Worst monarch?

The best thing of all is there is not one mention, even as a side
swipe, of our Richard!
Paul

From today's Daily Mail an article entitled
"Our Worst Monarch? Britain's spoilt for choice...


They include, among their number, the vain, the greedy and the
downright corrupt. There are adulterers, swindlers and cowards. Yet
this group also shares one thing in common. In their own lifetimes,
they were the most powerful individuals in the land.

English Heritage has just conducted a poll to find Britain's Most
Useless Monarch and it's a pretty crowded field. The eventual
'winner' has just been announced as George IV. His lazy, spendthrift
nature and unpleasantness to his wife Queen Caroline seems to have
won him the accolade.

But so terrible have many of our kings and queens been that a closer
look at their misrule serves to illustrate just how blessed we are to
live in a more enlightened age. So here, in ascending order of
uselessness, is my own list of those who have disgraced the throne.


ü


ü


ü


Morally suspect monarchs: King Stephen (l) was corrupt, Mary Tudor
(c) was bigoted, and Henry VIII (r) was psychotic

No. 10 is James I, who has been described as a 'foul-mouthed,
conceited pacifist without royal dignity'. This was particularly
proved when he kissed one of his male favourites full on the lips
during his own coronation. It couldn't have been a pleasant
experience, because historians report that due to some physiological
abnormality the king's tongue was too big for his mouth, and kept
lolling out.

It was James who sent the great Elizabethan seafaring hero Sir Walter
Raleigh to the scaffold in order to appease the Spanish, and filled
his government with Scottish friends he had brought south with him,
to the exclusion of better-qualified Englishmen. (Remind you of
anyone in power today?) If anyone deserved a Gunpowder Plot against
him in 1605, it was James.

But we are often better off with the devil we know. Because coming in
at No. 9 is James's grandson, James II, who failed to learn the
lesson of the English Civil War - which had cost his father, Charles
I, his head - and continued to believe in the Divine Right of Kings.

By trying to force Roman Catholicism on to the British Isles, he
deservedly lost his throne in 1688, and in a fit of pique he dropped
the Great Seal of England into the River Thames as he fled London for
France, idiotically believing that this would somehow prevent his son-
in-law and daughter, William and Mary, from governing successfully.

At least James II did not manage to plunge his country into a
particularly long civil war, like No 8 on my list, King John
(1167-1216), who fought against his own barons, on one occasion so
disastrously that he lost his baggage train in quicksand in the Wash.


ü


ü


Two more candidates for Britain's Most Useless Monarch: George IV (l)
was indolent, while Edward VIII (r) was petulant

'John was a bad character,' writes one chronicler. 'His country had
some experience of his selfcentred double-dealing. Nobody with sense
trusted him. It followed that his unsanctioned promises were worthless.'

He is best remembered for the Magna Carta, which enshrined many
freedoms we still enjoy today but which he had to be forced to sign
by his nobles. Yet at least John stayed on the throne, unlike our No.
7, Edward VIII, a profoundly irresponsible monarch who put his love
affair with Mrs Simpson before his duty to the Empire.

Knowing that he was going to abdicate the next month, Edward
nonetheless outrageously told the unemployed miners of South Wales in
November 1936 that: 'Something should be done to get them at work
again.' This raised hope among them that the Government might save
their jobs, which Edward knew was not the case.

Edward VIII was not a psychopathic murderer, however, unlike No. 6,
an appropriate position for Henry VIII as it was also the number of
wives he had, most of whom he harried, bullied and generally
maltreated. To behead not one but two wives, and to invent the whole
concept of divorce in order to get shot of two more, would win Henry
a place in any list of rogues.

But it was his cruel, cynical brutality towards everyone who crossed
him in life - male as well as female - that makes Henry VIII
particularly unpleasant. When he knew he was dying, he had the
handsome, intelligent young poet the Earl of Surrey executed
beforehand, supposedly for treason, but really because he was jealous
of his looks, talent and charm.

Henry was a strong monarch, however, unlike the utterly pathetic
bisexual Edward II and Richard II, who tie for fourth place. Edward
II scandalised the court and angered his father Edward I by his
passionate attachment to the courtier Piers Gaveston, whose greed and
arrogance was plain to everyone, except the besotted Edward.

