Changing History?

In the article "When and Why Did Hastngs
Lose His Head?" by Dr. B.P Wolfe...which
argues against the points raised by Alison
Hanham in her article "Richard III, Lord
Hastings and the Historians" he refers to
the Stallworth/Stonor letter [No. 331.,
Kingsbury Stonor letters and Papers] and
quotes

"the Lord Lisle is come to the lord`s
protector;... and... "it is thought there
shall be 20,000 of the protector`s and the
duke of Buckingham`s men in town this week;..."

But in the letter (as edited by Prof Carpenter
the editor of the Kingsbury Stonor letters and
Papers) there are no apostrophes or semi-colons
(just colons) (if this hasn`t also been edited
wrongly). The wording is...

"The lord Liele is come to my lord
protecteur" ...and... "Yt is thought ther
shalbe xx thousand of my lord protectour
and my lord of Buckingham men in London
this weeke: ..."

I see no apostrophes in the whole letter, nor
in any of the other Stonor letters I`ve read,
or even in any of the Paston letters. So were
apostrophes actually used in the 15th century?
It doesn`t look like it to me. "My Lord
Protector" is a title. "My lord`s protector"
is not.

By including apostrophes, the meanings of the
original sentences have changed slightly. Not
a practice I would expect from a supposedly
eminent historian.

Does the forum have any views on 15th century
punctuation, and/or the manipulation of it by
modern historians, which could conceivably
change the history they write about?

Alan

--------------------

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> In the article "When and Why Did Hastngs
> Lose His Head?" by Dr. B.P Wolfe...which
> argues against the points raised by Alison
> Hanham in her article "Richard III, Lord
> Hastings and the Historians" he refers to
> the Stallworth/Stonor letter [No. 331.,
> Kingsbury Stonor letters and Papers] and
> quotes
>
> "the Lord Lisle is come to the lord`s
> protector;... and... "it is thought there
> shall be 20,000 of the protector`s and the
> duke of Buckingham`s men in town this week;..."
>
> But in the letter (as edited by Prof Carpenter
> the editor of the Kingsbury Stonor letters and
> Papers) there are no apostrophes or semi-colons
> (just colons) (if this hasn`t also been edited
> wrongly). The wording is...
>
> "The lord Liele is come to my lord
> protecteur" ...and... "Yt is thought ther
> shalbe xx thousand of my lord protectour
> and my lord of Buckingham men in London
> this weeke: ..."
>
> I see no apostrophes in the whole letter, nor
> in any of the other Stonor letters I`ve read,
> or even in any of the Paston letters. So were
> apostrophes actually used in the 15th century?
> It doesn`t look like it to me. "My Lord
> Protector" is a title. "My lord`s protector"
> is not.
>
> By including apostrophes, the meanings of the
> original sentences have changed slightly. Not
> a practice I would expect from a supposedly
> eminent historian.
>
> Does the forum have any views on 15th century
> punctuation, and/or the manipulation of it by
> modern historians, which could conceivably
> change the history they write about?
>
> Alan
>
> --------------------
>
Yes, we tend to insert implied punctuation:
"Two thousand of my Lord Protector (and my Lord of Buckingham's men)"
IS different from "Two thousand of (my Lord Protector and my Lord of
Buckingham)'s men. Similarly (3x4)+5 is NOT 3x(4+5) (associativity)...

I have corresponded by e-mail with Professor Carpenter in the past
and she is very knowledgeable.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
Re: Changing History?

The letter as edited by Prof Carpenter must be presumed to be
correct, as one assumes she had the original to work from.

Putting an interpretation on original text is fine, but Dr Wolffe is
supposedly an eminent historian, and his altering of original
text by inserting and changing punctuation and words, whether
accidental or deliberate, is downright criminal, and he should be
taken to task for it. Accuracy is all important, as without it
history itself can be misconstrued, even before any interpretations
can be made.

Alan

---------------------


> >
> Yes, we tend to insert implied punctuation:
> "Two thousand of my Lord Protector (and my Lord of Buckingham's
men)"
> IS different from "Two thousand of (my Lord Protector and my Lord
of
> Buckingham)'s men. Similarly (3x4)+5 is NOT 3x(4+5)
(associativity)...
>
> I have corresponded by e-mail with Professor Carpenter in the past
> and she is very knowledgeable.
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> Re: Changing History?
>
> The letter as edited by Prof Carpenter must be presumed to be
> correct, as one assumes she had the original to work from.
>
> Putting an interpretation on original text is fine, but Dr Wolffe is
> supposedly an eminent historian, and his altering of original
> text by inserting and changing punctuation and words, whether
> accidental or deliberate, is downright criminal, and he should be
> taken to task for it. Accuracy is all important, as without it
> history itself can be misconstrued, even before any interpretations
> can be made.

There is a photo of this letter in Sean Cunningham's "Richard III: A
Royal enigma". I think I can see what has happened. The original
definitely has "The lord liele is come to my lord protectour".
The "pro" of "protector" is written, as this syllable usually was at
that time, in a shorthand fashion, as a p with a stroke curling back
through the tail. All the final d's have a thin downstroke after as a
final flourish, and I imagine Wolffe or Carpenter (which is the
culprit here?) has mistaken the flourish on the end of "lord" for the
shorthand symbol for a final "es" (which would be a loop finishing in
a downstroke), and so has misread "lord" as "lordes" and modernised
it as "lord's".
Oh dear.

On the subject of the date of Hastings' execution, I just lately read
Historical Notes of a London Citizen, a sort of mini London
chronicle, and that confirms the date of 13th June:-
"And in the mene tyme ther was ?dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the
duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was
takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno
1483. And the archebeschope of Yorke; the bischop of Ele , and Oleuer
King the secoudare, with other moo, was arestyd the same day and put
in preson in the Towur."
(From Richard Firth Green's 1981 article)

By he way, sorry if I got anybody's hopes up about a new biography of
anne Neville by Joanna Laynesmith. My mistake here. The contents list
of the lastest EHR included under book reviews, Anne Neville, Queen
to Richard III, by Joanna Laynesmith, and i jumped to conclusions.
The book on Anne Neville by Ms Laynsmith doesn't seem to exist, and I
think this is probably a review by her of Michael Hicks' biography. I
wonder what she had to say about it.





>
> ---------------------
>
>
> > >
> > Yes, we tend to insert implied punctuation:
> > "Two thousand of my Lord Protector (and my Lord of Buckingham's
> men)"
> > IS different from "Two thousand of (my Lord Protector and my Lord
> of
> > Buckingham)'s men. Similarly (3x4)+5 is NOT 3x(4+5)
> (associativity)...
> >
> > I have corresponded by e-mail with Professor Carpenter in the past
> > and she is very knowledgeable.
> >
>

I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which was
edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are definitely
not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of the
letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great difference
in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that for a
supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a manner
is downright criminal.

The Hastings execution date does indeed seem to be confirmed. Thanks
for letting us know. Maybe someone who knows her should inform Alison
Hanham.

Alan

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

From mariewalsh2003...

There is a photo of this letter in Sean Cunningham's "Richard III: A
Royal enigma". I think I can see what has happened. The original
definitely has "The lord liele is come to my lord protectour".
The "pro" of "protector" is written, as this syllable usually was at
that time, in a shorthand fashion, as a p with a stroke curling back
through the tail. All the final d's have a thin downstroke after as a
final flourish, and I imagine Wolffe or Carpenter (which is the
culprit here?) has mistaken the flourish on the end of "lord" for the
shorthand symbol for a final "es" (which would be a loop finishing in
a downstroke), and so has misread "lord" as "lordes" and modernised
it as "lord's".
Oh dear.

On the subject of the date of Hastings' execution, I just lately read
Historical Notes of a London Citizen, a sort of mini London
chronicle, and that confirms the date of 13th June:-
"And in the mene tyme ther was ?dyvers [i]magenyd the deyth of the
duke of Gloceter, and hit was asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges was
takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith, the xiii day of Iune Anno
1483. And the archebeschope of Yorke; the bischop of Ele , and Oleuer
King the secoudare, with other moo, was arestyd the same day and put
in preson in the Towur."
(From Richard Firth Green's 1981 article)

By he way, sorry if I got anybody's hopes up about a new biography of
anne Neville by Joanna Laynesmith. My mistake here. The contents list
of the lastest EHR included under book reviews, Anne Neville, Queen
to Richard III, by Joanna Laynesmith, and i jumped to conclusions.
The book on Anne Neville by Ms Laynsmith doesn't seem to exist, and I
think this is probably a review by her of Michael Hicks' biography. I
wonder what she had to say about it.

---------------------------------------

>
> The letter as edited by Prof Carpenter must be presumed to be
> correct, as one assumes she had the original to work from.
>
> Putting an interpretation on original text is fine, but Dr Wolffe is
> supposedly an eminent historian, and his altering of original
> text by inserting and changing punctuation and words, whether
> accidental or deliberate, is downright criminal, and he should be
> taken to task for it. Accuracy is all important, as without it
> history itself can be misconstrued, even before any interpretations
> can be made.

> Alan

----------------------------
>
> > >
> > Yes, we tend to insert implied punctuation:
> > "Two thousand of my Lord Protector (and my Lord of Buckingham's
> men)"
> > IS different from "Two thousand of (my Lord Protector and my Lord
> of
> > Buckingham)'s men. Similarly (3x4)+5 is NOT 3x(4+5)
> (associativity)...
> >
> > I have corresponded by e-mail with Professor Carpenter in the past
> > and she is very knowledgeable.
> >
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which was
> edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are definitely
> not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of the
> letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great difference
> in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that for a
> supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a manner
> is downright criminal.



But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so I
knew exactly what happened.

But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.

Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of these
authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation of
something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering the
evidence. They were lying.

I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities became
authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a paper on
him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their Subject.

But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get invited
to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers! They
appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell them
how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!

What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental aspect,
of their Subject.

Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on their
Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
"unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.

There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about their
Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off the
desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on their
Subject.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which
was
> > edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are
definitely
> > not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> > punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of
the
> > letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great
difference
> > in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that
for a
> > supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a
manner
> > is downright criminal.
>
>
>
> But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
> history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so I
> knew exactly what happened.
>
> But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
> certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
> authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.
>
> Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of these
> authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation of
> something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering the
> evidence. They were lying.
>
> I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
> famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
> have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities became
> authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
> overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a paper
on
> him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their
Subject.
>
> But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
> But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get invited
> to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers!
They
> appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell them
> how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!
>
> What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
> riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
> wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental
aspect,
> of their Subject.
>
> Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on their
> Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
> "unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.
>
> There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about their
> Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off the
> desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
> then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
> misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on
their
> Subject.
>
> Katy

----------------

Great post Katy. Everyone has to make a living, but it makes you
wonder what became of integrity. No doubt just another word that has
been banished to the history books.

Alan

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which was
> edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are definitely
> not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of the
> letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great difference
> in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that for a
> supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a manner
> is downright criminal.

But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so I
knew exactly what happened.

But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.

Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of these
authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation of
something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering the
evidence. They were lying.

I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities became
authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a paper on
him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their Subject.

But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get invited
to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers! They
appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell them
how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!

What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental aspect,
of their Subject.

Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on their
Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
"unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.

There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about their
Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off the
desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on their
Subject.

