this book was published in 1653. "science/medicine" had not advanced greatly in 150 years, ergo i have to wonder how many of our subjects of interest may have used such a remedy for suspected or real poisonings, accidental or otherwise.
even eliz1 had food tasters. if you couldn't shoot, knife your opposition, then you poisoned them..or as in the case of guy fawkes..try to blow em to smithereens. look at some of the bizarre attempts on e1. one of her gowns was loaded with poison.
====================
*Concerning the notorious "letter" which Buck
claimed to have seen, written by Elizabeth of York
and elaborating her impatience to be married to
Richard: I'm not inclined to take one guy's word for
something so important. Hence, my theories allow that
it _might_ have existed, but don't count on it by any
means.
============
it was known titilus regis had existed, but it wasn't until the 19thC that a copy of it was found. what i would love to know is the full text of the letter vs extracts. then one could read the comments in their full context vs the opinion of geo. buck.
===============
*I don't think Richard ever planned to marry his
neice. Lovely though Elizabeth was, and though it
would remove the threat of Tudor marrying her, it
just doesn't fit with my impression of Richard's
personality.
All this being said, I think it's entirely possible
the Woodvilles could have come up with the idea,
perhaps even Queen Elizabeth herself. Think about it;
before Edward IV died, the Woodvilles had a pretty
good setup for themselves, and with little Edward V
set to accede the throne it didn't look like anything
would change with Edward IV's death.
Obviously, they reckoned without Richard. He swept
in, neatly removed twelve-year-old Edward V from
power and took the throne himself, messing up the
Woodville's power base. Here was a strong, grown man
with little liking for the Woodvilles, a good blood
claim to the throne, Parlaimentary support, and his
own not-inconsiderable power base in the North. What
to do? Naturally, having a healthy sense of
self-preservation, they grabbed their valuables and
scampered off en masse to Sanctuary. (All except
Edward V, of course, as he was already in his uncle's
care.)
There they huddled for a while until it started to
look like Richard didn't intend to drag them out for
summary execution. (One assumes Elizabeth believed
that, or why would she, as a sane woman, release
first her other son, then her daughters into his
care?) At first it seemed that all they could do was
resign themselves to the situation, as indeed Dowager
Queen Elizabeth did when she first released her
children to him, then herself emerged from Sanctuary.
Then Richard's luck took a turn for the worst; first
his only son, then his wife, died within the space of
a year. (Whatever you think happened to the Princes,
it seems obvious to me from Queen Elizabeth's
behavior that she didn't hold Richard responsible for
their disappearance.)
The Woodvilles' good luck had initially been kindled
by a strong Woodville woman taking a lonely
Plantagenet king to husband and influencing him
toward her family's interest.
=============
i don't know if i'd exactly call e4 lonely. in today's teenage lingo..he'd be known as a man whore. e4 had concubines and conquests a plenty. he just ran into one who would and could say no, while playing a teasingly virtuous role. oh what a turn on to many men. woodville was looking for "power" and she used "hers" to net a man who appears to have thought hormonally rather than logically.
================
So what could make more
sense than to reclaim their high status the same way?
===========
yes, definitely a bewitching gold-digger.
=============
Not Queen Elizabeth herself; her sisters were all
married; but her daughter... It's not hard to imagine
the Dowager Queen's view; Richard was left without a
wife or heir, and Elizabeth, bastardized or not, was
young, lovely, of good blood, and her mother and
grandmother had both bred lots of healthy children,
and children were what Richard desperately needed.
==========
hmm..see the conspiracy..anne stood in the way of e of y. personally after a bit of thought, i'm beginning to think old lizzie and her daughter may have been "slandered" and it is possible catherine woodville was behind the "matchmaking" she stood to gain the most from a marriage of lil liz and r3. her former husband was an executed felon accused of killing her nephews.
if catherine could "arrange" the "e and r marriage". there could be certain perks coming her way. again...i'd really like to know where catherine was from 1484 until her marriage to jasper tudor before nov.7, 1485.
==================
Richard himself was neither old nor uncomely, not
bearing too close a resemblence to Edward, and since
he had been away from Court for most of Little
Elizabeth's life, there wasn't an overfamiliarity
that might interfere with the marriage. By most
accounts, Richard had taken good care of his first
wife, so while he would probably not be as tractable
to Woodville interests as Edward had been, Elizabeth
of York would be well-cared-for as Richard's wife.
=========
yes, it does look as if richard had a bad case of morals and ethics in a society that for the most part lacked them..or at least bought "forgiveness" via the local high ranking clergy.
================
Sure, uncle/neice marriage was awfully close even
for that time, but it wasn't entirely unheard of
either, especially when the pope could be influenced
(read: bribed) to okay the match. People would
grumble, but then there had been complaints about
Edward marrying the older and lower-status widow of a
Lancaster soldier, and there were complaints aplenty
about their subsequent promotions. The Woodvilles
didn't get where they were by worrying what the
neighbors thought!