After Gaveston was assassinated by the nobles, Edward became
infatuated with another courtier, Hugh Despenser, on to whom he
lavished land and riches.

When finally Despenser fell from power in January 1327, Edward II was
captured and killed at Berkeley Castle, reputedly by the insertion of
a red-hot poker into his rectum, in order to conceal the murder. A
nasty way to go, but if anyone deserved it, it was he.

Tying at joint fourth is Richard II, who just like Edward II, fell
under the influence of a disastrous favourite, Robert de Vere, Earl
of Oxford, who historians record was 'a silly, vain, irresponsible man'.

It was in Richard II's time that disastrous foreign adventures
bankrupted the government, causing him to try to raise the hated poll
tax, which led to the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

And so we arrive at the finalists in our royal gallery of shame. In
third place comes English Heritage's top choice, George IV, whose
self-indulgence, hatred of his kindly father, 'mad' George III,
swinishness to his (admittedly dreadful) wife Princess Caroline, and
appalling over-spending during straitened times, meant that the
newspapers openly celebrated his death in 1830.

Indolent and obese (he was nicknamed 'the Prince of Whales'), his
scandalous private life - he married his mistress illegally - and his
refusal to allow his wife to attend his coronation held up the
monarchy to widespread ridicule.

In second place comes Mary Tudor (1516-1558), who cruelly burned at
the stake no fewer than 300 Protestants - each execution having her
personal sanction. A puppet ruler for her hated religious fanatic
husband, Philip II of Spain, Bloody Mary was responsible for the
burning to death of the saintly Bishop Nicholas Ridley and the
preacher Hugh Latimer. For these and other crimes, she deserves the
dishonour of being our worst ever queen.

In my opinion, however, the most useless British monarch of all time
was someone of whom few have even heard. King Stephen usurped his
uncle Henry I's throne in 1135, outmanouevring both his own elder
brother Theobald and the rightful heir, Henry's daughter the Empress
Matilda.

He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, gave Cumbria to the Scots to
buy them off, paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then plunged
Britain into a series of four civil wars between 1138 and 1154. These
left the country ravaged, impoverished and weaker than at any other
time before or since.

It is a doleful list of cruelty, disaster and failure. But we should
remember that monarchy is, by its very nature, something of a
lottery. And just as Britain has had the misfortune to endure some
very bad rulers, so too have we enjoyed some truly great ones.

Indeed, we are particularly blessed to have a reigning monarch today
who undoubtedly stands in the top five, alongside such illustrious
predecessors as Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Edward III, George V and
George III. Hard-working, devout, dutiful, good-natured and respected
throughout the world, the Queen is everything a nation looks for in a
head of state.

If she has her mother's longevity - and there is every indication
from her state of health that she does - she will beat Queen
Victoria's record reign of 63 years, seven months and three days on
the throne, on September 16, 2015.

If monarchy's a lottery, our age may just have struck the jackpot.

Paul: This is an excellent article by Andrew Roberts - please also post it on Sceptred Isle where we have the scope to debate British history right up to 1603.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:29 PM
Subject: Worst monarch?


The best thing of all is there is not one mention, even as a side
swipe, of our Richard!
Paul

From today's Daily Mail an article entitled
"Our Worst Monarch? Britain's spoilt for choice...

They include, among their number, the vain, the greedy and the
downright corrupt. There are adulterers, swindlers and cowards. Yet
this group also shares one thing in common. In their own lifetimes,
they were the most powerful individuals in the land.

English Heritage has just conducted a poll to find Britain's Most
Useless Monarch and it's a pretty crowded field. The eventual
'winner' has just been announced as George IV. His lazy, spendthrift
nature and unpleasantness to his wife Queen Caroline seems to have
won him the accolade.

But so terrible have many of our kings and queens been that a closer
look at their misrule serves to illustrate just how blessed we are to
live in a more enlightened age. So here, in ascending order of
uselessness, is my own list of those who have disgraced the throne.