Katy

i'm even more cynical katy, i've no doubt that there have even been documents destroyed, not just misfiled. stealing is also another avenue of covering up or securing info won't be found.
i've experienced this behaviour in the workplace. misdirecting someone is also another way to quell opposition.
i recently bought a copy of kendall's r3 at a secondhand store. i was floored to read professor kendall, advising readers to not bother reading hall or holinshed, as they were just a rehashing of moore. nothing new would be found. (i'm paraphrasing here) yet, i found in holinshed that richard iii did declare he had nothing to do with the death of the princes.
it is possible, that if i had read kendall, before reading the olde chronicles, i may have followed kendall's advise, and that little tidbit would have remainded hidden for who knows how long.
speaking of which, does anyone have access to..
December 1986 Vol. VII, No. 95
English Events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle of 1461-1495 by
Livia Visser-Fuchs
http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Ricardian%20Back%20Issues.htm
it's almost midnight here, or i'd dig up the info to support what i've stated about kendall..but i'm now off to bed.
have a good one, i'll see ya on the flipside.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which
was
> > edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are
definitely
> > not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> > punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of
the
> > letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great
difference
> > in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that
for a
> > supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a
manner
> > is downright criminal.
>
>
>
> But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
> history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so I
> knew exactly what happened.
>
> But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
> certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
> authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.
>
> Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of these
> authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation of
> something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering the
> evidence. They were lying.
>
> I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
> famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
> have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities became
> authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
> overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a paper
on
> him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their
Subject.
>
> But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
> But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get invited
> to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers!
They
> appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell them
> how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!
>
> What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
> riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
> wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental
aspect,
> of their Subject.
>
> Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on their
> Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
> "unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.
>
> There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about their
> Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off the
> desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
> then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
> misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on
their
> Subject.
>
> Katy
>
I agree absolutely and I am sure that we all know of some examples!

Good old wiki!

From --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe ---

"The use of the apostrophe to mark the English possessive ultimately
derives from the Old English genitive case, indicating possession,
which often ended in the letters -es, which evolved into a simple s
for the possessive ending. An apostrophe was later added to mark the
omitted e; this came into general use in the 17th century. The 's
ending is sometimes called the Saxon genitive, although linguists now
generally consider it a clitic rather than a case ending."

So adding apostrophes to C15th text can be misleading. There were no
apostrophes in the 15th century. Changing words is even more
deplorable. "Dr Wolffe, I rest my case!"

Does anyone know if Dr Wolffe and/or Dr Hanham are still alive?

Alan

---------------------------

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which
was
> > edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are
definitely
> > not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> > punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of
the
> > letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great
difference
> > in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that
for a
> > supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a
manner
> > is downright criminal.
>
> But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
> history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so I
> knew exactly what happened.
>
> But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
> certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
> authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.
>
> Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of these
> authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation of
> something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering the
> evidence. They were lying.
>
> I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
> famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
> have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities became
> authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
> overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a paper
on
> him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their
Subject.
>
> But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
> But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get invited
> to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers! They
> appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell them
> how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!
>
> What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
> riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
> wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental
aspect,
> of their Subject.
>
> Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on their
> Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
> "unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.
>
> There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about their
> Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off the
> desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
> then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
> misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on
their
> Subject.
>
> Katy
>
> i'm even more cynical katy, i've no doubt that there have even
been documents destroyed, not just misfiled. stealing is also
another avenue of covering up or securing info won't be found.
> i've experienced this behaviour in the workplace. misdirecting
someone is also another way to quell opposition.
> i recently bought a copy of kendall's r3 at a secondhand store. i
was floored to read professor kendall, advising readers to not
bother reading hall or holinshed, as they were just a rehashing of
moore. nothing new would be found. (i'm paraphrasing here) yet, i
found in holinshed that richard iii did declare he had nothing to do
with the death of the princes.
> it is possible, that if i had read kendall, before reading the
olde chronicles, i may have followed kendall's advise, and that
little tidbit would have remainded hidden for who knows how long.
> speaking of which, does anyone have access to..
> December 1986 Vol. VII, No. 95
> English Events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle of 1461-
1495 by
> Livia Visser-Fuchs
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Ricardian%20Back%20Issues.htm
> it's almost midnight here, or i'd dig up the info to support what
i've stated about kendall..but i'm now off to bed.
> have a good one, i'll see ya on the flipside.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Good old wiki!
>
> From --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe ---
>
> "The use of the apostrophe to mark the English possessive
ultimately
> derives from the Old English genitive case, indicating possession,
> which often ended in the letters -es, which evolved into a simple s
> for the possessive ending. An apostrophe was later added to mark
the
> omitted e; this came into general use in the 17th century. The 's
> ending is sometimes called the Saxon genitive, although linguists
now
> generally consider it a clitic rather than a case ending."
>
> So adding apostrophes to C15th text can be misleading. There were
no
> apostrophes in the 15th century. Changing words is even more
> deplorable. "Dr Wolffe, I rest my case!"
>
> Does anyone know if Dr Wolffe and/or Dr Hanham are still alive?
>
> Alan


I've no idea whether she's still extant as it were, but I am pretty
certain Alison Hanham's articles arguing for execution date of 20th
predate the publication of "Historical Notes". It would have been
nice if she'd retracted this claim in print afterwards, but I don't
think she did.
I have perhaps a slightly different take on Wolffe's crime. It seems
to me his worst sin was sloppy transcription rather than
modernisation - ie there never was any "-es" mark on the end
of "lord". No experienced 15th century historian should have made an
error like that unless his reading glasses were letting him down.
The modernisation question is a tricky one. I absolutely agree that
in strictly academic contexts one should use as accurate a
transcription as possible. But even here people rarely go the whole
hog. Any time you see a medieval text with no letters underlined or
bracketed, you can be sure that the shorthand symbols have been
simply extended out without being marked. I would say at least 9 out
of 10 printed transcriptions do that. And if you stick rigidly to the
medieval punctuation you have only the odd full stop and slash - and
most of those mid-sentence. Fine for academic publications, but when
people are writing for the mass market they have to make concessions.
I have discovered to my surprise that most people aren't like us -
they simply can't follow things written in the original medieval
spelling and punctuation. It is a dangerous business, I admit, and
authors should be honest in pointing out ambiguities, whether they
use the original spelling or not. I don't know what publication of
Wolffe's this came from but what offends me most is that he put "'s"
on the end of "lord" when there was actually nothing there at all,
and ended up with something that didn't mean anything at all.

And that brings me to my next heretical suggestion - that a lot of
the stuff published under the names of the experts was transcribed by
their research students/ assistants, and sometimes they haven't even
bothered checking it. Not too long ago, for instance, I read a book
by a seasoned medievalist (it might even have been Hicks' Anne
Neville) in which he suggested that the word 'perceive' in a
quotation was a slip on the part of the writer, as the meaning
intended was clearly 'receive'. Surely the Great Man must have read
enough original documents to know that in the 15th century 'perceive'
routinely means 'receive'. Was the GM possibly cutting & pasting his
student's work without reading it?

By the way, Katy, I found your post hilarious - and so true. In fact,
those Hictorical Notes reminds me of another example.
This is the document that claims the princes were killed by
the "vyse" of the Duke of Buckingham. Historians quoting this usually
admit this can mean either "advice" or "device", and they follow the
editor of the MS, RF Green, in suggesting that "advice" was probably
what was meant. And they leave it at that, letting it look as though
the text still makes Richard responsible for the final decision. They
choose to ignore Green's explanation that "advice" did not mean then
what it means now. To give advice then meant to give an order. So
whichever prefix you stick on "vyse" it comes out the same:
Buckingham had the Princes killed. Full stop. Slash.

Roslyn, I have the article you're after somewhere. Give me time and
I'll email it or post it to you.

Marie


>
> ---------------------------
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
> , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which
> was
> > > edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are
> definitely
> > > not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> > > punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of
> the
> > > letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great
> difference
> > > in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that
> for a
> > > supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a
> manner
> > > is downright criminal.
> >
> > But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
> > history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so
I
> > knew exactly what happened.
> >
> > But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
> > certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
> > authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.
> >
> > Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of
these
> > authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation
of
> > something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering
the
> > evidence. They were lying.
> >
> > I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
> > famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
> > have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities
became
> > authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
> > overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a
paper
> on
> > him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their
> Subject.
> >
> > But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
> > But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get
invited
> > to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers!
They
> > appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell
them
> > how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!
> >
> > What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
> > riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
> > wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental
> aspect,
> > of their Subject.
> >
> > Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on
their
> > Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
> > "unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.
> >
> > There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about
their
> > Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off
the
> > desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
> > then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
> > misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on
> their
> > Subject.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> > i'm even more cynical katy, i've no doubt that there have even
> been documents destroyed, not just misfiled. stealing is also
> another avenue of covering up or securing info won't be found.
> > i've experienced this behaviour in the workplace. misdirecting
> someone is also another way to quell opposition.
> > i recently bought a copy of kendall's r3 at a secondhand store.
i
> was floored to read professor kendall, advising readers to not
> bother reading hall or holinshed, as they were just a rehashing of
> moore. nothing new would be found. (i'm paraphrasing here) yet, i
> found in holinshed that richard iii did declare he had nothing to
do
> with the death of the princes.
> > it is possible, that if i had read kendall, before reading the
> olde chronicles, i may have followed kendall's advise, and that
> little tidbit would have remainded hidden for who knows how long.
> > speaking of which, does anyone have access to..
> > December 1986 Vol. VII, No. 95
> > English Events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle of 1461-
> 1495 by
> > Livia Visser-Fuchs
> > http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Ricardian%20Back%20Issues.htm
> > it's almost midnight here, or i'd dig up the info to support
what
> i've stated about kendall..but i'm now off to bed.
> > have a good one, i'll see ya on the flipside.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:

> By the way, Katy, I found your post hilarious - and so true. In fact,
> those Hictorical Notes reminds me of another example.
> This is the document that claims the princes were killed by
> the "vyse" of the Duke of Buckingham. Historians quoting this usually
> admit this can mean either "advice" or "device", and they follow the
> editor of the MS, RF Green, in suggesting that "advice" was probably
> what was meant. And they leave it at that, letting it look as though
> the text still makes Richard responsible for the final decision. They
> choose to ignore Green's explanation that "advice" did not mean then
> what it means now. To give advice then meant to give an order. So
> whichever prefix you stick on "vyse" it comes out the same:
> Buckingham had the Princes killed. Full stop. Slash.



As I have said a tiresome number of times, it is much easier to know
what people said (wrote) 500 years ago than to be certain what they meant.

Word usage has changed, shades of meaning have shifted, we may not
understand the contemporary references and allusions, let along the
slang, colloquialisms, and wink-nudge euphemisms, and the punctuation
and abbreviations have their own pitfalls.

A recent example which came up the other day -- the shift of the
meaning of "suffer" from permit or allow ("suffer the little
children to come to me; suffer not a witch to live") to a state of
enduring pain or hardship.

And then you have the usual proportion of people in every era who are
lousy spellers. Harre Bokingham wouldn't win any prizes in a spelling
bee. And on top of that there is the matter of penmanship.
Richard's secretary John Kendall's hand is perfectly legible; some of
the letters reproduced in The Lisle Letters might as well be written
in sanskrit.

Somewhere or other I saw a writer say that young Edward V and his
brother Richard must have been mentally retarded because some
contemporary described them as silly boys. The word actually was
sele, wasn't it, Marie -- meaning "innocent"?