====
yes, yes, yes..and double yes.
they each had a whatever it takes mentality.
============
With a sufficiently strong king,
the rabble's complaints would die down in time.
So as I see it, it's entirely possible Dowager Queen
Elizabeth plotted for the marriage, and perhaps even
shared her plans with little Elizabeth. Little
Elizabeth got excited, whispers got out... and
Richard got some backlash for "marriage plans" which
he'd known nothing about.
============
i don't know if richard was entirely ignorant of what the woodville witches were up to. maybe as to how they were proceding behind the scenes, but i can imagine some of the "game playing" going on. remember lil liz was very much alike in looks and build to anne. grief is an awesome time for a predator to make a move on an emotionally fragile person.
========
This could even have
spurred him toward the Portugese plans matching both
him and Elizabeth of York with Portugese spouses.
========
exactly, if not initiated by richard, then by someone who had a more "stable eye" on the situation. working/acting in a protective way for not only the king's interests, but possibly their own.
==============
Of course we all know what happened after, leaving
the former Queen with only a Lancastrian mutt to
marry her teenage daughter to. But it's still
interesting to speculate what was going through the
Dowager Queen's mind during the final year of
Richard's reign.
======
i think woodville herself, gets too much credit for the "sins" in this era..and this maybe blinding us to others in her circle who were plotting for their own gain.
===========
Take care,
Kat
===
back attcha
roslyn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 16:19:12
geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among family papers.
buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem amongst the straw.
as to why the letter disappeared..it may have been confiscated or hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
"they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering neice" of "the unholy usurper."
and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here. they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily, if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
roslyn
Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
Janet T. wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays to all!
> Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> defender of Richard III but there it is.
> I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> importance.
>
> Janet T.
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem amongst the straw.
as to why the letter disappeared..it may have been confiscated or hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
"they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering neice" of "the unholy usurper."
and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here. they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily, if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
roslyn
Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
Janet T. wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays to all!
> Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> defender of Richard III but there it is.
> I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> importance.
>
> Janet T.
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 18:01:03
--- In , "Rogue"
<roguefem@...> wrote:
>
>
> My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
>
> "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> name, both in her handwriting."
Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's handwriting
was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but I'm
not sure. Her will, perhaps, though handwriting can change over the
20 or more years that might have elapsed between her teen years and
her death. Any worthwhile researcher would state the provenance
right along with such a statement, or in foot- or end-notes. If
there was no "who sez", this tidbit is of no real value. It could
have been written by anyone, and the name Elizabeth, without surname
or other identifier, isn't exactly ironclad proof anyway. Maybe it
was Edward's bastard daughter Elizabeth, fantasizing. Maybe it was
Elizabeth Woodville. Maybe it was Elizabeth the landlord's black-
eyed daughter. Maybe it was anyone who had handled the book, by any
name, meddling with history.
Katy
<roguefem@...> wrote:
>
>
> My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
>
> "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> name, both in her handwriting."
Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's handwriting
was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but I'm
not sure. Her will, perhaps, though handwriting can change over the
20 or more years that might have elapsed between her teen years and
her death. Any worthwhile researcher would state the provenance
right along with such a statement, or in foot- or end-notes. If
there was no "who sez", this tidbit is of no real value. It could
have been written by anyone, and the name Elizabeth, without surname
or other identifier, isn't exactly ironclad proof anyway. Maybe it
was Edward's bastard daughter Elizabeth, fantasizing. Maybe it was
Elizabeth Woodville. Maybe it was Elizabeth the landlord's black-
eyed daughter. Maybe it was anyone who had handled the book, by any
name, meddling with history.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 18:46:42
Exactly.
fayre rose wrote:
>
> geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant
> role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among
> family papers.
> buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died
> with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem
> amongst the straw.
>
> as to why the letter disappeared. .it may have been confiscated or
> hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly
> didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
>
> "they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any
> evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering
> neice" of "the unholy usurper."
>
> and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs
> catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of
> tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old
> geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
>
> remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar
> birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here.
> they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily,
> if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after
> all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a
> wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
> Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
>
> Janet T. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Happy Holidays to all!
> > Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> > you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> > - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> > perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> > don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> > was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> > beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> > produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> > eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> > defender of Richard III but there it is.
> > I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> > letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> > of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> > importance.
> >
> > Janet T.
> >
> > Janet M. Trimbath
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
>
>
>
>
fayre rose wrote:
>
> geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant
> role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among
> family papers.
> buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died
> with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem
> amongst the straw.