ü

ü

ü

Morally suspect monarchs: King Stephen (l) was corrupt, Mary Tudor
(c) was bigoted, and Henry VIII (r) was psychotic

No. 10 is James I, who has been described as a 'foul-mouthed,
conceited pacifist without royal dignity'. This was particularly
proved when he kissed one of his male favourites full on the lips
during his own coronation. It couldn't have been a pleasant
experience, because historians report that due to some physiological
abnormality the king's tongue was too big for his mouth, and kept
lolling out.

It was James who sent the great Elizabethan seafaring hero Sir Walter
Raleigh to the scaffold in order to appease the Spanish, and filled
his government with Scottish friends he had brought south with him,
to the exclusion of better-qualified Englishmen. (Remind you of
anyone in power today?) If anyone deserved a Gunpowder Plot against
him in 1605, it was James.

But we are often better off with the devil we know. Because coming in
at No. 9 is James's grandson, James II, who failed to learn the
lesson of the English Civil War - which had cost his father, Charles
I, his head - and continued to believe in the Divine Right of Kings.

By trying to force Roman Catholicism on to the British Isles, he
deservedly lost his throne in 1688, and in a fit of pique he dropped
the Great Seal of England into the River Thames as he fled London for
France, idiotically believing that this would somehow prevent his son-
in-law and daughter, William and Mary, from governing successfully.

At least James II did not manage to plunge his country into a
particularly long civil war, like No 8 on my list, King John
(1167-1216), who fought against his own barons, on one occasion so
disastrously that he lost his baggage train in quicksand in the Wash.

ü

ü

Two more candidates for Britain's Most Useless Monarch: George IV (l)
was indolent, while Edward VIII (r) was petulant

'John was a bad character,' writes one chronicler. 'His country had
some experience of his selfcentred double-dealing. Nobody with sense
trusted him. It followed that his unsanctioned promises were worthless.'

He is best remembered for the Magna Carta, which enshrined many
freedoms we still enjoy today but which he had to be forced to sign
by his nobles. Yet at least John stayed on the throne, unlike our No.
7, Edward VIII, a profoundly irresponsible monarch who put his love
affair with Mrs Simpson before his duty to the Empire.

Knowing that he was going to abdicate the next month, Edward
nonetheless outrageously told the unemployed miners of South Wales in
November 1936 that: 'Something should be done to get them at work
again.' This raised hope among them that the Government might save
their jobs, which Edward knew was not the case.

Edward VIII was not a psychopathic murderer, however, unlike No. 6,
an appropriate position for Henry VIII as it was also the number of
wives he had, most of whom he harried, bullied and generally
maltreated. To behead not one but two wives, and to invent the whole
concept of divorce in order to get shot of two more, would win Henry
a place in any list of rogues.

But it was his cruel, cynical brutality towards everyone who crossed
him in life - male as well as female - that makes Henry VIII
particularly unpleasant. When he knew he was dying, he had the
handsome, intelligent young poet the Earl of Surrey executed
beforehand, supposedly for treason, but really because he was jealous
of his looks, talent and charm.

Henry was a strong monarch, however, unlike the utterly pathetic
bisexual Edward II and Richard II, who tie for fourth place. Edward
II scandalised the court and angered his father Edward I by his
passionate attachment to the courtier Piers Gaveston, whose greed and
arrogance was plain to everyone, except the besotted Edward.

After Gaveston was assassinated by the nobles, Edward became
infatuated with another courtier, Hugh Despenser, on to whom he
lavished land and riches.

When finally Despenser fell from power in January 1327, Edward II was
captured and killed at Berkeley Castle, reputedly by the insertion of
a red-hot poker into his rectum, in order to conceal the murder. A
nasty way to go, but if anyone deserved it, it was he.

Tying at joint fourth is Richard II, who just like Edward II, fell
under the influence of a disastrous favourite, Robert de Vere, Earl
of Oxford, who historians record was 'a silly, vain, irresponsible man'.