Katy

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Good old wiki!
>
> From --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe ---
>
> "The use of the apostrophe to mark the English possessive
ultimately
> derives from the Old English genitive case, indicating possession,
> which often ended in the letters -es, which evolved into a simple s
> for the possessive ending. An apostrophe was later added to mark
the
> omitted e; this came into general use in the 17th century. The 's
> ending is sometimes called the Saxon genitive, although linguists
now
> generally consider it a clitic rather than a case ending."
>
> So adding apostrophes to C15th text can be misleading. There were
no
> apostrophes in the 15th century. Changing words is even more
> deplorable. "Dr Wolffe, I rest my case!"
>
> Does anyone know if Dr Wolffe and/or Dr Hanham are still alive?
>
> Alan
>
I think Alison Hanham must still be alive - in her sixties? She had a
new book about a church in Edinburgh published 3/4 years ago. Wolfe
appears to be a lecturer at Oxford.

>www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/bibliographies/fhs_ss_lancaster_yor
k.pdf

http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/bibliographies/fhs_ss_lancast
er_york.pdf
---------------------------
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
> , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a copy of the Kingsbury Stonor Letters and Papers, which
> was
> > > edited by Dr Carpenter. The added punctuation marks are
> definitely
> > > not down to her, but to Dr Wolffe. Not only did Dr Wolffe add
> > > punctuation marks, but he changed words. If you have a copy of
> the
> > > letter as I have, you can check for yourself. Not a great
> difference
> > > in this case, but it could have been, and I have to repeat that
> for a
> > > supposedly eminent historian to change original text in such a
> manner
> > > is downright criminal.
> >
> > But not at all unusual, sad to say. When I first started reading
> > history, I usually read only one book on each person or event, so
I
> > knew exactly what happened.
> >
> > But then I started studying history, sand the more I read the less
> > certain I became of everything I th ought I knew, because the
> > authorities disagreed, sometimes diametrically.
> >
> > Then the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that some of
these
> > authorities didn't merely have a different take or interpretation
of
> > something, and they weren't simply mistaken, they were jiggering
the
> > evidence. They were lying.
> >
> > I think some of this downright falsification is a product of the
> > famous publish or perish doctrine among academics. To publish you
> > have to have a subject, a specialty. Some of the authorities
became
> > authorities by zeroing in on some event or person that hadn't been
> > overexamined already and making it their own. They put out a
paper
> on
> > him, her, or it and they become connected with it. It is their
> Subject.
> >
> > But then down the line they discover they had something wrong.
> > But...but...they are an authority on their Subject! They get
invited
> > to speak about their Subject! They are cited by other writers!
They
> > appear in bibliographies and footnotes! They have fans who tell
them
> > how admired they are for their knowledge of their Subject!
> >
> > What to do, what to do? Most of the time, sadly, they continue
> > riding their hobbyhorse. Nothing will convince them that they were
> > wrong about some detail, or even some big honking fundamental
> aspect,
> > of their Subject.
> >
> > Even worse, sometimes they bolster their viewpoint or take on
their
> > Subject by creative quoting. Beware the ellipsis. Something
> > "unimportant" has been excised from the material quoted.
> >
> > There are a couple of authorities whose view and writing about
their
> > Subject are so slanted it's a wonder their books don't slide off
the
> > desk. I would love to know what they dug up in their research but
> > then disregarded or slipped under the desk blotter or deliberately
> > misfiled because it didn't agree with their established work on
> their
> > Subject.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> > i'm even more cynical katy, i've no doubt that there have even
> been documents destroyed, not just misfiled. stealing is also
> another avenue of covering up or securing info won't be found.
> > i've experienced this behaviour in the workplace. misdirecting
> someone is also another way to quell opposition.
> > i recently bought a copy of kendall's r3 at a secondhand store.
i
> was floored to read professor kendall, advising readers to not
> bother reading hall or holinshed, as they were just a rehashing of
> moore. nothing new would be found. (i'm paraphrasing here) yet, i
> found in holinshed that richard iii did declare he had nothing to
do
> with the death of the princes.
> > it is possible, that if i had read kendall, before reading the
> olde chronicles, i may have followed kendall's advise, and that
> little tidbit would have remainded hidden for who knows how long.
> > speaking of which, does anyone have access to..
> > December 1986 Vol. VII, No. 95
> > English Events in Caspar Weinreich's Danzig Chronicle of 1461-
> 1495 by
> > Livia Visser-Fuchs
> > http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Ricardian%20Back%20Issues.htm
> > it's almost midnight here, or i'd dig up the info to support
what
> i've stated about kendall..but i'm now off to bed.
> > have a good one, i'll see ya on the flipside.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
>
> > By the way, Katy, I found your post hilarious - and so true. In
fact,
> > those Hictorical Notes reminds me of another example.
> > This is the document that claims the princes were killed by
> > the "vyse" of the Duke of Buckingham. Historians quoting this
usually
> > admit this can mean either "advice" or "device", and they follow
the
> > editor of the MS, RF Green, in suggesting that "advice" was
probably
> > what was meant. And they leave it at that, letting it look as
though
> > the text still makes Richard responsible for the final decision.
They
> > choose to ignore Green's explanation that "advice" did not mean
then
> > what it means now. To give advice then meant to give an order. So
> > whichever prefix you stick on "vyse" it comes out the same:
> > Buckingham had the Princes killed. Full stop. Slash.
>
>
>
> As I have said a tiresome number of times, it is much easier to know
> what people said (wrote) 500 years ago than to be certain what they
meant.
>
> Word usage has changed, shades of meaning have shifted, we may not
> understand the contemporary references and allusions, let along the
> slang, colloquialisms, and wink-nudge euphemisms, and the
punctuation
> and abbreviations have their own pitfalls.
>
> A recent example which came up the other day -- the shift of the
> meaning of "suffer" from permit or allow ("suffer the little
> children to come to me; suffer not a witch to live") to a state of
> enduring pain or hardship.
>
> And then you have the usual proportion of people in every era who
are
> lousy spellers. Harre Bokingham wouldn't win any prizes in a
spelling
> bee. And on top of that there is the matter of penmanship.
> Richard's secretary John Kendall's hand is perfectly legible; some
of
> the letters reproduced in The Lisle Letters might as well be written
> in sanskrit.
>
> Somewhere or other I saw a writer say that young Edward V and his
> brother Richard must have been mentally retarded because some
> contemporary described them as silly boys. The word actually was
> sele, wasn't it, Marie -- meaning "innocent"?
>
> Katy

Checking More, I see that they are first plain "babes" and then "sely
children". Yes, sely did mean innocent, but also it is the word from
which the modern "silly" is derived. It is the same word, but it's
meaning has altered. So an unwary historian modernising the spelling
would alter it to "silly children" and give his readers quite the
wrong idea.
Incidentally, I remember being taught that the Old English (Anglo-
Saxon) forerunner of 'sely' meant blessed or happy, so it's a word
with an interesting history and perhaps reveals something about what
the curmudgeonly English Everyman has always really thought about the
serene, the happy and the innocent.
In an American context something slightly different happened - 'cute,
originally a colloquial form of acute, coming to mean sort of
innocently endearing.

Amazing things, words.

Marie



>

"Amazing things words".

And even more amazing that one word or one
punctuation mark in the wrong place can alter
the entire meaning of a sentence. Journalists
of the modern era use shocking English, which
can be amusing at times.

The following are headlines which were sent
to me by my Australian neice, although I`m
not sure if they`re all from Ozzie newspapers.

And I thought journalists were supposed to know
English!

1. Include Your Children When Baking Cookies
2. Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
3. Drunks Get Nine Months in Violin Case
4. Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus?
5. Prostitutes Appeal to Pope
6. Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over
7. British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands
8. Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
9. Clinton Wins Budget; More Lies Ahead
10. Miners Refuse to Work After Death
11. Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant
12. Stolen Painting Found by Tree
13. Two Sisters Reunited after 18 Years in Checkout Counter
14. If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last a While
15. Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide
16. Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
17. New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group
18. Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Space
19. Kids Make Nutritious Snacks
20. Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half
21. Typhoon Rips through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

Slightly off topic, but I thought they might amuse.

Alan

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

> > Katy
>
> Checking More, I see that they are first plain "babes" and
then "sely
> children". Yes, sely did mean innocent, but also it is the word
from
> which the modern "silly" is derived. It is the same word, but it's
> meaning has altered. So an unwary historian modernising the
spelling
> would alter it to "silly children" and give his readers quite the
> wrong idea.
> Incidentally, I remember being taught that the Old English (Anglo-
> Saxon) forerunner of 'sely' meant blessed or happy, so it's a word
> with an interesting history and perhaps reveals something about
what
> the curmudgeonly English Everyman has always really thought about
the
> serene, the happy and the innocent.
> In an American context something slightly different happened -
'cute,
> originally a colloquial form of acute, coming to mean sort of
> innocently endearing.
>
> Amazing things, words.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>> > Word usage has changed, shades of meaning have shifted, we may not
> > understand the contemporary references and allusions, let along the
> > slang, colloquialisms, and wink-nudge euphemisms, and the
> punctuation
> > and abbreviations have their own pitfalls.
>

There's James II's famous remark when he first saw the new St Paul's,
that it was 'amusing, awful, and artificial'. He meant that it
was 'pleasing to look at'; 'meriting awe'; and 'full of skilful
artifice'.

James is of course a lot closer to us in time than Richard III!

Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >> > Word usage has changed, shades of meaning have shifted, we may not
> > > understand the contemporary references and allusions, let along the
> > > slang, colloquialisms, and wink-nudge euphemisms, and the
> > punctuation
> > > and abbreviations have their own pitfalls.
> >
>
> There's James II's famous remark when he first saw the new St Paul's,
> that it was 'amusing, awful, and artificial'. He meant that it
> was 'pleasing to look at'; 'meriting awe'; and 'full of skilful
> artifice'.
>
> James is of course a lot closer to us in time than Richard III!


And then there is the way a cliche somehow morphs its meaning. In a
college class in History of the English language we were told that the
phrase "by hook or by crook" has come about 180 degrees from its
original meaning.

Nowdays if someone says something will be accomplished by hook or by
crook, they mean by any means necessary. Yet originally it was an
edict meaning that standing dead wood could be gathered from certain
forests only in very specific ways -- by pulling it down by means of
(a woodsman's) hook or (a shepherd's) crook, and not by cutting the trees.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >> > Word usage has changed, shades of meaning have shifted, we
may not
> > > > understand the contemporary references and allusions, let
along the
> > > > slang, colloquialisms, and wink-nudge euphemisms, and the
> > > punctuation
> > > > and abbreviations have their own pitfalls.
> > >
> >
> > There's James II's famous remark when he first saw the new St
Paul's,
> > that it was 'amusing, awful, and artificial'. He meant that it
> > was 'pleasing to look at'; 'meriting awe'; and 'full of skilful
> > artifice'.
> >
> > James is of course a lot closer to us in time than Richard III!
>
>
> And then there is the way a cliche somehow morphs its meaning. In a
> college class in History of the English language we were told that
the
> phrase "by hook or by crook" has come about 180 degrees from its
> original meaning.
>
> Nowdays if someone says something will be accomplished by hook or by
> crook, they mean by any means necessary. Yet originally it was an
> edict meaning that standing dead wood could be gathered from certain
> forests only in very specific ways -- by pulling it down by means of
> (a woodsman's) hook or (a shepherd's) crook, and not by cutting the
trees.
>
> Katy

I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning the
opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone let you
do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you doing it.

I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the Queen
had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was - What a
bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret Beaufort for
my mother-in-law.
Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.