>
> as to why the letter disappeared. .it may have been confiscated or
> hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly
> didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
>
> "they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any
> evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering
> neice" of "the unholy usurper."
>
> and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs
> catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of
> tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old
> geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
>
> remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar
> birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here.
> they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily,
> if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after
> all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a
> wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
> Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
>
> Janet T. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Happy Holidays to all!
> > Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> > you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> > - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> > perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> > don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> > was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> > beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> > produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> > eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> > defender of Richard III but there it is.
> > I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> > letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> > of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> > importance.
> >
> > Janet T.
> >
> > Janet M. Trimbath
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
>
>
>
>
Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 22:00:54
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Rogue"
> <roguefem@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> >
> > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > name, both in her handwriting."
>
>
> Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's handwriting
> was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
I'm
> not sure.
Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with her
own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking about
a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
died on 31 October that year.
If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert had
become a Jesuit.
Marie
PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-Fuches
on Elizabeth's Boethius.
There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful way
vis-a-vis Richard:
1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of the
end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover). She
has signed:
'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the end
of 1485.
But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
separate issues.
Marie
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Rogue"
> <roguefem@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> >
> > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > name, both in her handwriting."
>
>
> Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's handwriting
> was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
I'm
> not sure.
Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with her
own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking about
a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
died on 31 October that year.
If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert had
become a Jesuit.
Marie
PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-Fuches
on Elizabeth's Boethius.
There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful way
vis-a-vis Richard:
1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of the
end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover). She
has signed:
'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the end
of 1485.
But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
separate issues.
Marie
Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 22:15:50
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Rogue"
> > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > >
> > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > name, both in her handwriting."
> >
> >
> > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
handwriting
> > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> I'm
> > not sure.
>
> Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
her
> own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
about
> a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> died on 31 October that year.
> If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
had
> become a Jesuit.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
Fuches
> on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
way
> vis-a-vis Richard:
> 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
>
> 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
the
> end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
She
> has signed:
> 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
>
> As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
end
> of 1485.
>
> But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> separate issues.
>
> Marie
>
So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
exactly Henry VI or George III.
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Rogue"
> > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > >
> > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > name, both in her handwriting."
> >
> >
> > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
handwriting
> > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> I'm
> > not sure.
>
> Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
her
> own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
about
> a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> died on 31 October that year.
> If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
had
> become a Jesuit.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
Fuches
> on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
way
> vis-a-vis Richard:
> 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
>
> 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
the
> end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
She
> has signed:
> 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
>
> As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
end
> of 1485.
>
> But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> separate issues.
>
> Marie
>
So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
exactly Henry VI or George III.
Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-12 22:32:35
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
Fuches
> on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
way
> vis-a-vis Richard:
> 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
>
> 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its
title
> suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of
philosophy
> to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
the
> end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
She
> has signed:
> 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
>
> As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
end
> of 1485.
>
> But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> separate issues.
>
> Marie
Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! I feel a one of my hare-brained notions
coming on!
Do we know whose books these were -- who they belonged to? That's
rather important. It sounds to me, from just the discussion here,
that they were either Richard's books or it's unknown just who they
belonged to. (If they were definitely Eliz of York's that's one
thing, but even in those days, I imagine there were household
library books that more than one person could have access to.
Elizabeth must have been just about the most common name in England
in that era. You couldn't walk across a street (or a room,
probably) without bumping elbows with a couple of Elizabeths. Might
the Elizabeth who wrote her name in one book near Richard's
sihgnaure when he was Duke of Glouester and in an inconspicuous --
almost secret -- place in another, along with the pledge of loyalty
that was his words-to-live-by have been an Elizabeth we have never
heard of...a mistress, perhaps, in his unmarried days?
There is speculation that his daghter Katherine's mother was also
named Katherine (which would fit the naming pattern I see in noble
families of this period) but we don't know. John may have had the
same mother, but we don't know. One of them, or another woman who
did not give Richard a child but who loved him, may have been the
Elizabeth who placed her name near his name or motto.
I think the particulars of the rather poignant placement of that
single name, without surname or title, may be significant.
Katy
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
Fuches
> on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
way
> vis-a-vis Richard:
> 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
>
> 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its
title
> suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of
philosophy
> to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
the
> end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
She
> has signed:
> 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
>
> As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
end
> of 1485.
>
> But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> separate issues.
>
> Marie
Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! I feel a one of my hare-brained notions
coming on!
Do we know whose books these were -- who they belonged to? That's
rather important. It sounds to me, from just the discussion here,
that they were either Richard's books or it's unknown just who they
belonged to. (If they were definitely Eliz of York's that's one
thing, but even in those days, I imagine there were household
library books that more than one person could have access to.
