Sons of York

This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
I can't find the book now)

Edward and Edmund shared a household as children at Ludlow, did that
continue into their teens? How did the two young men support
themselves?

Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
survived Wakefield?

lilith82200 wrote:

>This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
>Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
>that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
>Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
>arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
>I can't find the book now)
>
>

>Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
>survived Wakefield?
>

##My first thought is that Richard would not have played as large a part
in Edward's life, though it's hard to say how close Edmund and Edward
were since siblings aren't always close just because they're of an age.
Certainly, if Edmund had lived long enough to marry and have children,
things would have turned out quite different. It's hard for me to
imagine Richard would have ever become king.

Gilda

In the novel, /*Kings of Albion*/, author Julian Rathbone has the main
character refer to Edmund as 'Eddie York'

Gilda Felt wrote:
>
>
>
> lilith82200 wrote:
>
> >This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
> >Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
> >that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
> >Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
> >arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
> >I can't find the book now)
> >
> >
>
> >Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
> >survived Wakefield?
> >
>
> ##My first thought is that Richard would not have played as large a part
> in Edward's life, though it's hard to say how close Edmund and Edward
> were since siblings aren't always close just because they're of an age.
> Certainly, if Edmund had lived long enough to marry and have children,
> things would have turned out quite different. It's hard for me to
> imagine Richard would have ever become king.
>
> Gilda
>
>

There was a very bare year between Edward and Edmund, so they would certainly have grown up closely associated. But that doesn't necessarily mean a close relationship between them. My two eldest uncles (of three) were 363 days apart and were very different characters. There was also a lot of rivalry between them. In adult life they rarely saw one another and were barely on speaking terms.

Extreme case, I know. but close in age doesn't necessarily mean fraternal devotion.

Ann

Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:


lilith82200 wrote:

>This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
>Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
>that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
>Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
>arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
>I can't find the book now)
>
>

>Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
>survived Wakefield?
>

##My first thought is that Richard would not have played as large a part
in Edward's life, though it's hard to say how close Edmund and Edward
were since siblings aren't always close just because they're of an age.
Certainly, if Edmund had lived long enough to marry and have children,
things would have turned out quite different. It's hard for me to
imagine Richard would have ever become king.

Gilda

Which kind of sums u the novel for me Bill. I hated it! Such a
disappointment after the marvellous one he wrote about Harold II.
Paul

On 15 Dec 2006, at 15:06, Bill Barber wrote:

> In the novel, /*Kings of Albion*/, author Julian Rathbone has the main
> character refer to Edmund as 'Eddie York'

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Sorry I needed a p :-) Should have read "kind of sums UP the novel"
Paul

On 15 Dec 2006, at 23:24, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> Which kind of sums u the novel for me Bill. I hated it! Such a
> disappointment after the marvellous one he wrote about Harold II.
> Paul
>
> On 15 Dec 2006, at 15:06, Bill Barber wrote:
>
>> In the novel, /*Kings of Albion*/, author Julian Rathbone has the
>> main
>> character refer to Edmund as 'Eddie York'
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Agreed. I only got halfway through it before I tossed it at the wall. I
understand his trying to juxtapose a languid eastern sensibility on top
of a bleak English landscape, and I even think it was a noble attempt.
Unfortunately, he just didn't pull it off. Haven't read /*The*/ /*L**ast
English King */because I was so afraid of attempting another of his
works. Since you liked it, I might just give it a shot. It turns up on
'remaindered' tables fair bit.

I'm sure he'll keep going in this fashion.

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Which kind of sums u the novel for me Bill. I hated it! Such a
> disappointment after the marvellous one he wrote about Harold II.
> Paul
>
> On 15 Dec 2006, at 15:06, Bill Barber wrote:
>
> > In the novel, /*Kings of Albion*/, author Julian Rathbone has the main
> > character refer to Edmund as 'Eddie York'
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>

> Now to some speculation, how would history have
changed had Edmund
> survived Wakefield?

That's hard to predict without knowing a lot more
about Edmund's personality, and I haven't come across
any books that said much about him. Can any of you
recommend one that does?


Take care,
Kat


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

A LYON wrote:

>There was a very bare year between Edward and Edmund, so they would certainly have grown up closely associated. But that doesn't necessarily mean a close relationship between them. My two eldest uncles (of three) were 363 days apart and were very different characters. There was also a lot of rivalry between them. In adult life they rarely saw one another and were barely on speaking terms.
>
> Extreme case, I know. but close in age doesn't necessarily mean fraternal devotion.
>
> Ann
>
>
##Exactly. I have two nephews ten months apart who are as different as
night and day and not at all close. But it must be something we would
hope to be true because every novel I've read that covers that part of
his life, Edward is always very close with Edmund.

Gilda

>
>
>lilith82200 wrote:
>
>
>
>>This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
>>Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
>>that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
>>Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
>>arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
>>I can't find the book now)
>>
>>
>>Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
>>survived Wakefield?
>>
>>
>
>##My first thought is that Richard would not have played as large a part
>in Edward's life, though it's hard to say how close Edmund and Edward
>were since siblings aren't always close just because they're of an age.
>Certainly, if Edmund had lived long enough to marry and have children,
>things would have turned out quite different. It's hard for me to
>imagine Richard would have ever become king.
>
>Gilda
>
>
>

Gilda

You make a good point that 'we' hope it is true that Edward and Edmund were close. More generally in novels, brothers very near in age are usually depicted as being very close, though this may not necessarily bethe case, especially in the Middle Ages, where 'elder son got all' - an obvious trigger for rivalry. More generally still, there sems to be an expectation that siblings will get on and certainly 'should' get on, for all that experience shows that frequently the opposite applies!