Marie

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >> > Word usage has changed, shades of meaning have shifted, we
may not
> > > > understand the contemporary references and allusions, let
along the
> > > > slang, colloquialisms, and wink-nudge euphemisms, and the
> > > punctuation
> > > > and abbreviations have their own pitfalls.
> > >
> >
> > There's James II's famous remark when he first saw the new St
Paul's,
> > that it was 'amusing, awful, and artificial'. He meant that it
> > was 'pleasing to look at'; 'meriting awe'; and 'full of skilful
> > artifice'.
> >
> > James is of course a lot closer to us in time than Richard III!
>
>
> And then there is the way a cliche somehow morphs its meaning. In a
> college class in History of the English language we were told that
the
> phrase "by hook or by crook" has come about 180 degrees from its
> original meaning.
>
> Nowdays if someone says something will be accomplished by hook or by
> crook, they mean by any means necessary. Yet originally it was an
> edict meaning that standing dead wood could be gathered from certain
> forests only in very specific ways -- by pulling it down by means of
> (a woodsman's) hook or (a shepherd's) crook, and not by cutting the
trees.
>
> Katy

I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning the
opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone let you
do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you doing it.

I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the Queen
had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was - What a
bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret Beaufort for
my mother-in-law.
Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.

Marie
here's a modern word meaning swap. since at least the 1950's, COOL has meant something great. to be cool was wonderful. recently, cool "changed" its spelling to kewl, and cool is no longer cool.
according to my 11 year old if someone calls you cool. you have been put down. here's why..
if you are COOL you are...
Constipated
Overrated
Outstyled
Loser
it is no longer cool to be COOL

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning the
> opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone let you
> do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you doing it.
>
> I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
> Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the Queen
> had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was - What a
> bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret Beaufort for
> my mother-in-law.
> Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
>
> Marie



I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some of them
on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals. There
are certain conventions of language that take some getting used to yet
are vitally important:

"Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it does not

mean "obtain some"

There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall" and
"replace" -- the former means
put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new one


Katy

As late as 1900 the Royal Navy included an HMS Terrible - the name
being intended to mean powerful, awe-inspiring and the like.

There is a contemporary description of Mary Queen of Scots's third
husband, James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, as a 'glorious, rash and
hazardous young man'. This comes across nowadays as dashing, devil-may-
care and the like, and with a distinct note of admiration,
but 'glorious' in those days meant 'vainglorious', which gives quite a
different nuance.

Ann

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning
the
> > opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone let
you
> > do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you doing
it.
> >
> > I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
> > Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the
Queen
> > had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was - What
a
> > bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret Beaufort
for
> > my mother-in-law.
> > Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
> >
> > Marie
>
>
>
> I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some of them
> on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals. There
> are certain conventions of language that take some getting used to
yet
> are vitally important:
>
> "Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it does
not
>
> mean "obtain some"
>
> There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall"
and
> "replace" -- the former means
> put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new one
>
>
> Katy

Snap - I used to edit for the mining industry, and a vibrating
grizzly is not what you'd expect either. . . .

On the subject of sloppy historians, I've been puzzled for some time
by the way genealogies always state that Northumberland's wife, Maud
Herbert, died before 27 July 1485. I've been puzzled because,
perusing Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books I had
come across an entry dated mid March 1486 describing how she came to
the city and summoned them all before her. They don't seem to have
been unduly freaked out by the experience so presumably didn't think
she had risen from the grave.
So where did this date come from? I think I now have the answer. I
have obtained a copy of the Earl's will from the Borthwick. Guess
what? Right at the top it is dated "the xxvij day of July in the yere
of our lorde god a thousand foure hundreth and Four scour and fyve".
And right at the end he refers to Beverley Minster "wher my wiff lyes
and I entend shal lye".
So that appears to be the source of this oft-repeated claim. A pity
historians have not looked at the will more closely, however. The
last section, which includes the reference to his wife's tomb, occurs
n a codicil dated at Newburgh the "xxviij daye of Feveryere". The
codicil is not easy to spot because it runs straight on from the main
will with no line break. Also, in the main body of the will (the 27
July 1485 bit) he asks that one of his executors should "have fourtie
markes yerlie tabide with my wyff and with myne heir". I think I'd
want more than 40 marks for living with a corpse.

I see this error is not only perpetuated but exaggerated in the entry
on the 4th Earl in the new DNB. The author of this states that Maud
Herbert was not just dead before 27 July 1485, but dead before 1485
altogether.

This sort of stuff is not slanted, just careless. It doesn't so much
slide off the desk as slop off it. Normally it wouldn't matter too
much, but given Maud Herbert's former connection with Henry Tudor and
the questionmarks over her husband's behaviour at Bosworth, the
question of whether she was still alive at that time has some
political relevance.

Marie




>

I`ve been reading "War of the Roses by
Michael D. Miller.

I refer you to Chapter 72 ---
http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
--- Section 5th May to 13th June 1483 and quote...

----------

"Hastings, astonished and alarmed, stammered out
some denial, but Richard would not hear him. In
a fury he exclaimed "For by St Paul, I will not
dine until I see thy head off."

Within 15 minutes Hastings was dead, beheaded
over a log on Tower Green."

-------

I`d love to know how Mr Miller can be so precise,
when other researchers are still arguing over
even which week it was. Where did he get the
15 minutes bit from? Even Thomas More wasn`t
that precise. Was Miller there with stopwatch
in hand?

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

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning
> the
> > > opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone
let
> you
> > > do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you
doing
> it.
> > >
> > > I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
> > > Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the
> Queen
> > > had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was -
What
> a
> > > bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret
Beaufort
> for
> > > my mother-in-law.
> > > Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some of
them
> > on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals.
There
> > are certain conventions of language that take some getting used
to
> yet
> > are vitally important:
> >
> > "Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it
does
> not
> >
> > mean "obtain some"
> >
> > There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall"
> and
> > "replace" -- the former
means
> > put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new one
> >
> >
> > Katy
>
> Snap - I used to edit for the mining industry, and a vibrating
> grizzly is not what you'd expect either. . . .
>
> On the subject of sloppy historians, I've been puzzled for some
time
> by the way genealogies always state that Northumberland's wife,
Maud
> Herbert, died before 27 July 1485. I've been puzzled because,
> perusing Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books I had
> come across an entry dated mid March 1486 describing how she came
to
> the city and summoned them all before her. They don't seem to have
> been unduly freaked out by the experience so presumably didn't
think
> she had risen from the grave.
> So where did this date come from? I think I now have the answer. I
> have obtained a copy of the Earl's will from the Borthwick. Guess
> what? Right at the top it is dated "the xxvij day of July in the
yere
> of our lorde god a thousand foure hundreth and Four scour and
fyve".
> And right at the end he refers to Beverley Minster "wher my wiff
lyes
> and I entend shal lye".
> So that appears to be the source of this oft-repeated claim. A pity
> historians have not looked at the will more closely, however. The
> last section, which includes the reference to his wife's tomb,
occurs
> n a codicil dated at Newburgh the "xxviij daye of Feveryere". The
> codicil is not easy to spot because it runs straight on from the
main
> will with no line break. Also, in the main body of the will (the 27
> July 1485 bit) he asks that one of his executors should "have
fourtie
> markes yerlie tabide with my wyff and with myne heir". I think I'd
> want more than 40 marks for living with a corpse.
>
> I see this error is not only perpetuated but exaggerated in the
entry
> on the 4th Earl in the new DNB. The author of this states that Maud
> Herbert was not just dead before 27 July 1485, but dead before 1485
> altogether.
>
> This sort of stuff is not slanted, just careless. It doesn't so
much
> slide off the desk as slop off it. Normally it wouldn't matter too
> much, but given Maud Herbert's former connection with Henry Tudor
and
> the questionmarks over her husband's behaviour at Bosworth, the
> question of whether she was still alive at that time has some
> political relevance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> >
>

I think he's quoting Shakespeare.
Paul


On 17 Aug 2007, at 11:10, alanth252 wrote:

> I`ve been reading "War of the Roses by
> Michael D. Miller.
>
> I refer you to Chapter 72 ---
> http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
> --- Section 5th May to 13th June 1483 and quote...
>
> ----------
>
> "Hastings, astonished and alarmed, stammered out
> some denial, but Richard would not hear him. In
> a fury he exclaimed "For by St Paul, I will not
> dine until I see thy head off."
>
> Within 15 minutes Hastings was dead, beheaded
> over a log on Tower Green."
>
> -------
>
> I`d love to know how Mr Miller can be so precise,
> when other researchers are still arguing over
> even which week it was. Where did he get the
> 15 minutes bit from? Even Thomas More wasn`t
> that precise. Was Miller there with stopwatch
> in hand?
>
> ==========================
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , oregonkaty
>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003
>>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning
>> the
>>>> opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone
> let
>> you
>>>> do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you
> doing
>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
>>>> Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the
>> Queen
>>>> had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was -
> What
>> a
>>>> bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret
> Beaufort
>> for
>>>> my mother-in-law.
>>>> Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
>>>>
>>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some of
> them
>>> on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals.
> There
>>> are certain conventions of language that take some getting used
> to
>> yet
>>> are vitally important:
>>>
>>> "Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it
> does
>> not
>>>
>>> mean "obtain some"
>>>
>>> There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall"
>> and
>>> "replace" -- the former
> means
>>> put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new one
>>>
>>>
>>> Katy
>>
>> Snap - I used to edit for the mining industry, and a vibrating
>> grizzly is not what you'd expect either. . . .
>>
>> On the subject of sloppy historians, I've been puzzled for some
> time
>> by the way genealogies always state that Northumberland's wife,
> Maud
>> Herbert, died before 27 July 1485. I've been puzzled because,
>> perusing Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books I had
>> come across an entry dated mid March 1486 describing how she came
> to
>> the city and summoned them all before her. They don't seem to have
>> been unduly freaked out by the experience so presumably didn't
> think
>> she had risen from the grave.
>> So where did this date come from? I think I now have the answer. I
>> have obtained a copy of the Earl's will from the Borthwick. Guess
>> what? Right at the top it is dated "the xxvij day of July in the
> yere
>> of our lorde god a thousand foure hundreth and Four scour and
> fyve".
>> And right at the end he refers to Beverley Minster "wher my wiff
> lyes
>> and I entend shal lye".
>> So that appears to be the source of this oft-repeated claim. A pity
>> historians have not looked at the will more closely, however. The
>> last section, which includes the reference to his wife's tomb,
> occurs
>> n a codicil dated at Newburgh the "xxviij daye of Feveryere". The
>> codicil is not easy to spot because it runs straight on from the
> main
>> will with no line break. Also, in the main body of the will (the 27
>> July 1485 bit) he asks that one of his executors should "have
> fourtie
>> markes yerlie tabide with my wyff and with myne heir". I think I'd
>> want more than 40 marks for living with a corpse.
>>
>> I see this error is not only perpetuated but exaggerated in the
> entry
>> on the 4th Earl in the new DNB. The author of this states that Maud
>> Herbert was not just dead before 27 July 1485, but dead before 1485
>> altogether.
>>
>> This sort of stuff is not slanted, just careless. It doesn't so
> much
>> slide off the desk as slop off it. Normally it wouldn't matter too
>> much, but given Maud Herbert's former connection with Henry Tudor
> and
>> the questionmarks over her husband's behaviour at Bosworth, the
>> question of whether she was still alive at that time has some
>> political relevance.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