Elizabeth must have been just about the most common name in England
in that era. You couldn't walk across a street (or a room,
probably) without bumping elbows with a couple of Elizabeths. Might
the Elizabeth who wrote her name in one book near Richard's
sihgnaure when he was Duke of Glouester and in an inconspicuous --
almost secret -- place in another, along with the pledge of loyalty
that was his words-to-live-by have been an Elizabeth we have never
heard of...a mistress, perhaps, in his unmarried days?
There is speculation that his daghter Katherine's mother was also
named Katherine (which would fit the naming pattern I see in noble
families of this period) but we don't know. John may have had the
same mother, but we don't know. One of them, or another woman who
did not give Richard a child but who loved him, may have been the
Elizabeth who placed her name near his name or motto.
I think the particulars of the rather poignant placement of that
single name, without surname or title, may be significant.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage et
2006-12-12 22:50:37
Then again, was he actually mad, or just eccentric?
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rogue"
> > > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > > >
> > > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > > name, both in her handwriting."
> > >
> > >
> > > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
> handwriting
> > > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> > I'm
> > > not sure.
> >
> > Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
> her
> > own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> > this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> > original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
> about
> > a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> > King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> > was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> > died on 31 October that year.
> > If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
> had
> > become a Jesuit.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
> Fuches
> > on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> > There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
> way
> > vis-a-vis Richard:
> > 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> > Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> > 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
> >
> > 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> > Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> > suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> > to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> > this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
> the
> > end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
> She
> > has signed:
> > 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
> >
> > As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> > Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> > these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
> end
> > of 1485.
> >
> > But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> > each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> > separate issues.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
> exactly Henry VI or George III.
>
>
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rogue"
> > > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > > >
> > > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > > name, both in her handwriting."
> > >
> > >
> > > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
> handwriting
> > > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> > I'm
> > > not sure.
> >
> > Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
> her
> > own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> > this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> > original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
> about
> > a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> > King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> > was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> > died on 31 October that year.
> > If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
> had
> > become a Jesuit.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
> Fuches
> > on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> > There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
> way
> > vis-a-vis Richard:
> > 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> > Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> > 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
> >
> > 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> > Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> > suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> > to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> > this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
> the
> > end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
> She
> > has signed:
> > 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
> >
> > As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> > Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> > these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
> end
> > of 1485.
> >
> > But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> > each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> > separate issues.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
> exactly Henry VI or George III.
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage et
2006-12-13 02:07:23
oh he was simply mad..he was in debt.
being eccentric is reserved for the well off..:-)
the labelling of a person as insane/mad is a machevallian tool to discredit what is being said by someone.
Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
Then again, was he actually mad, or just eccentric?
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rogue"
> > > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > > >
> > > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > > name, both in her handwriting."
> > >
> > >
> > > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
> handwriting
> > > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> > I'm
> > > not sure.
> >
> > Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
> her
> > own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> > this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> > original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
> about
> > a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> > King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> > was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> > died on 31 October that year.
> > If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
> had
> > become a Jesuit.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
> Fuches
> > on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> > There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
> way
> > vis-a-vis Richard:
> > 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> > Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> > 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
> >
> > 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> > Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> > suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> > to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> > this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
> the
> > end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
> She
> > has signed:
> > 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
> >
> > As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> > Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> > these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
> end
> > of 1485.
> >
> > But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> > each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> > separate issues.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
> exactly Henry VI or George III.
>
>
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
being eccentric is reserved for the well off..:-)
the labelling of a person as insane/mad is a machevallian tool to discredit what is being said by someone.
Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
Then again, was he actually mad, or just eccentric?
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rogue"
> > > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > > >
> > > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > > name, both in her handwriting."
> > >
> > >
> > > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
> handwriting
> > > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> > I'm
> > > not sure.
> >
> > Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
> her
> > own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> > this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> > original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
> about
> > a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> > King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> > was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> > died on 31 October that year.
> > If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
> had
> > become a Jesuit.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
> Fuches
> > on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> > There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
> way
> > vis-a-vis Richard:
> > 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> > Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> > 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
> >
> > 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> > Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> > suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> > to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> > this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
> the
> > end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
> She
> > has signed:
> > 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
> >
> > As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs'), the plain
> > Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> > these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
> end
> > of 1485.
> >
> > But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> > each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> > separate issues.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
> exactly Henry VI or George III.
>
>
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage et
2006-12-13 02:23:27
As some of you likely know, there has been a discussion going on about
Buck on the 'Wars of the Rose' site. There was opinion expressed that
Buck was being slandered by those who disliked Richard. I dunno.
Still an' all, the saga of the missing letter is most bizarre.
fayre rose wrote:
>
> oh he was simply mad..he was in debt.
>
> being eccentric is reserved for the well off..:-)
>
> the labelling of a person as insane/mad is a machevallian tool to
> discredit what is being said by someone.
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> Then again, was he actually mad, or just eccentric?