It was in Richard II's time that disastrous foreign adventures
bankrupted the government, causing him to try to raise the hated poll
tax, which led to the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

And so we arrive at the finalists in our royal gallery of shame. In
third place comes English Heritage's top choice, George IV, whose
self-indulgence, hatred of his kindly father, 'mad' George III,
swinishness to his (admittedly dreadful) wife Princess Caroline, and
appalling over-spending during straitened times, meant that the
newspapers openly celebrated his death in 1830.

Indolent and obese (he was nicknamed 'the Prince of Whales'), his
scandalous private life - he married his mistress illegally - and his
refusal to allow his wife to attend his coronation held up the
monarchy to widespread ridicule.

In second place comes Mary Tudor (1516-1558), who cruelly burned at
the stake no fewer than 300 Protestants - each execution having her
personal sanction. A puppet ruler for her hated religious fanatic
husband, Philip II of Spain, Bloody Mary was responsible for the
burning to death of the saintly Bishop Nicholas Ridley and the
preacher Hugh Latimer. For these and other crimes, she deserves the
dishonour of being our worst ever queen.

In my opinion, however, the most useless British monarch of all time
was someone of whom few have even heard. King Stephen usurped his
uncle Henry I's throne in 1135, outmanouevring both his own elder
brother Theobald and the rightful heir, Henry's daughter the Empress
Matilda.

He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, gave Cumbria to the Scots to
buy them off, paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then plunged
Britain into a series of four civil wars between 1138 and 1154. These
left the country ravaged, impoverished and weaker than at any other
time before or since.

It is a doleful list of cruelty, disaster and failure. But we should
remember that monarchy is, by its very nature, something of a
lottery. And just as Britain has had the misfortune to endure some
very bad rulers, so too have we enjoyed some truly great ones.

Indeed, we are particularly blessed to have a reigning monarch today
who undoubtedly stands in the top five, alongside such illustrious
predecessors as Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Edward III, George V and
George III. Hard-working, devout, dutiful, good-natured and respected
throughout the world, the Queen is everything a nation looks for in a
head of state.

If she has her mother's longevity - and there is every indication
from her state of health that she does - she will beat Queen
Victoria's record reign of 63 years, seven months and three days on
the throne, on September 16, 2015.

If monarchy's a lottery, our age may just have struck the jackpot.

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> The best thing of all is there is not one mention,
> even as a side swipe, of our Richard!

That was nice, but I could have lived without the
very strong taint of homophobia to the article.

For example:

"James I, who has been described as a 'foul-mouthed,
conceited pacifist without royal dignity'. This was
particularly
proved when he kissed one of his male favourites full
on the lips
during his own coronation."

Kissing a man makes you foul-mouthed, conceited, and
lacking royal dignity? Come on, I think we all know
if he had kissed a _female_ favourite at his
coronation, people would have had a very different
opinion: "The king's a stud, woohoo!"


"Henry was a strong monarch, however, unlike the
utterly pathetic bisexual Edward II and Richard II,"

Essentially saying: he may have been a psychopath,
but hey, at least he was straight!

WTF? Since when did being bisexual make you
'pathetic'? Having consensual sex with men is worse
than having them put to death out of jealousy? What
kind of Dark Ages mentality is that?

I seriously hope that isn't indicative of the way
most English people think.


Take care,
Rogue

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

Seems a bit hard to blame a sub-fourteen-year-old for decisions taken
by his regency councils. If this is the best the writer can do it casts
doubt on the value of the whole article.

Richard G

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:

> It was in Richard II's time that disastrous foreign adventures
> bankrupted the government, causing him to try to raise the hated
> poll tax, which led to the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Seems a bit hard to blame a sub-fourteen-year-old for decisions taken
> by his regency councils. If this is the best the writer can do it
casts
> doubt on the value of the whole article.
>
> Richard G

Indeed, in fact much of Richard's financial difficulty was caused by
the inept policies of Edward III, who followed the not infrequent
English practice of fighting vastly expensive, vainglorious wars
without having anything resembling the money to pay for them and
leaving behind a mess for his successors to clear up. (See also Henry
V, Richard I.)

I'm surprised there's not at least an honourable mention for Charles I,
who levied war on his own subjects and caused a civil war resulting in
(proportionate to population) more British and Irish casualties than
World War 1. And no Scottish kings? Were none of them in this
relegation zone?