It`s not in any Shakespeare that I know. I have three copies of the
Bard`s Richard III, and I can`t see any mention of "15 minutes" in
any of them. However I wouldn`t be ungracious if someone could prove
me wrong.
Alan

====================
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> I think he's quoting Shakespeare.
> Paul
>
>
> On 17 Aug 2007, at 11:10, alanth252 wrote:
>
> > I`ve been reading "War of the Roses by
> > Michael D. Miller.
> >
> > I refer you to Chapter 72 ---
> > http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
> > --- Section 5th May to 13th June 1483 and quote...
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > "Hastings, astonished and alarmed, stammered out
> > some denial, but Richard would not hear him. In
> > a fury he exclaimed "For by St Paul, I will not
> > dine until I see thy head off."
> >
> > Within 15 minutes Hastings was dead, beheaded
> > over a log on Tower Green."
> >
> > -------
> >
> > I`d love to know how Mr Miller can be so precise,
> > when other researchers are still arguing over
> > even which week it was. Where did he get the
> > 15 minutes bit from? Even Thomas More wasn`t
> > that precise. Was Miller there with stopwatch
> > in hand?
> >
> > ==========================
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In , oregonkaty
> >> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> >>> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases meaning
> >> the
> >>>> opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone
> > let
> >> you
> >>>> do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you
> > doing
> >> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written by
> >>>> Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that the
> >> Queen
> >>>> had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was -
> > What
> >> a
> >>>> bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret
> > Beaufort
> >> for
> >>>> my mother-in-law.
> >>>> Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Marie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some of
> > them
> >>> on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals.
> > There
> >>> are certain conventions of language that take some getting used
> > to
> >> yet
> >>> are vitally important:
> >>>
> >>> "Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it
> > does
> >> not
> >>>
> >>> mean "obtain some"
> >>>
> >>> There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall"
> >> and
> >>> "replace" -- the former
> > means
> >>> put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new
one
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Katy
> >>
> >> Snap - I used to edit for the mining industry, and a vibrating
> >> grizzly is not what you'd expect either. . . .
> >>
> >> On the subject of sloppy historians, I've been puzzled for some
> > time
> >> by the way genealogies always state that Northumberland's wife,
> > Maud
> >> Herbert, died before 27 July 1485. I've been puzzled because,
> >> perusing Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books I had
> >> come across an entry dated mid March 1486 describing how she came
> > to
> >> the city and summoned them all before her. They don't seem to
have
> >> been unduly freaked out by the experience so presumably didn't
> > think
> >> she had risen from the grave.
> >> So where did this date come from? I think I now have the answer.
I
> >> have obtained a copy of the Earl's will from the Borthwick. Guess
> >> what? Right at the top it is dated "the xxvij day of July in the
> > yere
> >> of our lorde god a thousand foure hundreth and Four scour and
> > fyve".
> >> And right at the end he refers to Beverley Minster "wher my wiff
> > lyes
> >> and I entend shal lye".
> >> So that appears to be the source of this oft-repeated claim. A
pity
> >> historians have not looked at the will more closely, however. The
> >> last section, which includes the reference to his wife's tomb,
> > occurs
> >> n a codicil dated at Newburgh the "xxviij daye of Feveryere". The
> >> codicil is not easy to spot because it runs straight on from the
> > main
> >> will with no line break. Also, in the main body of the will (the
27
> >> July 1485 bit) he asks that one of his executors should "have
> > fourtie
> >> markes yerlie tabide with my wyff and with myne heir". I think
I'd
> >> want more than 40 marks for living with a corpse.
> >>
> >> I see this error is not only perpetuated but exaggerated in the
> > entry
> >> on the 4th Earl in the new DNB. The author of this states that
Maud
> >> Herbert was not just dead before 27 July 1485, but dead before
1485
> >> altogether.
> >>
> >> This sort of stuff is not slanted, just careless. It doesn't so
> > much
> >> slide off the desk as slop off it. Normally it wouldn't matter
too
> >> much, but given Maud Herbert's former connection with Henry Tudor
> > and
> >> the questionmarks over her husband's behaviour at Bosworth, the
> >> question of whether she was still alive at that time has some
> >> political relevance.
> >>
> >> Marie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

I think I perhaps misled Paul. I wasn`t really referring to the
quote "For by St Paul, I will not dine until I see thy head off", but
Miller`s reference to 15 minutes. I wondered how he could be so
precise.

The Shakespeare quote from Richard III is actually...

"Off with his head! Now, by Saint Paul I swear,
I will not dine until I see the same."

So if Miller was quoting Shakespeare he got that wrong too.

Alan

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

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> It`s not in any Shakespeare that I know. I have three copies of the
> Bard`s Richard III, and I can`t see any mention of "15 minutes" in
> any of them. However I wouldn`t be ungracious if someone could
prove
> me wrong.
> Alan
>
> ====================
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > I think he's quoting Shakespeare.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 17 Aug 2007, at 11:10, alanth252 wrote:
> >
> > > I`ve been reading "War of the Roses by
> > > Michael D. Miller.
> > >
> > > I refer you to Chapter 72 ---
> > > http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
> > > --- Section 5th May to 13th June 1483 and quote...
> > >
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > "Hastings, astonished and alarmed, stammered out
> > > some denial, but Richard would not hear him. In
> > > a fury he exclaimed "For by St Paul, I will not
> > > dine until I see thy head off."
> > >
> > > Within 15 minutes Hastings was dead, beheaded
> > > over a log on Tower Green."
> > >
> > > -------
> > >
> > > I`d love to know how Mr Miller can be so precise,
> > > when other researchers are still arguing over
> > > even which week it was. Where did he get the
> > > 15 minutes bit from? Even Thomas More wasn`t
> > > that precise. Was Miller there with stopwatch
> > > in hand?
> > >
> > > ==========================
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> --- In , oregonkaty
> > >> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > >>> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases
meaning
> > >> the
> > >>>> opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone
> > > let
> > >> you
> > >>>> do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you
> > > doing
> > >> it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written
by
> > >>>> Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that
the
> > >> Queen
> > >>>> had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was -
> > > What
> > >> a
> > >>>> bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret
> > > Beaufort
> > >> for
> > >>>> my mother-in-law.
> > >>>> Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Marie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some
of
> > > them
> > >>> on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals.
> > > There
> > >>> are certain conventions of language that take some getting
used
> > > to
> > >> yet
> > >>> are vitally important:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it
> > > does
> > >> not
> > >>>
> > >>> mean "obtain some"
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall"
> > >> and
> > >>> "replace" -- the former
> > > means
> > >>> put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new
> one
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Katy
> > >>
> > >> Snap - I used to edit for the mining industry, and a vibrating
> > >> grizzly is not what you'd expect either. . . .
> > >>
> > >> On the subject of sloppy historians, I've been puzzled for some
> > > time
> > >> by the way genealogies always state that Northumberland's wife,
> > > Maud
> > >> Herbert, died before 27 July 1485. I've been puzzled because,
> > >> perusing Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books I
had
> > >> come across an entry dated mid March 1486 describing how she
came
> > > to
> > >> the city and summoned them all before her. They don't seem to
> have
> > >> been unduly freaked out by the experience so presumably didn't
> > > think
> > >> she had risen from the grave.
> > >> So where did this date come from? I think I now have the
answer.
> I
> > >> have obtained a copy of the Earl's will from the Borthwick.
Guess
> > >> what? Right at the top it is dated "the xxvij day of July in
the
> > > yere
> > >> of our lorde god a thousand foure hundreth and Four scour and
> > > fyve".
> > >> And right at the end he refers to Beverley Minster "wher my
wiff
> > > lyes
> > >> and I entend shal lye".
> > >> So that appears to be the source of this oft-repeated claim. A
> pity
> > >> historians have not looked at the will more closely, however.
The
> > >> last section, which includes the reference to his wife's tomb,
> > > occurs
> > >> n a codicil dated at Newburgh the "xxviij daye of Feveryere".
The
> > >> codicil is not easy to spot because it runs straight on from
the
> > > main
> > >> will with no line break. Also, in the main body of the will
(the
> 27
> > >> July 1485 bit) he asks that one of his executors should "have
> > > fourtie
> > >> markes yerlie tabide with my wyff and with myne heir". I think
> I'd
> > >> want more than 40 marks for living with a corpse.
> > >>
> > >> I see this error is not only perpetuated but exaggerated in the
> > > entry
> > >> on the 4th Earl in the new DNB. The author of this states that
> Maud
> > >> Herbert was not just dead before 27 July 1485, but dead before
> 1485
> > >> altogether.
> > >>
> > >> This sort of stuff is not slanted, just careless. It doesn't so
> > > much
> > >> slide off the desk as slop off it. Normally it wouldn't matter
> too
> > >> much, but given Maud Herbert's former connection with Henry
Tudor
> > > and
> > >> the questionmarks over her husband's behaviour at Bosworth, the
> > >> question of whether she was still alive at that time has some
> > >> political relevance.
> > >>
> > >> Marie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>

> > >
> > > On 17 Aug 2007, at 11:10, alanth252 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I`ve been reading "War of the Roses by
> > > > Michael D. Miller.
> > > >
> > > > I refer you to Chapter 72 ---
> > > > http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
> > > > --- Section 5th May to 13th June 1483 and quote...
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > "Hastings, astonished and alarmed, stammered out
> > > > some denial, but Richard would not hear him. In
> > > > a fury he exclaimed "For by St Paul, I will not
> > > > dine until I see thy head off."
> > > >
> > > > Within 15 minutes Hastings was dead, beheaded
> > > > over a log on Tower Green."
> > > >
> > > > -------
> > > >
> > > > I`d love to know how Mr Miller can be so precise,
> > > > when other researchers are still arguing over
> > > > even which week it was. Where did he get the
> > > > 15 minutes bit from? Even Thomas More wasn`t
> > > > that precise. Was Miller there with stopwatch
> > > > in hand?

Well, someone must have been taking the minutes . . .

Maybe some of the scholars here can help me with this
- I have never understood what prompted Richard to
summarily behead Hastings -- ??
Thanks!
Rene'

Good question Rene.

I`m by no means a scholar, but for what
it`s worth here are some of my thoughts
on the subject, although they don`t really
give an answer. This is one of the enigmas
of the mystery. I`m sure my thoughts on
this matter will be vilified from all sides
but here goes.
I still can`t get my head around this guy
Hastings, I can`t figure out what made him
tick. He was staunchly loyal to E4 and the
princes, and he hated the Woodvilles and
Elizabeth with a vengeance, and as such also
a Yorkist through and through, and fervently
loyal to Gloucester, also a close friend of
long-standing. Hastings had been part of the
Duke of York`s household from a young age.

If Hastings had discovered from that early
age that E4 was illegitimate (re The Archer
of Rouen) he would, being a loyal Yorkist,
probably keep shtum about it. But if so, and
following Clarence`s treason and attainder,
he must then have known that Richard was the
rightful heir to the throne, and even the
bastardisation of E4`s issue wouldn`t have
made any difference to that fact. Which is
surely why he called Gloucester to London to
protect the legitimate royal line in favour
of York, either as a Protectorate, or as
Richard "usurping" the throne. Surely as a
loyal Yorkist that would have been his
natural thinking. Why then did he allegedly
go against everything he had stood for, and
plot with his erstwhile deadly enemies? It
wouldn`t have been because of Richard taking
over, that`s why Hastings had summoned him
in the first place. The bastardisation of
E4`s issue re the Talbot woman shouldn`t have
worried him if he had known from Rouen that E4
really had no legal claim anyway. Siding with
Morton, Elizabeth and the Woodvilles just
doesn`t make sense.