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, oregonkaty
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, "Rogue"
> > > > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > > > >
> > > > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > > > name, both in her handwriting. "
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
> > handwriting
> > > > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> > > I'm
> > > > not sure.
> > >
> > > Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
> > her
> > > own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> > > this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> > > original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
> > about
> > > a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> > > King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> > > was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> > > died on 31 October that year.
> > > If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
> > had
> > > become a Jesuit.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
> > Fuches
> > > on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> > > There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
> > way
> > > vis-a-vis Richard:
> > > 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> > > Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> > > 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
> > >
> > > 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> > > Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> > > suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> > > to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> > > this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
> > the
> > > end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
> > She
> > > has signed:
> > > 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
> > >
> > > As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs' ), the plain
> > > Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> > > these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
> > end
> > > of 1485.
> > >
> > > But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> > > each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> > > separate issues.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
> > exactly Henry VI or George III.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>
>
Buck on the 'Wars of the Rose' site. There was opinion expressed that
Buck was being slandered by those who disliked Richard. I dunno.
Still an' all, the saga of the missing letter is most bizarre.
fayre rose wrote:
>
> oh he was simply mad..he was in debt.
>
> being eccentric is reserved for the well off..:-)
>
> the labelling of a person as insane/mad is a machevallian tool to
> discredit what is being said by someone.
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> Then again, was he actually mad, or just eccentric?
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, oregonkaty
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, "Rogue"
> > > > <roguefem@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My copy of "Richard III's Books" just arrived, and in
> > > > > reading it I came across an interesting tidbit which
> > > > > could be very meaningful in the context of the recent
> > > > > discussions of Elizabeth of York. The excerpt:
> > > > >
> > > > > "A Copy of a French Translation of Boethius, now in
> > > > > the Royal Collection, is inscribed with the
> > > > > fascinating combination of Richard's best-known
> > > > > motto, Loyalte Me Lye, and Elizabeth of York's first
> > > > > name, both in her handwriting. "
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did the book say where a known sample of Eliz of York's
> > handwriting
> > > > was obtained for comparison purposes? I imagine some exist, but
> > > I'm
> > > > not sure.
> > >
> > > Worse still, looking in my copy of Buck, the words "written with
> > her
> > > own hand" are a later insertion. Quite a lt of editing went on with
> > > this letter; remove some of the insertions, restore some of the
> > > original word order, and it's not at all clear she was talking
> > about
> > > a marriage to the King at all, just wanting Norfolk to speak to the
> > > King about her marriage. Apparently Buck's history of King richard
> > > was written in 1619. Buck went mad in late 1621 or early 1622 and
> > > died on 31 October that year.
> > > If Catholic conspiracies are desired, Buck's only brother Robert
> > had
> > > become a Jesuit.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > PS. I've just hunted out the Ricardian article by Livia Visser-
> > Fuches
> > > on Elizabeth's Boethius.
> > > There are two books Elizabeth has signed in a possibly meaningful
> > way
> > > vis-a-vis Richard:
> > > 1) A 'Tristan' that had been signed by Richard as Duke of
> > > Glooucester. At the bottom of the same page, she signed:
> > > 'Sans removyr, Elyzabeth' (is without changing).
> > >
> > > 2) A French verse translation of Boethius' De consolatione
> > > Philosophiae' (of the Consolation of Philiosphy. This, as its title
> > > suggests, was a book favoured by people seeking a bit of philosophy
> > > to console them in their troubled or mutable life. She has signed
> > > this not in the usual place, but on the recto, or front, side of
> > the
> > > end flyleaf (ie you wouldn't find it by opening the back cover).
> > She
> > > has signed:
> > > 'Loyalte me lie, Elyzabeth'.
> > >
> > > As Livia argues (sorry, I can't do 'Visser-Fuchs' ), the plain
> > > Elizabeth means she was neither queen not princess when she signed
> > > these, so we are looking to a period between 26 June 1483 and the
> > end
> > > of 1485.
> > >
> > > But, as Livia also says, what how Elizabeth and Richard felt about
> > > each other, and whether there were any marriage plans, are two
> > > separate issues.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > So Buck was only mad for about a year, at the end of his life? Not
> > exactly Henry VI or George III.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-13 03:08:31
Speaking of names, several items:
1) Back in the discussion of Things Found in the Vatican, I said
William Montague was the Earl of Shrewsbury. It was Salisbury --
the Talbots were Shrewsbury. Either wiser members of this forum
were kind enough not to bop me over the head, or no one pays any
attention to anything I say.
2) If Elizabeth of York *had* wanted to add some sort of specific
identifier to her given name, what would it have been? Elizabeth
York? Elizabeth Plantagenet? Elizabeth P (for Princess or whatever
the Latin thereof is)? Elizabeth Wales?