My three uncles - the third was 2 1/2 years younger than the second - were all very different people and none of them was close to either of the others. By contrast, my mother, who was the youngest, after another 2 1/2 year gap, was very close to the third uncle.

My father's family is a bit 'odd' as his mother married twice and effectively had two families, with a lengthy gap between. The two eldest - boy and girl - were about two years apart, and there was a fair amount of rivalry, though after her brother died of TB aged 26, the daughter rather ostentatiously revered his memory, had a large photo of him on permanent display (she never married, which might have made a difference). The third child of the first marriage, another girl, was eight years younger than her brother and very fond of him. I think the age gap and the fact that he was a first a boy seaman in a training ship and then a Merchant Navy officer and away most of the time from when my aunt was about five meant that he was a rather glamorous and exciting big brother. My father is the second child of the second marriage, 22 years younger than his half-brother, and 20 and 14 years younger than his half-sisters. He barely remembers his half-brother at all, though that
is something he regrets. He was never on good terms with the elder half-sister (who died in August this year, aged 98) - apparently this was mainly because she took against Dad's father - but got on well with the younger. His relations with his sister of the whole blood - 20 months older than he is - are uneasy. In fact, when my mother was terminally ill, efforts were made to keep her from muscling in, and the week my mother died one of my jobs was to persuade my aunt (diplomatically) not to come and see him!

A friend of mine is the eldest of three with long gaps between - he is five years older than his sister and 11 years older than his brother. As children they had relatively little to do with one another - by the time his brother was eight he was at university - and as adults they are friendly but not particularly close.

Does this tell us anything about the Sons of York? All I would really say is that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables

Ann


Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:


A LYON wrote:

>There was a very bare year between Edward and Edmund, so they would certainly have grown up closely associated. But that doesn't necessarily mean a close relationship between them. My two eldest uncles (of three) were 363 days apart and were very different characters. There was also a lot of rivalry between them. In adult life they rarely saw one another and were barely on speaking terms.
>
> Extreme case, I know. but close in age doesn't necessarily mean fraternal devotion.
>
> Ann
>
>
##Exactly. I have two nephews ten months apart who are as different as
night and day and not at all close. But it must be something we would
hope to be true because every novel I've read that covers that part of
his life, Edward is always very close with Edmund.

Gilda

>
>
>lilith82200 wrote:
>
>
>
>>This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
>>Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
>>that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
>>Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
>>arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
>>I can't find the book now)
>>
>>
>>Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
>>survived Wakefield?
>>
>>
>
>##My first thought is that Richard would not have played as large a part
>in Edward's life, though it's hard to say how close Edmund and Edward
>were since siblings aren't always close just because they're of an age.
>Certainly, if Edmund had lived long enough to marry and have children,
>things would have turned out quite different. It's hard for me to
>imagine Richard would have ever become king.
>
>Gilda
>
>
>

I wonder why people watch soap operas, when our families provide even
better entertainment. I am a creature of a blended family which has also
been most interesting over the years; however, we are pretty close now.

I am reminded of the scene from *Lion in Winter *in which Henry II,
Richard, Geoffrey, Prince Henry, John and Eleanor of Aquitaine are all
in the dungeon. Eleanor is perched on a step (I think), while Henry II
and the three older boys are flailing away with broadswords. John is
decapitating a doll or something. After several minutes, everyone
collapses in a heap and Henry says something like, "My God, what a bunch
we are!" Haven't seen this movie in, what...forty years? Help me out
here, Paul.

Speaking of closeness of kin, I think George and Richard had a most
complex relationship. Haven't totally figured it out yet, and don't
suppose I ever shall.