So what was it? Had he been wrongly told of
Gloucester`s alleged plan to eliminate the
boys and thought it was a step too far? or had
he provable knowledge that such a plan existed?
Or was it Gloucester who had been got at through
Buckingham and so wrongly accused and executed
Hastings? Another reason could be that it was
Hastings who first blabbed to Gloucester about
the indiscretions of Cicely. Not a very nice
thing to hear that your mother (a royal mother
to boot) had been a little too liberal with her
favours. But that`s only conjecture.

Gloucester was a level-headed sort of guy, but
I can quite understand him losing the plot if
hearing that his closest long-standing ally and
friend was in fact a traitor to not only
Gloucester himself (and perhaps Cicely), but also
the Yorkist cause. A loss of control, a quick
execution, and remorse thereafter. His usual
magnaminity returned, and he compensated
Hastings`s kin. Morton & Co probably introduced
the suggestion of witchcraft just to keep the
pot boiling, but I still think the withered arm
fiasco was an invention of Morton/More to enhance
the drama for their Tudor readers, and which of
course was subsequently immortalised by
Shakespeare. You have to admit that Richard`s
main fault was that he was a bad judge of
character.

After all that we now have to ask about
Hastings`s supposed knowledge of E4`s supposed
illegitimacy, and use the now famous Watergate
questions that were pointed at Nixon. "What did
he know, and when did he know it?"

Alan

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

--- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe some of the scholars here can help me with this
> - I have never understood what prompted Richard to
> summarily behead Hastings -- ??
> Thanks!
> Rene'
>

--- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe some of the scholars here can help me with this
> - I have never understood what prompted Richard to
> summarily behead Hastings -- ??
> Thanks!
> Rene'


The problem is, of course, that we have so little to go on. We don't
have any record of the charges. It usual schoarly view is that
Richard was clearing Hastings out of the way because he had
discovered he would oppose his attempt to dethrone Edward V, or
(grudgingly) that Hastings might have discovered Richard had such a
plan and had entered into a conspiracy to stop him by any means
necessary.

There are some little items that intrigue me, though, and are not
usually addressed:-

1) Hastings and Dorset had probably not always been enemies. Indeed,
they had both been companions of King Edward in his "vices" and
probably used to do it as a threesome. When Dorset's first wife died
in the mid 1470s, probably within a couple of years of the
consummation of their childhood marriage, her replacement had been
Hastings' stepdaughter Cecily Bonville. Lady Hastings' will (1503)
shows she was very close to this eldest child of hers, who indeed had
helped support her when she ran out of cash in her later years. So
worth remembering that these two men were married to a loving mother
& daughter. They had also solemnly sworn over King Edward's dying
body to patch up their differences.

2) We shouldn't leap, from using Dorset's marriage to Cecily Bonville
as evidence of past friendship with Hastings, to an assumption that
the result was a very close foursome of the two men and their wives.
Hastings and Dorset were serial adulterers. Their wives are perhaps
more likely to have become close to each other through solidarity in
the face of mutually unsatisfactory marriages to these two whoring
partners. Furthermore, Lady Hastings was by birth a Neville, a sister
of Warwick the Kingmaker (how might she have elt during the Re-
adeption, with her unfaithful husband in exile and her brother the
power behind the restored Lancastrian regime?). Richard's wife was
her niece. After Hastings' execution, Richard took her into his
protection. She remained best mates with Joyce, the wife of Richard's
long-standing friend Sir Robert Percy of Scotton (became richard's
Comptroller of the Household).

3) Hastings' brother Richard, Lord Welles & Willoughby, was loyal to
Richard III, was granted an annuity by him and probably fought for
him at Bosworth. Under Henry VII he lost the lordship of Welles to
Henry's uncle and lived in political obscurity. The other brother,
Ralph, was in Calais, and very quickly made his peace with Richard;
Wroe's 'Perkin' contains some evidence that he may have been a
sympathiser with the Lad's cause.

4) Reading only sources written after Bosworth, you'd think nobody
ever believed a word about Richard's claim of a conspiracy against
him. The author of "Historical Notes", however, who was a Londoner,
reports the conspiracy against Gloucester's life as fact.

5) Richard's letters to the North for aid written in the few days
before the 13th may be artful, but they sound genuinely very very
panicked.

6) Hastings may have got fed up with the Protectorate because it had
resulted in the elevation of Buckingham to the position of 2nd in
command, not himself. Buckingham may have believed Hastings stood in
his way. Possibly Hastings was able to patch up his quarrel with
Dorset because he had a new grudge to worry about. Richard's letters
north claim the conspirators planned to kill both himself and
Buckingham. Mancini claims Hastings was cut down by armed men under
Buckingham's commannd.

7) Cunningham has an illustration of one of the source documents for
this event, a letter dictated to one of the Celys by the Prior of St
John's on the back of an inventory, apparently to be delivered to
Calais. It is the news of Friday 13th and it is given in odd broken
phrases that historians usually interpret as a sign of panic or
distress. It does, however, also have some odd little symbols dotted
about it. If doodles, they seem to belie the idea of panic. They
don't look like doodles, though. They are the sort of symbols you see
in medieval secret codes, and they are all placed just above
particular words or spaces between words. It looks as though this
note, hidden on the back of an innocent list, contained some sort of
coded message. The Prior of St John's was certainly no friend of
Richard and his brother soon joined Henry Tudor in exile. Hastings
was Captain of Calais.

None of this constitutes an answer, I know, but maybe some
discussion. Unfortunately I might not be picking up the posts myself
for a while, though.

Marie

The school of Weir teaches you take a quote, move a few words around
a bit, then add something you just made up. Sounds like what happened
here!!! :-)
Paul


On 17 Aug 2007, at 20:03, alanth252 wrote:

> I think I perhaps misled Paul. I wasn`t really referring to the
> quote "For by St Paul, I will not dine until I see thy head off", but
> Miller`s reference to 15 minutes. I wondered how he could be so
> precise.
>
> The Shakespeare quote from Richard III is actually...
>
> "Off with his head! Now, by Saint Paul I swear,
> I will not dine until I see the same."
>
> So if Miller was quoting Shakespeare he got that wrong too.
>
> Alan
>
> ======================
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@...> wrote:
>>
>> It`s not in any Shakespeare that I know. I have three copies of the
>> Bard`s Richard III, and I can`t see any mention of "15 minutes" in
>> any of them. However I wouldn`t be ungracious if someone could
> prove
>> me wrong.
>> Alan
>>
>> ====================
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think he's quoting Shakespeare.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2007, at 11:10, alanth252 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I`ve been reading "War of the Roses by
>>>> Michael D. Miller.
>>>>
>>>> I refer you to Chapter 72 ---
>>>> http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_72.htm
>>>> --- Section 5th May to 13th June 1483 and quote...
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> "Hastings, astonished and alarmed, stammered out
>>>> some denial, but Richard would not hear him. In
>>>> a fury he exclaimed "For by St Paul, I will not
>>>> dine until I see thy head off."
>>>>
>>>> Within 15 minutes Hastings was dead, beheaded
>>>> over a log on Tower Green."
>>>>
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> I`d love to know how Mr Miller can be so precise,
>>>> when other researchers are still arguing over
>>>> even which week it was. Where did he get the
>>>> 15 minutes bit from? Even Thomas More wasn`t
>>>> that precise. Was Miller there with stopwatch
>>>> in hand?
>>>>
>>>> ==========================
>>>>
>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003
>>>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , oregonkaty
>>>>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003
>>>>>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose the best medieval example of words or phrases
> meaning
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> opposite of what they do today is the word "let". If someone
>>>> let
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> do something in the 15th century it meant they stopped you
>>>> doing
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also recall when I first read the text of a letter written
> by
>>>>>>> Margaret Beaufort in which she told her correspondent that
> the
>>>>> Queen
>>>>>>> had been "somewhat crazed" recently, my first thought was -
>>>> What
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> bitch! I think I'd be going crazy too if I had Margaret
>>>> Beaufort
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> my mother-in-law.
>>>>>>> Then I discovered it just meant she'd been a bit poorly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I spent quite a few years as a technical editor/writer, some
> of
>>>> them
>>>>>> on military operation, maintenance and installation manuals.
>>>> There
>>>>>> are certain conventions of language that take some getting
> used
>>>> to
>>>>> yet
>>>>>> are vitally important:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Secure" power means turn it off at the circuit box; it
>>>> does
>>>>> not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mean "obtain some"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a big difference in meaning between "reinstall"
>>>>> and
>>>>>> "replace" -- the former
>>>> means
>>>>>> put the same one back in, and the latter means install a new
>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Katy
>>>>>
>>>>> Snap - I used to edit for the mining industry, and a vibrating
>>>>> grizzly is not what you'd expect either. . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> On the subject of sloppy historians, I've been puzzled for some
>>>> time
>>>>> by the way genealogies always state that Northumberland's wife,
>>>> Maud
>>>>> Herbert, died before 27 July 1485. I've been puzzled because,
>>>>> perusing Lorraine Attreed's edition of the York House Books I
> had
>>>>> come across an entry dated mid March 1486 describing how she
> came
>>>> to
>>>>> the city and summoned them all before her. They don't seem to
>> have
>>>>> been unduly freaked out by the experience so presumably didn't
>>>> think
>>>>> she had risen from the grave.
>>>>> So where did this date come from? I think I now have the
> answer.
>> I
>>>>> have obtained a copy of the Earl's will from the Borthwick.
> Guess
>>>>> what? Right at the top it is dated "the xxvij day of July in
> the
>>>> yere
>>>>> of our lorde god a thousand foure hundreth and Four scour and
>>>> fyve".
>>>>> And right at the end he refers to Beverley Minster "wher my
> wiff
>>>> lyes
>>>>> and I entend shal lye".
>>>>> So that appears to be the source of this oft-repeated claim. A
>> pity
>>>>> historians have not looked at the will more closely, however.
> The
>>>>> last section, which includes the reference to his wife's tomb,
>>>> occurs
>>>>> n a codicil dated at Newburgh the "xxviij daye of Feveryere".
> The
>>>>> codicil is not easy to spot because it runs straight on from
> the
>>>> main
>>>>> will with no line break. Also, in the main body of the will
> (the
>> 27
>>>>> July 1485 bit) he asks that one of his executors should "have
>>>> fourtie
>>>>> markes yerlie tabide with my wyff and with myne heir". I think
>> I'd
>>>>> want more than 40 marks for living with a corpse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this error is not only perpetuated but exaggerated in the
>>>> entry
>>>>> on the 4th Earl in the new DNB. The author of this states that
>> Maud
>>>>> Herbert was not just dead before 27 July 1485, but dead before
>> 1485
>>>>> altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sort of stuff is not slanted, just careless. It doesn't so
>>>> much
>>>>> slide off the desk as slop off it. Normally it wouldn't matter
>> too
>>>>> much, but given Maud Herbert's former connection with Henry
> Tudor
>>>> and
>>>>> the questionmarks over her husband's behaviour at Bosworth, the
>>>>> question of whether she was still alive at that time has some
>>>>> political relevance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your thoughts and insights!

I always come back to "whom does this benefit"? And
the answer (to me)is always Buckingham. So maybe some
kind of double cross by Buckingham that would set
Hastings and Richard at odds -- like murdering the
princes and telling Hastings and Richard both that the
other was responsible....