3) For that matter, what was Edward's moniker when he was the
Duke of York's oldest kid, the Earl of March -- Edward March?
4) I know Richard was Richard Gloucester when he was a duke, and
not Richard *of* Gloucester. But if you want to do an "of"
designation a la John of Gaunt, it's from the person's birthplace,
right? So would he have been Richard of Fotheringhay?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Katy
1) Back in the discussion of Things Found in the Vatican, I said
William Montague was the Earl of Shrewsbury. It was Salisbury --
the Talbots were Shrewsbury. Either wiser members of this forum
were kind enough not to bop me over the head, or no one pays any
attention to anything I say.
2) If Elizabeth of York *had* wanted to add some sort of specific
identifier to her given name, what would it have been? Elizabeth
York? Elizabeth Plantagenet? Elizabeth P (for Princess or whatever
the Latin thereof is)? Elizabeth Wales?
3) For that matter, what was Edward's moniker when he was the
Duke of York's oldest kid, the Earl of March -- Edward March?
4) I know Richard was Richard Gloucester when he was a duke, and
not Richard *of* Gloucester. But if you want to do an "of"
designation a la John of Gaunt, it's from the person's birthplace,
right? So would he have been Richard of Fotheringhay?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-13 05:39:45
Is there any report of anyone else having seen the letter?
Of cause even if Buck did go "insane" later in life that doesn't mean he wasn't a bright one in his youth. What form of "insanity" did it take? If it was senile dementia that can affect anyone, I am sure we all heard of brilliant people struck down by that.
Helen
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among family papers.
buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem amongst the straw.
as to why the letter disappeared..it may have been confiscated or hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
"they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering neice" of "the unholy usurper."
and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here. they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily, if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
roslyn
Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
Janet T. wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays to all!
> Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> defender of Richard III but there it is.
> I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> importance.
>
> Janet T.
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Of cause even if Buck did go "insane" later in life that doesn't mean he wasn't a bright one in his youth. What form of "insanity" did it take? If it was senile dementia that can affect anyone, I am sure we all heard of brilliant people struck down by that.
Helen
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among family papers.
buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem amongst the straw.
as to why the letter disappeared..it may have been confiscated or hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
"they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering neice" of "the unholy usurper."
and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here. they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily, if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
roslyn
Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
Janet T. wrote:
>
>
> Happy Holidays to all!
> Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> defender of Richard III but there it is.
> I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> importance.
>
> Janet T.
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-13 06:46:43
As far as I'm aware, Buck was the only one to have seen the letter. As
far as his 'madness' is concerned, who knows?
Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> Is there any report of anyone else having seen the letter?
>
> Of cause even if Buck did go "insane" later in life that doesn't mean
> he wasn't a bright one in his youth. What form of "insanity" did it
> take? If it was senile dementia that can affect anyone, I am sure we
> all heard of brilliant people struck down by that.
>
> Helen
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>> wrote:
> geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant
> role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among
> family papers.
> buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died
> with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem
> amongst the straw.
>
> as to why the letter disappeared. .it may have been confiscated or
> hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly
> didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
>
> "they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any
> evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering
> neice" of "the unholy usurper."
>
> and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs
> catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of
> tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old
> geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
>
> remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar
> birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here.
> they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily,
> if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after
> all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a
> wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
> roslyn
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
> Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
>
> Janet T. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Happy Holidays to all!
> > Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> > you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> > - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> > perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> > don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> > was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> > beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> > produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> > eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> > defender of Richard III but there it is.
> > I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> > letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> > of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> > importance.
> >
> > Janet T.
> >
> > Janet M. Trimbath
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger
> .yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
far as his 'madness' is concerned, who knows?
Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> Is there any report of anyone else having seen the letter?
>
> Of cause even if Buck did go "insane" later in life that doesn't mean
> he wasn't a bright one in his youth. What form of "insanity" did it
> take? If it was senile dementia that can affect anyone, I am sure we
> all heard of brilliant people struck down by that.
>
> Helen
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@yahoo. ca <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>> wrote:
> geo buck was a historian. the dukes of norfolk had played significant
> role(s) from at least the time of r3. the letter was inherited among
> family papers.
> buck may have simply been looking for info on john howard who died
> with r3, and the revelation of the letter was just an unexpected gem
> amongst the straw.
>
> as to why the letter disappeared. .it may have been confiscated or
> hidden or destroyed after buck's history was published. it certainly
> didn't cast lil liz in an innocent light.
>
> "they" had to keep the tudor propaganda mill running..cleaning up any
> evidence that made lil liz look less than the "saintly suffering
> neice" of "the unholy usurper."