But yes, it is great, and rather surprising that R3 escapes altogether.
It proves the Richard 3 Society is getting somewhere!

Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"


Indeed, in fact much of Richard's financial difficulty was caused by
> the inept policies of Edward III, who followed the not infrequent
> English practice of fighting vastly expensive, vainglorious wars
> without having anything resembling the money to pay for them and
> leaving behind a mess for his successors to clear up. (See also Henry
> V, Richard I.)
>

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Katy

Polydore Vergil is supposed to have said in his /Historia Anglica /that
Edward of Warwick "could not discern a goose from a capon". Vergil
first came to England in 1501, while Warwick was executed in 1499. The
/Historia Anglica /was written between 1505 and 1533. Obviously,
Vergil never knew Warwick; does he list his sources about the boy?

Second, what is the context on the "goose from a capon" line? I know
the line is used to claim Warwick was mentally handicapped, but is that
really what it means? Perhaps it refers not to natural incapacity, but
the end result of years of bad treatment and isolation in the Tower, or
the result of the questioning Warwick received about his attempt to
escape? Does it have nothing to due with Warwick's intelligence and
instead refers to Warwick (like many boys) having a wolfish appetite and
an undiscerning palate?

If Edward of Warwick was unintelligent, why did Richard III's other
heir, John de la Pole, die fighting for Edward's claim in 1487? Why did
Henry IV keep Edward imprisoned from 1485 to 1499 and then execute him?

polydore's volume on the reigns of h6, e4, and r3 full text at google.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ex8IAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=polydore
 
btw, in polydore's first book
http://books.google.com/books?id=mJg8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=polydore&lr=&as_brr=0#PPA321,M1
 
he mentions richard iii, duke of normandy. i haven't tracked it, but this richard could be ancestral to our richard. or at the very least a collateral ancestor, being a near(er) kin to willie the conk.


--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Ed Simons <easimons@...> wrote:

From: Ed Simons <easimons@...>
Subject: A goose from a capon
To:
Received: Friday, July 18, 2008, 9:54 PM






Polydore Vergil is supposed to have said in his /Historia Anglica /that
Edward of Warwick "could not discern a goose from a capon". Vergil
first came to England in 1501, while Warwick was executed in 1499. The
/Historia Anglica /was written between 1505 and 1533. Obviously,
Vergil never knew Warwick; does he list his sources about the boy?

Second, what is the context on the "goose from a capon" line? I know
the line is used to claim Warwick was mentally handicapped, but is that
really what it means? Perhaps it refers not to natural incapacity, but
the end result of years of bad treatment and isolation in the Tower, or
the result of the questioning Warwick received about his attempt to
escape? Does it have nothing to due with Warwick's intelligence and
instead refers to Warwick (like many boys) having a wolfish appetite and
an undiscerning palate?

If Edward of Warwick was unintelligent, why did Richard III's other
heir, John de la Pole, die fighting for Edward's claim in 1487? Why did
Henry IV keep Edward imprisoned from 1485 to 1499 and then execute him?

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@...> wrote:
>
> Polydore Vergil is supposed to have said in his /Historia Anglica /that
> Edward of Warwick "could not discern a goose from a capon". Vergil
> first came to England in 1501, while Warwick was executed in 1499. The
> /Historia Anglica /was written between 1505 and 1533. Obviously,
> Vergil never knew Warwick; does he list his sources about the boy?
>
> Second, what is the context on the "goose from a capon" line? I know
> the line is used to claim Warwick was mentally handicapped, but is that
> really what it means? Perhaps it refers not to natural incapacity, but
> the end result of years of bad treatment and isolation in the Tower, or
> the result of the questioning Warwick received about his attempt to
> escape? Does it have nothing to due with Warwick's intelligence and
> instead refers to Warwick (like many boys) having a wolfish appetite
and
> an undiscerning palate?


I was recently rebuked for talking down to this august group when I
pointed out that just because we use the same words as the people of
the 15th century, it doesn't not necessarily follow that we understand
everything they were saying. The meaning of some word have shifted
-- fayrerose mentioned that sylly, which looks like silly but means
innocent -- and the euphemisms, slang, and contemporary references may
have been lost.