Rene' (thinking of a new twist to her novel ;-)

Your thanks are much appreciated. William Hastings
is an enigma, but so is Sir Robert Brackenbury.

"Wherupon thei say that a prieste of syr Robert
Brakenbury toke vp the bodyes again, and secretely
entered them in such place, as by the occasion of
his deathe, whiche onely knew it could neuer synce
come to light."

Sir Robert Brackenbury was a younger son of
Thomas Brackenbury of Denton, Durham, England.
This was a family dating back in Durham to the
end of the 12th century. They were lords of
the manors of Burne Hall, Denton and Selaby.
Robert inherited Selaby; in the immediate
vicinity of Barnard Castle. Barnard Castle had
passed to the Duke of Gloucester (later Richard
III) in the right of his wife, Anne Neville in
about 1474. Richard III and Brackenbury, were
therefore, close neighbours. Indeed, a tower of
Barnard Castle is still called Brackenbury Tower.

Brackenbury was one of Richard's close associates,
and the treasurer his household when he was Duke
of Gloucester. When Edward IV died, Brackenbury
was almost certainly one of the Northerners who
accompanied Richard to London. Shortly after
Richard took the throne Brackenbury received a
number of appointments, including Constable of
the Tower of London and Sheriff of Kent along
with control of various royal castles and manors
in the southeast of England. After the Buckingham
Revolt, Brackenbury was given control of a number
of forfeited estates in the southeast. He seems to
have been a popular and educated man.

Brackenbury remained Constable of the Tower and on
17 July 1483 he was appointed Constable of the Tower
for life. He was also given the very lucrative post
of Master of the King's Moneys and Keeper of the
Exchange, that is, Master of the Mint. It had been
William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings' office. Many
other honours and duties were laid on him. In March
1485 he was entrusted with Richard's bastard son,
John of Gloucester, whom he took to Calais to become
its Captain. In May he was placed in command of the
defence of London. His income must have exceeded £500
per year – more than many Barons. He must have been
better rewarded than all but three or four of the
household. Between August 1484 and January 1485 he was
knighted. After the collapse of the Buckingham Revolt
he was rewarded with large grants of land forfeited by
Rivers and the Cheney family. He was also appointed
Sheriff of Kent in place of Constable.

So was Brackenbury only loyal to Gloucester (seemingly
to the point of obsession) because of just being friends
and neighbours, and for the honours that the latter had
bestowed on him. I searched high and low, and all I could
come up with is that he was an upright, honest, loyal and
straightforward kind of guy. So why doesn`t his character
tally with his actions as depicted in More?

More says that after the coronation Richard sent John
Green to Brackenbury with written orders for Brackenbury
to kill the Princes in the Tower. Brackenbury, says More,
replied "that he would never put them to death, though he
should die therefore". So Richard then ordered Sir James
Tyrrell to go to Brackenbury with a letter by which he
was commanded to deliver to Sir James all the keys of
the Tower for one night, "to the end he might there
accomplish the King's pleasure". According to St Thomas
"gentle Brackenbury", who had resisted the demands of the
King, now meekly complied.

Why, if Brackenbury had the courage to first deny Richard
his personal connivance in the murder, would he then hide
the bodies away instead of exposing the murder, furthermore
to later fight at his side and lose his life for the alleged
child murderer? Had he discovered the true plot? If so, what
did he do about it? Bosworth wasn`t until two years after
the "murder".

I`ve been looking through the main sources again. Only in
More can I see Brackenbury mentioned by name. So is his
supposed involvement in this affair of the bodies a complete
fabrication? Surely a man like Brackenbury can`t be accused
on a single testimony. If it was a fabrication, then this
would explain Brackenbury`s continued loyalty to Richard.
It follows that if More`s version of events is pure hokum,
then probably the actual murder is too. Did Tyrell or Dighton
mention him in their alleged confesions? Is there a copy of
said confession stil in existence?

According to Molinet and Lindsay, Brackenbury had joint
command of Richard's vanguard at the Battle of Bosworth
Field and was killed fighting beside Richard. After the
battle Brackenbury was attainted, but this was reversed
in 1489 in favour of his sister's and bastard son. Ralph,
his nephew and heir male inherited Saleby. A strange
reversal if Brackenbury had been involved in royal
infanticide with one of the hitherto most reviled men
in history.

Alan.

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

--- In , Stormysky
<stormysky75@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Alan,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts and insights!
>
> I always come back to "whom does this benefit"? And
> the answer (to me)is always Buckingham. So maybe some
> kind of double cross by Buckingham that would set
> Hastings and Richard at odds -- like murdering the
> princes and telling Hastings and Richard both that the
> other was responsible....
>
> Rene' (thinking of a new twist to her novel ;-)
>

Re my last post posting....

I should have said that according to More it was
Brackenbury`s priest who supposedly reburied the
bodies. But Brackenbury must have known of what
was going on, and that something untoward had
happened. That is if a murder had taken place at
all.

Alan

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

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Your thanks are much appreciated. William Hastings
> is an enigma, but so is Sir Robert Brackenbury.
>
> "Wherupon thei say that a prieste of syr Robert
> Brakenbury toke vp the bodyes again, and secretely
> entered them in such place, as by the occasion of
> his deathe, whiche onely knew it could neuer synce
> come to light."
>
> Sir Robert Brackenbury was a younger son of
> Thomas Brackenbury of Denton, Durham, England.
> This was a family dating back in Durham to the
> end of the 12th century. They were lords of
> the manors of Burne Hall, Denton and Selaby.
> Robert inherited Selaby; in the immediate
> vicinity of Barnard Castle. Barnard Castle had
> passed to the Duke of Gloucester (later Richard
> III) in the right of his wife, Anne Neville in
> about 1474. Richard III and Brackenbury, were
> therefore, close neighbours. Indeed, a tower of
> Barnard Castle is still called Brackenbury Tower.
>
> Brackenbury was one of Richard's close associates,
> and the treasurer his household when he was Duke
> of Gloucester. When Edward IV died, Brackenbury
> was almost certainly one of the Northerners who
> accompanied Richard to London. Shortly after
> Richard took the throne Brackenbury received a
> number of appointments, including Constable of
> the Tower of London and Sheriff of Kent along
> with control of various royal castles and manors
> in the southeast of England. After the Buckingham
> Revolt, Brackenbury was given control of a number
> of forfeited estates in the southeast. He seems to
> have been a popular and educated man.
>
> Brackenbury remained Constable of the Tower and on
> 17 July 1483 he was appointed Constable of the Tower
> for life. He was also given the very lucrative post
> of Master of the King's Moneys and Keeper of the
> Exchange, that is, Master of the Mint. It had been
> William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings' office. Many
> other honours and duties were laid on him. In March
> 1485 he was entrusted with Richard's bastard son,
> John of Gloucester, whom he took to Calais to become
> its Captain. In May he was placed in command of the
> defence of London. His income must have exceeded £500
> per year – more than many Barons. He must have been
> better rewarded than all but three or four of the
> household. Between August 1484 and January 1485 he was
> knighted. After the collapse of the Buckingham Revolt
> he was rewarded with large grants of land forfeited by
> Rivers and the Cheney family. He was also appointed
> Sheriff of Kent in place of Constable.
>
> So was Brackenbury only loyal to Gloucester (seemingly
> to the point of obsession) because of just being friends
> and neighbours, and for the honours that the latter had
> bestowed on him. I searched high and low, and all I could
> come up with is that he was an upright, honest, loyal and
> straightforward kind of guy. So why doesn`t his character
> tally with his actions as depicted in More?
>
> More says that after the coronation Richard sent John
> Green to Brackenbury with written orders for Brackenbury
> to kill the Princes in the Tower. Brackenbury, says More,
> replied "that he would never put them to death, though he
> should die therefore". So Richard then ordered Sir James
> Tyrrell to go to Brackenbury with a letter by which he
> was commanded to deliver to Sir James all the keys of
> the Tower for one night, "to the end he might there
> accomplish the King's pleasure". According to St Thomas
> "gentle Brackenbury", who had resisted the demands of the
> King, now meekly complied.
>
> Why, if Brackenbury had the courage to first deny Richard
> his personal connivance in the murder, would he then hide
> the bodies away instead of exposing the murder, furthermore
> to later fight at his side and lose his life for the alleged
> child murderer? Had he discovered the true plot? If so, what
> did he do about it? Bosworth wasn`t until two years after
> the "murder".
>
> I`ve been looking through the main sources again. Only in
> More can I see Brackenbury mentioned by name. So is his
> supposed involvement in this affair of the bodies a complete
> fabrication? Surely a man like Brackenbury can`t be accused
> on a single testimony. If it was a fabrication, then this
> would explain Brackenbury`s continued loyalty to Richard.
> It follows that if More`s version of events is pure hokum,
> then probably the actual murder is too. Did Tyrell or Dighton
> mention him in their alleged confesions? Is there a copy of
> said confession stil in existence?
>
> According to Molinet and Lindsay, Brackenbury had joint
> command of Richard's vanguard at the Battle of Bosworth
> Field and was killed fighting beside Richard. After the
> battle Brackenbury was attainted, but this was reversed
> in 1489 in favour of his sister's and bastard son. Ralph,
> his nephew and heir male inherited Saleby. A strange
> reversal if Brackenbury had been involved in royal
> infanticide with one of the hitherto most reviled men
> in history.
>
> Alan.
>
> ================
>
> --- In , Stormysky
> <stormysky75@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Alan,
> >
> > Thank you for your thoughts and insights!
> >
> > I always come back to "whom does this benefit"? And
> > the answer (to me)is always Buckingham. So maybe some
> > kind of double cross by Buckingham that would set
> > Hastings and Richard at odds -- like murdering the
> > princes and telling Hastings and Richard both that the
> > other was responsible....
> >
> > Rene' (thinking of a new twist to her novel ;-)
> >
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Your thanks are much appreciated. William Hastings
> is an enigma, but so is Sir Robert Brackenbury.

> More says that after the coronation Richard sent John
> Green to Brackenbury with written orders for Brackenbury
> to kill the Princes in the Tower. Brackenbury, says More,
> replied "that he would never put them to death, though he
> should die therefore". So Richard then ordered Sir James
> Tyrrell to go to Brackenbury with a letter by which he
> was commanded to deliver to Sir James all the keys of
> the Tower for one night, "to the end he might there
> accomplish the King's pleasure". According to St Thomas
> "gentle Brackenbury", who had resisted the demands of the
> King, now meekly complied.
>
> Why, if Brackenbury had the courage to first deny Richard
> his personal connivance in the murder, would he then hide
> the bodies away instead of exposing the murder, furthermore
> to later fight at his side and lose his life for the alleged
> child murderer? Had he discovered the true plot? If so, what
> did he do about it? Bosworth wasn`t until two years after
> the "murder".
>
> I`ve been looking through the main sources again. Only in
> More can I see Brackenbury mentioned by name.


Thank you for that very interesting summation on Brackenbury, Alan. I
didn't know quite a lot of what you found, and it's good to have it
all in one place.

The short answer re why More makes Brackenbury such a bad guy is that
apparently Morton didn't like Brackenbury. (Morton is the source of
the material in the History of R III attributed to More.)

And that brings about another interesting question: why? Why would
Morton dislike Brackenbury enough to cast him in a way that seems so
out of character according to everything else we know about the man,
making him an accomplice to murder?

How had the paths of Brackenbury and Morton ever crossed? There has
to be something there. Morton was a man who bore grudges and was
meticulous about getting even.