A LYON wrote:
>
>
> Gilda
>
> You make a good point that 'we' hope it is true that Edward and Edmund
> were close. More generally in novels, brothers very near in age are
> usually depicted as being very close, though this may not necessarily
> bethe case, especially in the Middle Ages, where 'elder son got all' -
> an obvious trigger for rivalry. More generally still, there sems to be
> an expectation that siblings will get on and certainly 'should' get
> on, for all that experience shows that frequently the opposite applies!
>
> My three uncles - the third was 2 1/2 years younger than the second -
> were all very different people and none of them was close to either of
> the others. By contrast, my mother, who was the youngest, after
> another 2 1/2 year gap, was very close to the third uncle.
>
> My father's family is a bit 'odd' as his mother married twice and
> effectively had two families, with a lengthy gap between. The two
> eldest - boy and girl - were about two years apart, and there was a
> fair amount of rivalry, though after her brother died of TB aged 26,
> the daughter rather ostentatiously revered his memory, had a large
> photo of him on permanent display (she never married, which might have
> made a difference). The third child of the first marriage, another
> girl, was eight years younger than her brother and very fond of him. I
> think the age gap and the fact that he was a first a boy seaman in a
> training ship and then a Merchant Navy officer and away most of the
> time from when my aunt was about five meant that he was a rather
> glamorous and exciting big brother. My father is the second child of
> the second marriage, 22 years younger than his half-brother, and 20
> and 14 years younger than his half-sisters. He barely remembers his
> half-brother at all, though that
> is something he regrets. He was never on good terms with the elder
> half-sister (who died in August this year, aged 98) - apparently this
> was mainly because she took against Dad's father - but got on well
> with the younger. His relations with his sister of the whole blood -
> 20 months older than he is - are uneasy. In fact, when my mother was
> terminally ill, efforts were made to keep her from muscling in, and
> the week my mother died one of my jobs was to persuade my aunt
> (diplomatically) not to come and see him!
>
> A friend of mine is the eldest of three with long gaps between - he is
> five years older than his sister and 11 years older than his brother.
> As children they had relatively little to do with one another - by the
> time his brother was eight he was at university - and as adults they
> are friendly but not particularly close.
>
> Does this tell us anything about the Sons of York? All I would really
> say is that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right
> gap for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
>
> Ann
>
>
> Gilda Felt <gildaevf@... <mailto:gildaevf%40qwest.net>> wrote:
>
>
> A LYON wrote:
>
> >There was a very bare year between Edward and Edmund, so they would
> certainly have grown up closely associated. But that doesn't
> necessarily mean a close relationship between them. My two eldest
> uncles (of three) were 363 days apart and were very different
> characters. There was also a lot of rivalry between them. In adult
> life they rarely saw one another and were barely on speaking terms.
> >
> > Extreme case, I know. but close in age doesn't necessarily mean
> fraternal devotion.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> ##Exactly. I have two nephews ten months apart who are as different as
> night and day and not at all close. But it must be something we would
> hope to be true because every novel I've read that covers that part of
> his life, Edward is always very close with Edmund.
>
> Gilda
>
> >
> >
> >lilith82200 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>This is a favorite topic of mine. I have always been curious about
> >>Edmund of Rutland. I recall reading in the Jones' book about Bosworth
> >>that Richard Duke of York had planned to leave his French holdings to
> >>Edmund but since those were lost, were there any alternative
> >>arrangements made. (of course with the chaos of getting ready for Xmas
> >>I can't find the book now)
> >>
> >>
> >>Now to some speculation, how would history have changed had Edmund
> >>survived Wakefield?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >##My first thought is that Richard would not have played as large a part
> >in Edward's life, though it's hard to say how close Edmund and Edward
> >were since siblings aren't always close just because they're of an age.
> >Certainly, if Edmund had lived long enough to marry and have children,
> >things would have turned out quite different. It's hard for me to
> >imagine Richard would have ever become king.
> >
> >Gilda
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

A LYON wrote:

> A friend of mine is the eldest of three with long gaps between - he is five years older than his sister and 11 years older than his brother. As children they had relatively little to do with one another - by the time his brother was eight he was at university - and as adults they are friendly but not particularly close.
>
> Does this tell us anything about the Sons of York? All I would really say is that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
>
> Ann
>
>
##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever closeness
there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and her
feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more inclined
to consider their relationship with their siblings the more important.
If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close, having
come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.

Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George, which
may account for Richard's defense of George even after the problems he
himself had with his brother.

Gilda

--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
closeness
> there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
her
> feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
inclined
> to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
important.
> If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
having
> come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
>
> Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
which
> may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
problems he
> himself had with his brother.



The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
court.

It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.

Katy

I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> >
> that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> closeness
> > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> her
> > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> inclined
> > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> important.
> > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> having
> > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> >
> > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> which
> > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> problems he
> > himself had with his brother.
>
> The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> court.
>
> It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
> Katy
>
>

richard's role of responsibility could be something as simple as the youngest son of that era was usually destined for the clergy. therefore, learning how to recruit/enlist cooperative souls would be part of his education...out working the potential flock, so to speak.

george on the other hand would be expected to be a political tool via the medieval marriage market. ergo he would need to have courtly manners and behaviours to make him more marketable, as well as, a need to hone diplomatic skills.

and for what it's worth..edmund, may 17 and edward, apr. 28th are both taurus. with 384 days between their births...they may get along, but no guarantee... i don't get along with my older sister, for the most part.. there are 405 days separating us. she is a scorpio, and i'm a sagittarius. not a good combo astrologically speaking.

she was first born, and grew up with a "right of entitlement". as a child, i looked up to her, and would often do her bidding, simply because... i was well into my 30's before her influence was greatly lessened...i simply got fed up and started saying NO..and she'd rampage even at that age...poor thing, i guess it's hard to lose a lacky...:-))

additionally, my parents also encouraged sibling rivalry. my father, also an eldest child also had this air of entitlement. he and his sister never got a long either..and sibling rivalry was also encouraged in his generation..in fact, my grandfather and his siblings also taught this dysfunctional trait to their children. and my grandfather's generation also did not get along and were very competitive with each other.

the mentality in the family was/is that if you can compete within, you'll be better able to compete without. also, anyone in the family could pick on/harass another member of the family. internal family alliances are not uncommon. the family is always at war with one another, and split into factions..but woe betide the outsider who went after any one of us, even the family scapegoat..because then you brought the whole family in to defend the individual family member...and of course once we've taken care of the "outsider" we split back into factions.

and..bill barber..late last night on CBC..was the movie, Lion in Winter.

regards
roslyn



Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> >
> that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> closeness
> > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> her
> > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> inclined
> > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> important.
> > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> having
> > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> >
> > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> which
> > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> problems he
> > himself had with his brother.
>
> The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> court.
>
> It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
> Katy
>
>

Manouevred? He was only twelve though they seen to be given responsibility young.

George and Richard shared exile together, I'm not sure how long it was, but that could had affected their relationship. Not sure how. Certainly something in common no other sibling shared.

Family relationships can be so interesting!

Helen

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> >
> that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> closeness
> > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> her
> > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> inclined
> > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> important.
> > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> having
> > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> >
> > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> which
> > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> problems he
> > himself had with his brother.
>
> The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> court.
>
> It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
> Katy
>
>







Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

The early titles were honorifics. What I am referring to is his
positioning during the 1470s, when he began to develop his northern land
and affinity acquisition strategies. Also, he tended to take his
official responsibilities seriously at this time. I think he was much
more focused and driven than George, who seems to have thought things
should be given to him.

Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> Manouevred? He was only twelve though they seen to be given
> responsibility young.
>
> George and Richard shared exile together, I'm not sure how long it
> was, but that could had affected their relationship. Not sure how.
> Certainly something in common no other sibling shared.
>
> Family relationships can be so interesting!
>
> Helen
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
> to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, Gilda Felt
> > <gildaevf@.. .> wrote:
> > >
> > that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> > for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> > eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > > >
> > > > Ann
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> > closeness
> > > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> > her
> > > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> > inclined
> > > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> > important.
> > > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> > having
> > > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> > >
> > > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> > which
> > > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> > problems he
> > > himself had with his brother.
> >
> > The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> > George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> > together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> > the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> > 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> > at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> > Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> > Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> > court.
> >
> > It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> > surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger
> .yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>

Yes - at the age of 12 he wouldn't be expected to DO anything. He would simply be a figurehead, and professional administrators would do the work. I think you may well also be correct in saying that Richard seems to have taken his official responsibilities much more seriously than Clarence - the result was, of course, that he got given more responsibilities. Perhaps he realised early on that he was going to have to make his own way in the world, or he was simply more serious-minded.

Ann.

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
The early titles were honorifics. What I am referring to is his
positioning during the 1470s, when he began to develop his northern land
and affinity acquisition strategies. Also, he tended to take his
official responsibilities seriously at this time. I think he was much
more focused and driven than George, who seems to have thought things
should be given to him.

Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> Manouevred? He was only twelve though they seen to be given
> responsibility young.
>
> George and Richard shared exile together, I'm not sure how long it
> was, but that could had affected their relationship. Not sure how.
> Certainly something in common no other sibling shared.
>
> Family relationships can be so interesting!
>
> Helen
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
> to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:richardiiis ocietyforum% 40yahoogroups. com>, Gilda Felt
> > <gildaevf@.. .> wrote:
> > >
> > that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> > for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> > eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > > >
> > > > Ann
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> > closeness
> > > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> > her
> > > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> > inclined
> > > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> > important.
> > > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> > having
> > > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> > >
> > > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> > which
> > > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> > problems he
> > > himself had with his brother.
> >
> > The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> > George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> > together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> > the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> > 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> > at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> > Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> > Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> > court.
> >
> > It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> > surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger
> .yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>

Family relationships are definitely interesting! Just had a Christmas card from one of my cousins - the elder son of my eldest uncle. He and his brother are 15 months apart and, once again, very unalike. George, the elder, is serious-minded, responsible, a devoted father to two rather wayward daughters, did his best for their father as he grew increasingly frail and cantankerous, has spent his entire working life with one employer and has one passion in life - steam trains! Peter is one of those people who relies on his charm (considerable) to get him out of trouble, has drifted somewhat in career terms, and in the midst of his father's illness went off to New Zealand, also more-or-less abandoning his teenage daughter.

The latest news is that Peter and his third wife have produced a baby daughter, at virtually the same time as his elder daughter, aged 23, also had a baby! Future family relationships are going to be interesting. Aunt three months older than her nephew. Peter father and grandfather to offspring of virtually the same age. Then there is the effect of the huge distance between elder daughter in Scotland and younger daughter in New Zealand.

Ann

Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
Manouevred? He was only twelve though they seen to be given responsibility young.

George and Richard shared exile together, I'm not sure how long it was, but that could had affected their relationship. Not sure how. Certainly something in common no other sibling shared.

Family relationships can be so interesting!

Helen

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> >
> that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> closeness
> > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> her
> > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> inclined
> > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> important.
> > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> having
> > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> >
> > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> which
> > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> problems he
> > himself had with his brother.
>
> The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> court.
>
> It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
> Katy
>
>



Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Interesting. I'm an eldest and while I don't think I've got an 'air of entitlement' I have a very definite sense that my mother 'put me aside' when my brother arrived two years and nine months after me. He and I have never really got on (a pity) and I don't think things can have been helped by the fact that my parents were both youngests and did not/could not put themselves in the shoes of an eldest who was feeling neglected.

Ann

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
richard's role of responsibility could be something as simple as the youngest son of that era was usually destined for the clergy. therefore, learning how to recruit/enlist cooperative souls would be part of his education...out working the potential flock, so to speak.

george on the other hand would be expected to be a political tool via the medieval marriage market. ergo he would need to have courtly manners and behaviours to make him more marketable, as well as, a need to hone diplomatic skills.

and for what it's worth..edmund, may 17 and edward, apr. 28th are both taurus. with 384 days between their births...they may get along, but no guarantee... i don't get along with my older sister, for the most part.. there are 405 days separating us. she is a scorpio, and i'm a sagittarius. not a good combo astrologically speaking.

she was first born, and grew up with a "right of entitlement". as a child, i looked up to her, and would often do her bidding, simply because... i was well into my 30's before her influence was greatly lessened...i simply got fed up and started saying NO..and she'd rampage even at that age...poor thing, i guess it's hard to lose a lacky...:-))

additionally, my parents also encouraged sibling rivalry. my father, also an eldest child also had this air of entitlement. he and his sister never got a long either..and sibling rivalry was also encouraged in his generation..in fact, my grandfather and his siblings also taught this dysfunctional trait to their children. and my grandfather's generation also did not get along and were very competitive with each other.

