Another view of Richard

Have any of you read Mary Clive's biography of Edward
IV, "The Sun of York"? I found it rather refreshing
in its fair treatment of Richard. Mind you, she takes
a rather dim view of some of his actions and I don't
always agree with her conclusions, but she doesn't
seem to view him as either paragon or fiend, but as a
person to be judged on his actions, good and bad.

An excerpt:

"Perhaps it was partly Edward's own fault that
neither of his younger brothers could be persuaded to
co-operate with him for very long. Gloucester had
risen to the occasion splendidly in the hectic days
of 1471- commanding one of the ships, leading a wing
at Barnet and at Tewkesbury, going ahead to Sandwich
in pursuit of Fauconberg, toiling up the Scottish
border- and Edward was prepared to build him up as a
great landowner in the North, who would replace
Montegu, balance the Percies and be a buffer against
the Scots. Gloucester was given many of the
confiscated lands of rebels, but that was not enough
for him and he determined to marry Ann Neville, the
widow of Queen Margaret's son, and acquire with her
half of the Countess of Warwick's inheritance.
Clarence, married to Isobel, was determined to have
the whole of the vast property...

The quarrel between Clarence and Gloucester raged for
the next three years, and Edward was so afraid of the
consequences if either of them were thwarted that he
tried to appease them both, ..."

She thinks this shows irresponsible greed on
Gloucester's part, but I agree with Kendall- he was
probably fed up with Clarence's antics and determined
that this time the spoiled brat was not going to get
his way.

In the brief epilogue covering Richard's reign, she
advances a very interesting theory that it was
Norfolk and not Buckingham who was the driving force
pursuading Richard to take the crown, in hopes of
getting back the Mowbray inheritance. Opinions?


Take care,
Kat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Planto bardus populus subsisto sermo!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

Remind me - did Richard give the full Mowbray inheritance to John
Howard ? In that presumably it was taken from Edward IV's son
Richard as widower of the Mowbray heiress, at what date did that
take place ? Indeed, given that he was unquestionably married to the
Mowbray heiress whether or not he was the legitimate son of Edward
IV, how was he disinherited (other than by death) ?

Richard G

--- In , "Rogue"
<roguefem@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Have any of you read Mary Clive's biography of Edward
> IV, "The Sun of York"? I found it rather refreshing
> in its fair treatment of Richard. Mind you, she takes
> a rather dim view of some of his actions and I don't
> always agree with her conclusions, but she doesn't
> seem to view him as either paragon or fiend, but as a
> person to be judged on his actions, good and bad.
>
> In the brief epilogue covering Richard's reign, she
> advances a very interesting theory that it was
> Norfolk and not Buckingham who was the driving force
> pursuading Richard to take the crown, in hopes of
> getting back the Mowbray inheritance. Opinions?
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat

According to Ross, after Richard extinguished the rights of the princes,
William Berkeley regained his rights to half the Mowbray estates. He was
also made Earl of Nottingham.

rgcorris wrote:
>
> Remind me - did Richard give the full Mowbray inheritance to John
> Howard ? In that presumably it was taken from Edward IV's son
> Richard as widower of the Mowbray heiress, at what date did that
> take place ? Indeed, given that he was unquestionably married to the
> Mowbray heiress whether or not he was the legitimate son of Edward
> IV, how was he disinherited (other than by death) ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rogue"
> <roguefem@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Have any of you read Mary Clive's biography of Edward
> > IV, "The Sun of York"? I found it rather refreshing
> > in its fair treatment of Richard. Mind you, she takes
> > a rather dim view of some of his actions and I don't
> > always agree with her conclusions, but she doesn't
> > seem to view him as either paragon or fiend, but as a
> > person to be judged on his actions, good and bad.
> >
> > In the brief epilogue covering Richard's reign, she
> > advances a very interesting theory that it was
> > Norfolk and not Buckingham who was the driving force
> > pursuading Richard to take the crown, in hopes of
> > getting back the Mowbray inheritance. Opinions?
> >
> >
> > Take care,
> > Kat
>
>

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Have any of you read Mary Clive's biography of Edward
> IV, "The Sun of York"? I found it rather refreshing
> in its fair treatment of Richard. Mind you, she takes
> a rather dim view of some of his actions and I don't
> always agree with her conclusions, but she doesn't
> seem to view him as either paragon or fiend, but as a
> person to be judged on his actions, good and bad.

Yes I have this book Kat, which I read many years ago. I recall I enjoyed it at the time. I
have hunted it out and I am going to re-read it. A very quick scan through the pages tells
me she sometimes take a rather harsh view of Richard, as you say, but as long as it is
sensible i dont mind. It's when authors/historians come out with a load of old baloney/
tripe gets my wild up!

eileen
>
> An excerpt:
>
> "Perhaps it was partly Edward's own fault that
> neither of his younger brothers could be persuaded to
> co-operate with him for very long. Gloucester had
> risen to the occasion splendidly in the hectic days
> of 1471- commanding one of the ships, leading a wing
> at Barnet and at Tewkesbury, going ahead to Sandwich
> in pursuit of Fauconberg, toiling up the Scottish
> border- and Edward was prepared to build him up as a
> great landowner in the North, who would replace
> Montegu, balance the Percies and be a buffer against
> the Scots. Gloucester was given many of the
> confiscated lands of rebels, but that was not enough
> for him and he determined to marry Ann Neville, the
> widow of Queen Margaret's son, and acquire with her
> half of the Countess of Warwick's inheritance.
> Clarence, married to Isobel, was determined to have
> the whole of the vast property...
>
> The quarrel between Clarence and Gloucester raged for
> the next three years, and Edward was so afraid of the
> consequences if either of them were thwarted that he
> tried to appease them both, ..."
>
> She thinks this shows irresponsible greed on
> Gloucester's part, but I agree with Kendall- he was
> probably fed up with Clarence's antics and determined
> that this time the spoiled brat was not going to get
> his way.
>
> In the brief epilogue covering Richard's reign, she
> advances a very interesting theory that it was
> Norfolk and not Buckingham who was the driving force
> pursuading Richard to take the crown, in hopes of
> getting back the Mowbray inheritance. Opinions?
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Planto bardus populus subsisto sermo!
>
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>

what became of Berkeley in the longer term?

Ann

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
According to Ross, after Richard extinguished the rights of the princes,
William Berkeley regained his rights to half the Mowbray estates. He was
also made Earl of Nottingham.

rgcorris wrote:
>
> Remind me - did Richard give the full Mowbray inheritance to John
> Howard ? In that presumably it was taken from Edward IV's son
> Richard as widower of the Mowbray heiress, at what date did that
> take place ? Indeed, given that he was unquestionably married to the
> Mowbray heiress whether or not he was the legitimate son of Edward
> IV, how was he disinherited (other than by death) ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rogue"
> <roguefem@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Have any of you read Mary Clive's biography of Edward
> > IV, "The Sun of York"? I found it rather refreshing
> > in its fair treatment of Richard. Mind you, she takes
> > a rather dim view of some of his actions and I don't
> > always agree with her conclusions, but she doesn't
> > seem to view him as either paragon or fiend, but as a
> > person to be judged on his actions, good and bad.
> >
> > In the brief epilogue covering Richard's reign, she
> > advances a very interesting theory that it was
> > Norfolk and not Buckingham who was the driving force
> > pursuading Richard to take the crown, in hopes of
> > getting back the Mowbray inheritance. Opinions?
> >
> >
> > Take care,
> > Kat
>
>