Regarding the business of Warwick not knowing a goose from a capon, my
mother-in-law once said that a man she knew couldn't tell a lemon from
a peach. By that she meant that he had poor taste in women, not that
he was an inept orchardist or that he was mentally deficient or even
that he lacked a sense of smell or had defective taste buds.

Katy




>
> If Edward of Warwick was unintelligent, why did Richard III's other
> heir, John de la Pole, die fighting for Edward's claim in 1487? Why
did
> Henry IV keep Edward imprisoned from 1485 to 1499 and then execute him?
>

oregonkaty wrote:

> I was recently rebuked for talking down to
> this august group when I pointed out that
> just because we use the same words as the
> people of the 15th century, it doesn't not
> necessarily follow that we understand
> everything they were saying.

Fine. I was going to let it go, but if you insist:

Actually, you were 'rebuked' (as you put it)
for saying: "One should be cautious about
imposing the viewpoints and standards of our time
upon another era."

In other words, they didn't think like we do. Is
there anyone on this list who didn't already know that?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

there is a full range of people on this list. from absolute neophytes to experienced academic and professional researchers.
 
so, yes there are people who are playing catch up in the knowledge of this era. most beginners are probably shy lurkers who stay in the "shadows" because they might be made to feel less than adequate for posting or questioning something on this forum. they are reading and learning.
 
may i suggest you give your eyes and finger some excerise when you come across a posting that is just too mundane. this excerise is easy, and requires little practice..you simply roll your eyes and hit your delete button. you can even involve your other hand as you slap your forehead in disbelief.
 
in theory, it's not that they didn't think like us. it is that they didn't *live* like us.
 
they had different rules/laws that governed how they behaved in any given circumstance from birth to death and *all* aspects in between.
 
my personal view is that as we explore/research this era it is like a cultural "time" exchange vs a modern country to country/ethnic cultural exchange.
 
quite simply we are all at different levels of learning. i have no problem with being mentored, or mentoring someone. the more information we share, the further and faster we all go.
 
so g'head, excerise your eyes and finger..delete this msg. but there is no need to flame or insult. it simply shuts down communication, while making others witnessing it feel uncomfortable or a need to "dogpile" with those they align or relate to. kind of like a schoolyard bullying competition.
 
i think most of us are mature adults, and for the most part are above the need for such behaviour. but, y'know it takes all kinds to make the world go round, no matter the era.
 
regards
roslyn

--- On Sat, 7/19/08, Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:

From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
Subject: Re: A goose from a capon
To:
Received: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 12:43 PM






oregonkaty wrote:

> I was recently rebuked for talking down to
> this august group when I pointed out that
> just because we use the same words as the
> people of the 15th century, it doesn't not
> necessarily follow that we understand
> everything they were saying.

Fine. I was going to let it go, but if you insist:

Actually, you were 'rebuked' (as you put it)
for saying: "One should be cautious about
imposing the viewpoints and standards of our time
upon another era."

In other words, they didn't think like we do. Is
there anyone on this list who didn't already know that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanima lrescuesite. com

When I first visited Franco's Spain I got a very fast lesson in what
it must have been like living in the Middle Ages, where a powerful
state, tied to a universal Church, ruled all aspects of life.
Fear and uncertainty were large in my Spanish friends lives.
In rural parts of the country, life was still the same as it had been
a century before, with days beginning at sunrise, ending at sundown,
and superstition still rampant.
Spain changed very fast once the old man died, and is now one of the
most progressive and liberal societies in the world.
Paul



On 19 Jul 2008, at 18:52, fayre rose wrote:

> in theory, it's not that they didn't think like us. it is that they
> didn't *live* like us.
>
> they had different rules/laws that governed how they behaved in any
> given circumstance from birth to death and *all* aspects in between.

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:.
>
> Fine. I was going to let it go, but if you insist:
>
> Actually, you were 'rebuked' (as you put it)
> for saying: "One should be cautious about
> imposing the viewpoints and standards of our time
> upon another era."
>
> In other words, they didn't think like we do. Is
> there anyone on this list who didn't already know that?