the mentality in the family was/is that if you can compete within, you'll be better able to compete without. also, anyone in the family could pick on/harass another member of the family. internal family alliances are not uncommon. the family is always at war with one another, and split into factions..but woe betide the outsider who went after any one of us, even the family scapegoat..because then you brought the whole family in to defend the individual family member...and of course once we've taken care of the "outsider" we split back into factions.

and..bill barber..late last night on CBC..was the movie, Lion in Winter.

regards
roslyn



Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> >
> that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> closeness
> > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> her
> > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> inclined
> > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> important.
> > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> having
> > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> >
> > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> which
> > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> problems he
> > himself had with his brother.
>
> The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> court.
>
> It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
> Katy
>
>

Not quite right, Bill - the action of the film takes place after the
death of Prince Henry - so there are only the three sons, Richard
(Anthony Hopkins), Geoffrey (John Castle) and John (John Terry). The
film also features Philip of France (Timothy Dalton) and Princess
Alice (Jane Merrow). Quite a cast supporting the two leads, Peter
O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn.

If you haven't seen it for forty years, definitely worth seeking out a
video copy !

Richard G

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> I am reminded of the scene from *Lion in Winter *in which Henry II,
> Richard, Geoffrey, Prince Henry, John and Eleanor of Aquitaine are
> all in the dungeon. Eleanor is perched on a step (I think), while
> Henry II and the three older boys are flailing away with
> broadswords. John is decapitating a doll or something. After several
> minutes, everyone collapses in a heap and Henry says something
> like, "My God, what a bunch we are!" Haven't seen this movie in,
> what...forty years?

On 19 Dec 2006, at 18:40, Bill Barber wrote:

> George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.


A bit of an understatement there Bill! Don't forget George was heir
presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Absolutely Paul: but I don't think Georgie wanted to work too hard for
anything. On the other hand, Richard was a scrapper.

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Dec 2006, at 18:40, Bill Barber wrote:
>
> > George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
>
> A bit of an understatement there Bill! Don't forget George was heir
> presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
> Paul
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>

Video Richard? There's a very good transfer onto dvd available, at
least on Region 2 that is.
I haven't the time to watch it again at the moment and seek out the
lines you are looking for, but will try over the next few days.
One of the best still goes to Kate when she says "Oh well, every
family has it's ups and downs" though there is a wonderful little
speech by Geoffrey that is my favourite. It ends 'we are a very
knowledgeable family.' In the tv remake the actor playing Geoffrey
delivered it beautifully, and was the only one of the sons to come
out of it with any credit. John Light his name.
Paul


On 20 Dec 2006, at 10:46, rgcorris wrote:

> If you haven't seen it for forty years, definitely worth seeking out a
> video copy !

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Many thanks. Maybe It'll be a be a Christmas treat to myself.

rgcorris wrote:
>
> Not quite right, Bill - the action of the film takes place after the
> death of Prince Henry - so there are only the three sons, Richard
> (Anthony Hopkins), Geoffrey (John Castle) and John (John Terry). The
> film also features Philip of France (Timothy Dalton) and Princess
> Alice (Jane Merrow). Quite a cast supporting the two leads, Peter
> O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn.
>
> If you haven't seen it for forty years, definitely worth seeking out a
> video copy !
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@... > wrote:
> >
> > I am reminded of the scene from *Lion in Winter *in which Henry II,
> > Richard, Geoffrey, Prince Henry, John and Eleanor of Aquitaine are
> > all in the dungeon. Eleanor is perched on a step (I think), while
> > Henry II and the three older boys are flailing away with
> > broadswords. John is decapitating a doll or something. After several
> > minutes, everyone collapses in a heap and Henry says something
> > like, "My God, what a bunch we are!" Haven't seen this movie in,
> > what...forty years?
>
>

My full name is William Douglas Watson Barber. I was named after my
uncle, Bill Watson. The Wellington bomber, on which he was navigator,
crashed into Cardigan Bay during a training mission on July 21, 1944.
The whole crew was killed. I think he was the favoured sibling, and that
perhaps Mom tried, at least unconsciously, to gain a bit of currency by
naming me after him. This assessment may be a tad unfair, but I think
there is at least some truth to it. My grandmother and I were great buddies.