Katy

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


Yes, another interesting question Katy. It could be
said that maybe Brackenbury closed his eyes to events
he`d rather not know about, but I can`t see such an
obviously honourable man doing this, and being party
to such a crime, as his silence would certainly make
him an accomplice by inference. Morton may have
disliked Brackenbury enough to insinuate Brackenbury`s
involvement, but did More agree with Morton? Notice
that More says "gentle Brakenbury", which surely implies
that More had some regard for Brackenbury`s true
character. More was contemporary only at an early age,
but he must have grown up with people who had known
Brackenbury in real life. So did More somewhat quell
Morton`s hatred when translating his mentor`s work?

Alan

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

> Thank you for that very interesting summation on Brackenbury,
Alan. I
> didn't know quite a lot of what you found, and it's good to have it
> all in one place.
>
> The short answer re why More makes Brackenbury such a bad guy is
that
> apparently Morton didn't like Brackenbury. (Morton is the source of
> the material in the History of R III attributed to More.)
>
> And that brings about another interesting question: why? Why would
> Morton dislike Brackenbury enough to cast him in a way that seems so
> out of character according to everything else we know about the man,
> making him an accomplice to murder?
>
> How had the paths of Brackenbury and Morton ever crossed? There
has
> to be something there. Morton was a man who bore grudges and was
> meticulous about getting even.
>
> Katy
>

Precisely. Take out More from a serious discussion. Most of what he
writes makes no sense in terms of logic and human behaviour.
Brackenbury, a long time friend and servant of Richard's, was not in
the vanguard at Bosworth, but was amongst those of the household who
charged with Richard.
There is no evidence that a man called Dighton existed, so he never
could have issued a confession. As for Tyrell, after his execution,
arrested after a promise of safe conduct from Henry VII, it was given
out by Henry that he had confessed to killing the sons of Edward IV.
Nothing was actually published apart from that, and no proof was ever
produced. Showing me that this was a fabrication by the government to
try and put off any more claims by pretenders like the many that had
been plaguing Henry since Bosworth. It also shows me that Henry had
no idea what happened to the boys either. Unless of course he had
done away with them himself and was just looking to blame his
predecessor.
Paul


On 19 Aug 2007, at 15:14, alanth252 wrote:

>
> Re my last post posting....
>
> I should have said that according to More it was
> Brackenbury`s priest who supposedly reburied the
> bodies. But Brackenbury must have known of what
> was going on, and that something untoward had
> happened. That is if a murder had taken place at
> all.
>
> Alan
>
> ============
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@...> wrote:
>>
>> Your thanks are much appreciated. William Hastings
>> is an enigma, but so is Sir Robert Brackenbury.
>>
>> "Wherupon thei say that a prieste of syr Robert
>> Brakenbury toke vp the bodyes again, and secretely
>> entered them in such place, as by the occasion of
>> his deathe, whiche onely knew it could neuer synce
>> come to light."
>>
>> Sir Robert Brackenbury was a younger son of
>> Thomas Brackenbury of Denton, Durham, England.
>> This was a family dating back in Durham to the
>> end of the 12th century. They were lords of
>> the manors of Burne Hall, Denton and Selaby.
>> Robert inherited Selaby; in the immediate
>> vicinity of Barnard Castle. Barnard Castle had
>> passed to the Duke of Gloucester (later Richard
>> III) in the right of his wife, Anne Neville in
>> about 1474. Richard III and Brackenbury, were
>> therefore, close neighbours. Indeed, a tower of
>> Barnard Castle is still called Brackenbury Tower.
>>
>> Brackenbury was one of Richard's close associates,
>> and the treasurer his household when he was Duke
>> of Gloucester. When Edward IV died, Brackenbury
>> was almost certainly one of the Northerners who
>> accompanied Richard to London. Shortly after
>> Richard took the throne Brackenbury received a
>> number of appointments, including Constable of
>> the Tower of London and Sheriff of Kent along
>> with control of various royal castles and manors
>> in the southeast of England. After the Buckingham
>> Revolt, Brackenbury was given control of a number
>> of forfeited estates in the southeast. He seems to
>> have been a popular and educated man.
>>
>> Brackenbury remained Constable of the Tower and on
>> 17 July 1483 he was appointed Constable of the Tower
>> for life. He was also given the very lucrative post
>> of Master of the King's Moneys and Keeper of the
>> Exchange, that is, Master of the Mint. It had been
>> William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings' office. Many
>> other honours and duties were laid on him. In March
>> 1485 he was entrusted with Richard's bastard son,
>> John of Gloucester, whom he took to Calais to become
>> its Captain. In May he was placed in command of the
>> defence of London. His income must have exceeded £500
>> per year  more than many Barons. He must have been
>> better rewarded than all but three or four of the
>> household. Between August 1484 and January 1485 he was
>> knighted. After the collapse of the Buckingham Revolt
>> he was rewarded with large grants of land forfeited by
>> Rivers and the Cheney family. He was also appointed
>> Sheriff of Kent in place of Constable.
>>
>> So was Brackenbury only loyal to Gloucester (seemingly
>> to the point of obsession) because of just being friends
>> and neighbours, and for the honours that the latter had
>> bestowed on him. I searched high and low, and all I could
>> come up with is that he was an upright, honest, loyal and
>> straightforward kind of guy. So why doesn`t his character
>> tally with his actions as depicted in More?
>>
>> More says that after the coronation Richard sent John
>> Green to Brackenbury with written orders for Brackenbury
>> to kill the Princes in the Tower. Brackenbury, says More,
>> replied "that he would never put them to death, though he
>> should die therefore". So Richard then ordered Sir James
>> Tyrrell to go to Brackenbury with a letter by which he
>> was commanded to deliver to Sir James all the keys of
>> the Tower for one night, "to the end he might there
>> accomplish the King's pleasure". According to St Thomas
>> "gentle Brackenbury", who had resisted the demands of the
>> King, now meekly complied.
>>
>> Why, if Brackenbury had the courage to first deny Richard
>> his personal connivance in the murder, would he then hide
>> the bodies away instead of exposing the murder, furthermore
>> to later fight at his side and lose his life for the alleged
>> child murderer? Had he discovered the true plot? If so, what
>> did he do about it? Bosworth wasn`t until two years after
>> the "murder".
>>
>> I`ve been looking through the main sources again. Only in
>> More can I see Brackenbury mentioned by name. So is his
>> supposed involvement in this affair of the bodies a complete
>> fabrication? Surely a man like Brackenbury can`t be accused
>> on a single testimony. If it was a fabrication, then this
>> would explain Brackenbury`s continued loyalty to Richard.
>> It follows that if More`s version of events is pure hokum,
>> then probably the actual murder is too. Did Tyrell or Dighton
>> mention him in their alleged confesions? Is there a copy of
>> said confession stil in existence?
>>
>> According to Molinet and Lindsay, Brackenbury had joint
>> command of Richard's vanguard at the Battle of Bosworth
>> Field and was killed fighting beside Richard. After the
>> battle Brackenbury was attainted, but this was reversed
>> in 1489 in favour of his sister's and bastard son. Ralph,
>> his nephew and heir male inherited Saleby. A strange
>> reversal if Brackenbury had been involved in royal
>> infanticide with one of the hitherto most reviled men
>> in history.
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>> ================
>>
>> --- In , Stormysky
>> <stormysky75@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Alan,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your thoughts and insights!
>>>
>>> I always come back to "whom does this benefit"? And
>>> the answer (to me)is always Buckingham. So maybe some
>>> kind of double cross by Buckingham that would set
>>> Hastings and Richard at odds -- like murdering the
>>> princes and telling Hastings and Richard both that the
>>> other was responsible....
>>>
>>> Rene' (thinking of a new twist to her novel ;-)
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I don`t think More should be completely discounted.
He was after all only translating from Morton`s Latin,
and probably also remembering what Morton had told
him. I`m sure More was quite aware of discrepancies
both in Lancastrian Morton`s and Tudor versions of
events. It would be dangerous times to reveal the
truth. There could be disguised truth within his
translation, additions, and embellishments. The
difficulty would be to separate the crass from the
cream.

It mustn`t be forgotten that More was a man of
principle and indeed later died for his principles.
There`s an interesting passage in his wiki page,
and I quote...

"More's work [History of King Richard III], however,
barely mentions King Henry VII, the first Tudor king,
perhaps because More blamed Henry for having persecuted
his father, Sir John More. Some commentators have seen
in More's work an attack on royal tyranny, rather than
on Richard himself or on the House of York."

But then Sir Thomas More was himself somewhat of an
enigma. Ain`t we got fun!

Alan

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

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Precisely. Take out More from a serious discussion. Most of what
he
> writes makes no sense in terms of logic and human behaviour.
> Brackenbury, a long time friend and servant of Richard's, was not
in
> the vanguard at Bosworth, but was amongst those of the household
who
> charged with Richard.
> There is no evidence that a man called Dighton existed, so he
never
> could have issued a confession. As for Tyrell, after his
execution,
> arrested after a promise of safe conduct from Henry VII, it was
given
> out by Henry that he had confessed to killing the sons of Edward
IV.
> Nothing was actually published apart from that, and no proof was
ever
> produced. Showing me that this was a fabrication by the government
to
> try and put off any more claims by pretenders like the many that
had
> been plaguing Henry since Bosworth. It also shows me that Henry
had
> no idea what happened to the boys either. Unless of course he had
> done away with them himself and was just looking to blame his
> predecessor.
> Paul
>
Brevity snip.

On 20 Aug 2007, at 12:55, alanth252 wrote:

> It mustn`t be forgotten that More was a man of
> principle and indeed later died for his principles.
> There`s an interesting passage in his wiki page,
> and I quote...

Disagree totally. More was a cruel and self interested hypocrite who
led himself to the block with his obstinacy. Little of the real man
in Man For All Seasons!
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> It mustn`t be forgotten that More was a man of
> principle and indeed later died for his principles.



Hmmm. I suggest you read a few biographies of More, and then come to
your own conclusions about whether he was a man of principle and
whether he died for them.

I think not, on either count.

Katy

--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> Hmmm. I suggest you read a few biographies of More,
> and then come to
> your own conclusions about whether he was a man of
> principle and
> whether he died for them.
>
> I think not, on either count.
>

Well, I've read a few biographies of More and had an
extended e-mail exchange that ended in brunch with one
of those biographers, and I've come to my own
conclusions: More was a man of principle, and he did
die for his principles, but unfortunately he also felt
that the ends justified the means when pursuing those
principles. In my opinion; your mileage may vary, etc.
But I think his conduct in the Thomas Hunne affair
certainly spotlights his willingness to condone
unspeakable acts in defense of his arguably noble
principles.

I`m not trying to defend More. Far from it. I think he
must have been a pretty obnoxious character. And I`m
not saying his principles were right. But he did
eventually fall by whatever principles he stood by.

I didn`t and don`t intend to get into the pros and cons
of More himself. My main point was that he may not have
agreed with everything he translated (if indeed he did).
For example, when he refers to Brackenbury as "gentle
Brakenbury", it doesn`t seem to tally with what the
Yorkist-hating Morton would most likely have said. My
interest is to find out if there were any other such
possible "anti-Morton" anomalies in More`s text.

Alan

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


--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > It mustn`t be forgotten that More was a man of
> > principle and indeed later died for his principles.
>
>
>
> Hmmm. I suggest you read a few biographies of More, and then come
to
> your own conclusions about whether he was a man of principle and
> whether he died for them.
>
> I think not, on either count.
>
> Katy
>