>
> and then there are the politics of the time too. protestant vs
> catholic. any excuse to topple the reigning monarch, especially of
> tudor descent. that letter was dangerous. part of the spin...paint old
> geo as forgetful and insane, and discredit his ramblings.
>
> remember always... the dukes of norfolk of the era had a peculiar
> birthmark..it is a dotted line about their neck that says cut here.
> they would certainly surrender anything demanded by the crown easily,
> if it didn't personally effect their own position of power..after
> all...what's a bit of parchment with the wanton meanderings of a
> wannabe queen to the norfolk dukes..eh..
> roslyn
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> You may well be right on this one. The letter is certainly suspect.
> Interesting that it went to Norfolk. Why him?
>
> Janet T. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Happy Holidays to all!
> > Just a little aside pertaining to the Buc letter. I am sure most of
> > you know that George Buc slowly descended into "madness" as he got older
> > - (maybe Medieval Alzheimers?) Who knows when this slide began but
> > perhaps the letter was always just a figment of his imagination! I
> > don't want to cast aspersions but we should "consider the source". Here
> > was a man used to a modicum of prestige and power (Master of Revels
> > beginning in 1611 until his death in 1622, in charge of what plays got
> > produced and what ones did not) and as he aged he fell into debt and
> > eventually was judged to be insane. Too bad since he was an early
> > defender of Richard III but there it is.
> > I have not been able to find out when he "found" the Elizabeth of York
> > letter but if it was later in his life one must take it all with a grain
> > of salt. It could have been a pathetic attempt to regain his lost
> > importance.
> >
> > Janet T.
> >
> > Janet M. Trimbath
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger
> .yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re:Elizabeth of York's marriage etc.
2006-12-13 13:56:24
A few things:-
1) Buck was baptized on 1 October 1560, so he was 61 when he supposedly
went mad.
2) His Richard III was written in 1619, when he was 58/9.
3) I don't know about motives for for false claims of madness. There
was a dispute over Buck's will, but the nephew who seized the estate
was not the proper heir so it was not in his interests to have the will
(leaving the goods to brother Robert) set aside on grounds of mental
incompetency. Instead he produced his own Deed of Gift predating the
will.
Since Stephen Buck had previous convictions for forgery, it is not
surprising that the law eventually found in favour of Robert. There
were many of Buck's possessions, however, that Robert never managed to
wrest from his nephew.
4) As to Buck's credibility, this was previously in doubt because the
only version of his work in print was the one edited by another nephew.
When Kincaid produced the current edition from the surviving
manuscripts he found that all the really dodgy stuff was the nephew's
own additions. There are so few sources referred to by Buck that aren't
extant (and where he said they were) that he was evidently a truthful
and careful person. So much material has been lost or destroyed in the
intervening period that the loss of this letter is not suspicious. As
kincaid argues, it would have been odd for Buck to have claimed that
someone as prominent as Arundel had shown him a letter which he didn't
exist. Nor would Buck have described its provenance in such detail.
Buck gave this sort of information regularly for the benefit of his
fellow antiquarians, and he was very straightforward and accurate about
it. The whole book was dedicated to Arundel, so Buck would have to have
been very careful on this one. Here I quote kincaid:-
"That the letter cannot at the present time be traced is not
extraordinary. Much of Arundel's collection was given away and sold by
Henry Howard, sixth Duke of Norfolk. It had already been split up on
arundel's death in 1646 because of family feuding. Naworth Castle,
where certain of the Howard treasures were preserved, was burned in
1844, along with many of the treasures it contained. Numerous of these
are, however, still in the possession of the various branches of the
Howard family. It may still have been available in 1750 when Carte
speaks of it as 'preserved in the Arundel collection' without citing
buck as his source, as he normally does in the case of information
found in no other place. Henry Howard of Corby, 'who had access to many
secret sources of information respecting his house', says, 'there is no
reason to doubt his [Buck's] veracity in what must then have been so
easily contradicted. I think it very possible that this letter, if
sought amongst the mass of papers at Norfolk House, may still cast up.'
Scholars of the present day express frustration at not being permitted
to explore the Howardv papers.'
5) I don't think just anyone would sign themselves plain 'Elizabeth' in
those days - think of the Paston letters, even letters between family
members carried the surname. What is the point of signing a book in a
way that doesn't identify you as the owner? The whole point about the
lack of accompanying surname or title is that this was someone who
needed no other identity; Livia argues that the lack of title dates it
to Richard's reign when she had not idneitity as such, but I wonder. I
seem to recall having seen a copy of the only surviving example of
Cecily Neville's signature, and that was plain "Cecill". I think this
sort of thing is more connected with ladies who belonged to the royal
family. Princess as a title wasn't yet really in use, so Elizabeth P.
was not available. Still, Princess Anne's plain "Anne P." does show how
even today royal ladies pretty much stick to first name only.