A LYON wrote:
>
> Interesting. I'm an eldest and while I don't think I've got an 'air of
> entitlement' I have a very definite sense that my mother 'put me
> aside' when my brother arrived two years and nine months after me. He
> and I have never really got on (a pity) and I don't think things can
> have been helped by the fact that my parents were both youngests and
> did not/could not put themselves in the shoes of an eldest who was
> feeling neglected.
>
> Ann
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>> wrote:
> richard's role of responsibility could be something as simple as the
> youngest son of that era was usually destined for the clergy.
> therefore, learning how to recruit/enlist cooperative souls would be
> part of his education...out working the potential flock, so to speak.
>
> george on the other hand would be expected to be a political tool via
> the medieval marriage market. ergo he would need to have courtly
> manners and behaviours to make him more marketable, as well as, a need
> to hone diplomatic skills.
>
> and for what it's worth..edmund, may 17 and edward, apr. 28th are both
> taurus. with 384 days between their births...they may get along, but
> no guarantee... i don't get along with my older sister, for the most
> part.. there are 405 days separating us. she is a scorpio, and i'm a
> sagittarius. not a good combo astrologically speaking.
>
> she was first born, and grew up with a "right of entitlement". as a
> child, i looked up to her, and would often do her bidding, simply
> because... i was well into my 30's before her influence was greatly
> lessened...i simply got fed up and started saying NO..and she'd
> rampage even at that age...poor thing, i guess it's hard to lose a
> lacky...:-))
>
> additionally, my parents also encouraged sibling rivalry. my father,
> also an eldest child also had this air of entitlement. he and his
> sister never got a long either..and sibling rivalry was also
> encouraged in his generation..in fact, my grandfather and his siblings
> also taught this dysfunctional trait to their children. and my
> grandfather's generation also did not get along and were very
> competitive with each other.
>
> the mentality in the family was/is that if you can compete within,
> you'll be better able to compete without. also, anyone in the family
> could pick on/harass another member of the family. internal family
> alliances are not uncommon. the family is always at war with one
> another, and split into factions..but woe betide the outsider who went
> after any one of us, even the family scapegoat..because then you
> brought the whole family in to defend the individual family
> member...and of course once we've taken care of the "outsider" we
> split back into factions.
>
> and..bill barber..late last night on CBC..was the movie, Lion in Winter.
>
> regards
> roslyn
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@... <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
> to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> > <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> > >
> > that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> > for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> > eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > > >
> > > > Ann
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> > closeness
> > > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> > her
> > > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> > inclined
> > > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> > important.
> > > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> > having
> > > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> > >
> > > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> > which
> > > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> > problems he
> > > himself had with his brother.
> >
> > The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> > George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> > together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> > the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> > 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> > at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> > Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> > Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> > court.
> >
> > It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> > surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Not quite right, Bill - the action of the film takes place after the
>death of Prince Henry - so there are only the three sons, Richard
>(Anthony Hopkins), Geoffrey (John Castle) and John (John Terry). The
>film also features Philip of France (Timothy Dalton) and Princess
>Alice (Jane Merrow). Quite a cast supporting the two leads, Peter
>O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn.
>
>If you haven't seen it for forty years, definitely worth seeking out a
>video copy !
>
>Richard G

===========================

This is one of those films my mother and I could quote at each other almost from beginning to end. Good, strong, biting characters and one of the most deliciously-dysfuncational families you'll ever enjoy: the densest one (John) still has a working mind. Only Alice comes off a bit bland, but I have a feeling it's only because of what she's up against, and her stake in the game is more circumscribed than those of the others. She does get a lovely scene with Eleanor, though, in which Hepburn delivers one of my favorite lines, as she describes the fari Rosamund to the curious Alice: (some paraphrasing): "... She had good teeth. That's a rare, fair feature. She smiled to excess, but she chewed with real distinction."

Several years ago, Laurence Fishburne and Stockard Channing starred in a staged revival of the play in NYC. Fishburne was quite good and relaxed, but I think Channing was trying too hard, adn the strain showed in her voice and general performance. The production suffered from odd costuming and an unbalanced concept of the bare-bones staging, too, but the dialogue held beautifully.

Maria
elena@...

My mother was the eldest and hated it. She was always held to be the responsible one, blamed if any of the younger children played up. "Why weren't you watching him?" . No air of entitlement for her.

Helen

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Interesting. I'm an eldest and while I don't think I've got an 'air of entitlement' I have a very definite sense that my mother 'put me aside' when my brother arrived two years and nine months after me. He and I have never really got on (a pity) and I don't think things can have been helped by the fact that my parents were both youngests and did not/could not put themselves in the shoes of an eldest who was feeling neglected.

Ann

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
richard's role of responsibility could be something as simple as the youngest son of that era was usually destined for the clergy. therefore, learning how to recruit/enlist cooperative souls would be part of his education...out working the potential flock, so to speak.

george on the other hand would be expected to be a political tool via the medieval marriage market. ergo he would need to have courtly manners and behaviours to make him more marketable, as well as, a need to hone diplomatic skills.

and for what it's worth..edmund, may 17 and edward, apr. 28th are both taurus. with 384 days between their births...they may get along, but no guarantee... i don't get along with my older sister, for the most part.. there are 405 days separating us. she is a scorpio, and i'm a sagittarius. not a good combo astrologically speaking.

she was first born, and grew up with a "right of entitlement". as a child, i looked up to her, and would often do her bidding, simply because... i was well into my 30's before her influence was greatly lessened...i simply got fed up and started saying NO..and she'd rampage even at that age...poor thing, i guess it's hard to lose a lacky...:-))

additionally, my parents also encouraged sibling rivalry. my father, also an eldest child also had this air of entitlement. he and his sister never got a long either..and sibling rivalry was also encouraged in his generation..in fact, my grandfather and his siblings also taught this dysfunctional trait to their children. and my grandfather's generation also did not get along and were very competitive with each other.

the mentality in the family was/is that if you can compete within, you'll be better able to compete without. also, anyone in the family could pick on/harass another member of the family. internal family alliances are not uncommon. the family is always at war with one another, and split into factions..but woe betide the outsider who went after any one of us, even the family scapegoat..because then you brought the whole family in to defend the individual family member...and of course once we've taken care of the "outsider" we split back into factions.

and..bill barber..late last night on CBC..was the movie, Lion in Winter.

regards
roslyn

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if he simply manouevred
to take on more. George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@...> wrote:
> >
> that the 10 years between Edward and Richard was just the right gap
> for Edward to be a glamorous and exciting big brother in Richard's
> eyes. Otherwise, there are just too many variables
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> > >
> > ##Going by my own experience, I'm inclined to think whatever
> closeness
> > there was was created by parents whose main interests seemed to be
> > elsewhere. Without that "mother liked you best" problem of sibling
> > rivalry, since mother appeared more concerned with her husband and
> her
> > feelings for her children secondary, the children would be more
> inclined
> > to consider their relationship with their siblings the more
> important.
> > If that was the case, Edward and Edmund may have been very close,
> having
> > come to consider each other a mainstay in their lives.
> >
> > Taking it further, the same might be said for Richard and George,
> which
> > may account for Richard's defense of George even after the
> problems he
> > himself had with his brother.
>
> The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
> George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
> together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
> the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
> 11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
> at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
> Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
> Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
> court.
>
> It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
> surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
> Katy
>
>











Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Surely even George must had realized that his then healthy elder brother would marry and produced heirs.

Helen

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

On 19 Dec 2006, at 18:40, Bill Barber wrote:

> George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.

A bit of an understatement there Bill! Don't forget George was heir
presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"





Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Interesting, Paul, that you appear to associate "video" exclusively
with, I assume, tapes, whereas I would regard a DVD as being just as
much a video as a VHS.

Richard G


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Video Richard? There's a very good transfer onto dvd available,
> at least on Region 2 that is.
> I haven't the time to watch it again at the moment and seek out
> the
> lines you are looking for, but will try over the next few days.
> One of the best still goes to Kate when she says "Oh well, every
> family has it's ups and downs" though there is a wonderful little
> speech by Geoffrey that is my favourite. It ends 'we are a very
> knowledgeable family.' In the tv remake the actor playing
Geoffrey
> delivered it beautifully, and was the only one of the sons to
come
> out of it with any credit. John Light his name.
> Paul
>
>
> On 20 Dec 2006, at 10:46, rgcorris wrote:
>
> > If you haven't seen it for forty years, definitely worth seeking
out a
> > video copy !
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

oregonkaty wrote:

>The circumstances were quite different for Edward and Edmund, and
>George and Richard. Edward and Edmund were raised together and were
>together till their late teens (i.e. adulthood by the standards of
>the day) when Edmund was killed; after late childhood, George (age
>11) and Richard ( age 8) were separated. George remained in London
>at court and Richard was fostered by Warwick far from London.
>Later 12-year-old Richard was traveling around as Commissioner of
>Array, IIRC, recruiting men for the king, and George remained at
>court.
>
**Oh, I understand that Richard and George did not have the history that
Edward and Edmund did, but I think Richard and George were together
enough, especially since (we hear, anyway,) they were together during
the most important time, early childhood.

>
>It seems to me that a lot was required of Richard, and a
>surprisingly little of George. I wonder why.
>
>Katy
>
**Yes, I've always wondered that, too. Perhaps because George was heir,
he needed to remain at court while Richard was fostered by Warwick and
then given tasks away from court once he was recalled there. Later, it
could be that Edward didn't trust George enough to give him any tasks of
any importance.

Gilda

Perhaps George knew something about Edward that fuelled his
resentment towards him.The rumours about Edward's illegitimacy first
surfaced at the time of Warwick's rebellion.Later,even the hitherto
loyal Richard would raise the question of his late brother's
parentage in advancing his own claim to the throne after Edward's
death.Did anyone see the Tony Robinson programme recently which
uncovered evidence to back up the old rumours about Edward IV's
illegitimacy,namely the records in the cathedral of Rouen which
showed that Richard,Duke of York was away fighting the French at the
time of Edward's conception and the subsequent strangely low-key
baptism given the infant Edward compared to the more magnificent
ceremony accorded his brother Edmund just a year later?

Damian


--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> Surely even George must had realized that his then healthy elder
brother would marry and produced heirs.
>
> Helen
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 2006, at 18:40, Bill Barber wrote:
>
> > George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
>
> A bit of an understatement there Bill! Don't forget George was heir
> presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
> Paul
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>

George was always the dreamer!
Paul


On 20 Dec 2006, at 14:11, Helen Rowe wrote:

> Surely even George must had realized that his then healthy elder
> brother would marry and produced heirs.
>
> Helen
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 2006, at 18:40, Bill Barber wrote:
>
>> George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
>
> A bit of an understatement there Bill! Don't forget George was heir
> presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
> Paul
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://
> au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Bill Barber[mailto:bbarber@...] wrote:

> I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if
he simply manouevred
> to take on more. George seems to have had a sense
of entitlement.

A bit of both, I suspect. Probably it started out
with Richard wanting jump headlong into 'grownup
stuff' and Edward indulging him, then later Edward
realized what a valuable ally Richard could be. It
seems to me that from a very young age Richard was a
'romantic', wanting adventure, wanting to prove
himself, while George had always gotten by on his
charm and expected to continue doing so with little
personal effort.


Take care,
Kat


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> George was always the dreamer!
> Paul



You know this, Paul?

Katy

On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> George was always the dreamer!
>> Paul
>
>
>
> You know this, Paul?
>
> Katy
>

Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of humour, a
terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I agree. I don't think George ever quite 'got' it.

Rogue wrote:
>
> Bill Barber[mailto:bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>] wrote:
>
> > I wonder if there was more asked of Richard, or if
> he simply manouevred
> > to take on more. George seems to have had a sense
> of entitlement.
>
> A bit of both, I suspect. Probably it started out
> with Richard wanting jump headlong into 'grownup
> stuff' and Edward indulging him, then later Edward
> realized what a valuable ally Richard could be. It
> seems to me that from a very young age Richard was a
> 'romantic', wanting adventure, wanting to prove
> himself, while George had always gotten by on his
> charm and expected to continue doing so with little
> personal effort.
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
> Audaces Fortuna Juvat
>
> http://www.theanima lrescuesite. com <http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com>
>
>

And schemer.