Who owned the books? Ownership is generally assumed from the signatures
in the flyleaf. The Tristan had therefore been acquired by Richard
himself when he was Duke of Gloucester, and at some point passed to
Elizabeth, who signed her name directly under his. Who owned the
Boethius before Elizabeth, or whether it was made for her, is more of a
problem since Livia doesn't mention any other signatures. It may have
been, as Katy suggests, a 'library' volume since she didn't sign her
name in a very visible place. Not only was her signature not visible by
opening the back cover, but it wasn't visible from the last page of
text either since there were seven blank pages at the end. Her little
secret, then.
6)We actually have no evidence that the girl's mother, Elizabeth
Woodville, was ever at court during Richard's reign. The agreement she
made with Richard only referred to the daughters coming out of
sanctuary and there is no record of her own whereabouts.
Marie
1) Buck was baptized on 1 October 1560, so he was 61 when he supposedly
went mad.
2) His Richard III was written in 1619, when he was 58/9.
3) I don't know about motives for for false claims of madness. There
was a dispute over Buck's will, but the nephew who seized the estate
was not the proper heir so it was not in his interests to have the will
(leaving the goods to brother Robert) set aside on grounds of mental
incompetency. Instead he produced his own Deed of Gift predating the
will.
Since Stephen Buck had previous convictions for forgery, it is not
surprising that the law eventually found in favour of Robert. There
were many of Buck's possessions, however, that Robert never managed to
wrest from his nephew.
4) As to Buck's credibility, this was previously in doubt because the
only version of his work in print was the one edited by another nephew.
When Kincaid produced the current edition from the surviving
manuscripts he found that all the really dodgy stuff was the nephew's
own additions. There are so few sources referred to by Buck that aren't
extant (and where he said they were) that he was evidently a truthful
and careful person. So much material has been lost or destroyed in the
intervening period that the loss of this letter is not suspicious. As
kincaid argues, it would have been odd for Buck to have claimed that
someone as prominent as Arundel had shown him a letter which he didn't
exist. Nor would Buck have described its provenance in such detail.
Buck gave this sort of information regularly for the benefit of his
fellow antiquarians, and he was very straightforward and accurate about
it. The whole book was dedicated to Arundel, so Buck would have to have
been very careful on this one. Here I quote kincaid:-
"That the letter cannot at the present time be traced is not
extraordinary. Much of Arundel's collection was given away and sold by
Henry Howard, sixth Duke of Norfolk. It had already been split up on
arundel's death in 1646 because of family feuding. Naworth Castle,
where certain of the Howard treasures were preserved, was burned in
1844, along with many of the treasures it contained. Numerous of these
are, however, still in the possession of the various branches of the
Howard family. It may still have been available in 1750 when Carte
speaks of it as 'preserved in the Arundel collection' without citing
buck as his source, as he normally does in the case of information
found in no other place. Henry Howard of Corby, 'who had access to many
secret sources of information respecting his house', says, 'there is no
reason to doubt his [Buck's] veracity in what must then have been so
easily contradicted. I think it very possible that this letter, if
sought amongst the mass of papers at Norfolk House, may still cast up.'
Scholars of the present day express frustration at not being permitted
to explore the Howardv papers.'
5) I don't think just anyone would sign themselves plain 'Elizabeth' in
those days - think of the Paston letters, even letters between family
members carried the surname. What is the point of signing a book in a
way that doesn't identify you as the owner? The whole point about the
lack of accompanying surname or title is that this was someone who
needed no other identity; Livia argues that the lack of title dates it
to Richard's reign when she had not idneitity as such, but I wonder. I
seem to recall having seen a copy of the only surviving example of
Cecily Neville's signature, and that was plain "Cecill". I think this
sort of thing is more connected with ladies who belonged to the royal
family. Princess as a title wasn't yet really in use, so Elizabeth P.
was not available. Still, Princess Anne's plain "Anne P." does show how
even today royal ladies pretty much stick to first name only.
Who owned the books? Ownership is generally assumed from the signatures
in the flyleaf. The Tristan had therefore been acquired by Richard
himself when he was Duke of Gloucester, and at some point passed to
Elizabeth, who signed her name directly under his. Who owned the
Boethius before Elizabeth, or whether it was made for her, is more of a
problem since Livia doesn't mention any other signatures. It may have
been, as Katy suggests, a 'library' volume since she didn't sign her
name in a very visible place. Not only was her signature not visible by
opening the back cover, but it wasn't visible from the last page of
text either since there were seven blank pages at the end. Her little
secret, then.
6)We actually have no evidence that the girl's mother, Elizabeth
Woodville, was ever at court during Richard's reign. The agreement she
made with Richard only referred to the daughters coming out of
sanctuary and there is no record of her own whereabouts.
Marie
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.