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> George was always the dreamer!
> Paul
>
> On 20 Dec 2006, at 14:11, Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> > Surely even George must had realized that his then healthy elder
> > brother would marry and produced heirs.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...
> <mailto:paultrevor%40btopenworld.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 19 Dec 2006, at 18:40, Bill Barber wrote:
> >
> >> George seems to have had a sense of entitlement.
> >
> > A bit of an understatement there Bill! Don't forget George was heir
> > presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
> > Paul
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Send instant messages to your online friends http://
> > au.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>
> >> George was always the dreamer!
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > You know this, Paul?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
> Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of
humour, a
> terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
> Paul

Wait a second. You told him recently? Are we talking about
George, Duke of Clarence?

Katy

Sense of humour bypass anyone else? :-)
Paul


On 21 Dec 2006, at 03:51, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> George was always the dreamer!
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You know this, Paul?
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>>
>> Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of
> humour, a
>> terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
>> Paul
>
> Wait a second. You told him recently? Are we talking about
> George, Duke of Clarence?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

We should not forget that Clarence was Edward's heir presumptive for nearly 10 years (from his proclamation as king on 4 March 1461 to the birth of the future Edward V on 2 November 1470). Until the birth of Elizabeth of York in 1465 Edward had no (legitimate) children, thereafter daughters came thick and fast. By 1469 was Clarence getting desperate? Did he realise by then that Edward was going to have a son sooner rather than later and was that the trigger for his going into rebellion alongside Warwick? I don't know, but if Clarence was indeed a dreamer, then up to that time he could dream that he would one day be king.

Before anyone suggests that Edward could have declared Elizabeth to be his heir, bear in mind that no woman had ever reigned in England, and all the precedents show that no woman would be considered as a potential heir if there were male heirs (i.e. the king's brothers or nephews in the male line).

Ann




Don't forget George was heir
presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Sense of humour bypass anyone else? :-)
> Paul


If that's what you want to call it. Next time you talk to him, ask
him about the butt of malmsey story.

Laty





>
> On 21 Dec 2006, at 03:51, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> George was always the dreamer!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You know this, Paul?
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of
> > humour, a
> >> terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
> >> Paul
> >
> > Wait a second. You told him recently? Are we talking about
> > George, Duke of Clarence?
> >
> > Katy
> >

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> We should not forget that Clarence was Edward's heir presumptive
for nearly 10 years (from his proclamation as king on 4 March 1461
to the birth of the future Edward V on 2 November 1470). Until the
birth of Elizabeth of York in 1465 Edward had no (legitimate)
children, thereafter daughters came thick and fast.

That Clarence was Edward's heir for those ten years would go a long
ways towards explaining why he was kept at court while Richard was
fostered out to Warwick.

Why didn't I think of that? Thanks for pointing it out, Ann.

Katy






By 1469 was Clarence getting desperate? Did he realise by then that
Edward was going to have a son sooner rather than later and was that
the trigger for his going into rebellion alongside Warwick? I don't
know, but if Clarence was indeed a dreamer, then up to that time he
could dream that he would one day be king.
>
> Before anyone suggests that Edward could have declared Elizabeth
to be his heir, bear in mind that no woman had ever reigned in
England, and all the precedents show that no woman would be
considered as a potential heir if there were male heirs (i.e. the
king's brothers or nephews in the male line).
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
> Don't forget George was heir
> presumptive for some time, and as Kendall says, dreamed of a crown.
> Paul
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

He's always too drunk to talk about it!
Paul

On 21 Dec 2006, at 16:16, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> Sense of humour bypass anyone else? :-)
>> Paul
>
>
> If that's what you want to call it. Next time you talk to him, ask
> him about the butt of malmsey story.
>
> Laty
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2006, at 03:51, oregonkaty wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George was always the dreamer!
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know this, Paul?
>>>>>
>>>>> Katy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of
>>> humour, a
>>>> terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Wait a second. You told him recently? Are we talking about
>>> George, Duke of Clarence?
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

No more malmsey for you, Paul.

Katy


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> He's always too drunk to talk about it!
> Paul
>
> On 21 Dec 2006, at 16:16, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sense of humour bypass anyone else? :-)
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > If that's what you want to call it. Next time you talk to him,
ask
> > him about the butt of malmsey story.
> >
> > Laty
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 21 Dec 2006, at 03:51, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor
Bale
> >>>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> George was always the dreamer!
> >>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know this, Paul?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Katy
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of
> >>> humour, a
> >>>> terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> Wait a second. You told him recently? Are we talking about
> >>> George, Duke of Clarence?
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>


By the way, Paul, if you are channeling Clarence, please ask him if
he is on speaking terms with Richard. If he is, ask him to ask
Richard what he knows about the fate of the princes...er...the
little bastards in the Tower.

Katy



> No more malmsey for you, Paul.
>
> Katy
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > He's always too drunk to talk about it!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 21 Dec 2006, at 16:16, oregonkaty wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sense of humour bypass anyone else? :-)
> > >> Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > If that's what you want to call it. Next time you talk to
him,
> ask
> > > him about the butt of malmsey story.
> > >
> > > Laty
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 21 Dec 2006, at 03:51, oregonkaty wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> --- In , Paul Trevor
Bale
> > >>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 20 Dec 2006, at 23:38, oregonkaty wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor
> Bale
> > >>>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> George was always the dreamer!
> > >>>>>> Paul
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You know this, Paul?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Katy
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Let's just say I told him recently that I love his sense of
> > >>> humour, a
> > >>>> terrific one, one that is the same as mine own!
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> Wait a second. You told him recently? Are we talking about
> > >>> George, Duke of Clarence?