Evidently. An example crops up every week or so.

Katy

fayre rose wrote:

>polydore's volume on the reigns of h6, e4, and r3 full text at google.
>http://books.google.com/books?id=Ex8IAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=polydore
>
>btw, in polydore's first book
>http://books.google.com/books?id=mJg8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=polydore&lr=&as_brr=0#PPA321,M1
>
>
>
Thank you very much for the links.

oregonkaty wrote:

>--- In , Ed Simons
><easimons@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>I was recently rebuked for talking down to this august group when I
>pointed out that just because we use the same words as the people of
>the 15th century, it doesn't not necessarily follow that we understand
>everything they were saying.
>
How could anybody consider that talking down to people? After all, if
everybody on the list knew everything there would be no questions asked
and no need to answer them. I'm sure there's a significant number of
people on the list that didn't know that and it doesn't hurt to remind
the rest of us.

>The meaning of some word have shifted
>-- fayrerose mentioned that sylly, which looks like silly but means
>innocent -- and the euphemisms, slang, and contemporary references may
>have been lost.
>
>
Quite true. In that time words like 'charity', 'prevent', 'let',
'awful' and 'artificial' has changed meaning significantly. And it's
worse with figures of speech. I remember saying 'chewing the fat' in
front of a friend who had moved to the US at age six, tutored in English
before that, and had absolutely no accent. Her expression was
priceless, as the mental image that figure of speech conjures up is less
than pleasant and has nothing to do with what the phrase actually means.

>Regarding the business of Warwick not knowing a goose from a capon, my
>mother-in-law once said that a man she knew couldn't tell a lemon from
>a peach. By that she meant that he had poor taste in women, not that
>he was an inept orchardist or that he was mentally deficient or even
>that he lacked a sense of smell or had defective taste buds.
>
>Katy
>
>
Thank you for an excellent example. Considering that, 'not knowing a
goose from a capon' could be Virgil saying Shrewsbury was bisexual or
half-a-hundred other things. It seems Kendall and others that followed
his lead have bit rather too sure of themselves about that phrase. Even
if we find another English example of this figure of speech, we may not
be able to tell what it really means.

For that matter, it may not be an English figure of speech, since Virgil
was Italian.

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@...> wrote:
>
> oregonkaty wrote:
>
> >--- In , Ed Simons
> ><easimons@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >I was recently rebuked for talking down to this august group when I
> >pointed out that just because we use the same words as the people of
> >the 15th century, it doesn't not necessarily follow that we understand
> >everything they were saying.
> >
> How could anybody consider that talking down to people? After all, if
> everybody on the list knew everything there would be no questions asked
> and no need to answer them. I'm sure there's a significant number of
> people on the list that didn't know that and it doesn't hurt to remind
> the rest of us.


Thank you, Ed.

I recently tripped and fell over the word "immediately" in the
Tewkesbury Abby chronicle that one of the best contributors to this
forum shared with me.

The phrase was used regarding some transfers of lands from the Duke of
Clarence to the abbey, which the chronicler said were then
"immediately" exchanged with King Henry VII for another piece of
property. I was completely bamboozled, since the lives of Clarence
and Henry VII did not exactly overlap.

I figured from context (and I hope I got it right) that "immediately"
as used here, in the 15th century, meant recently relative to when the
chronicle was written, not immediately as we use the word, meaning
directly after the event, with little or no lapse of time. Quite a
difference. Misinterpreting one word like that could create an
amazing misinterpretation of the events.

A friend and I were discussing how phrases and figures of speech
linger on long after the objects or situations they refer to are
forgotten. One example was "by hook or by crook", which is used
nowdays to mean "by any means necessary" which is just about the
opposite of the original meaning. It once meant something could be
done in a strictly defined manner -- standing dead wood could be
collected from royal forests by being pulled down by a woodsman's hook
or a shepherd's crook, but it could not be cut down.

Katy

Ed Simons wrote:
>
> Polydore Vergil is supposed to have said in his /Historia Anglica
that Edward of Warwick "could not discern a goose from a capon".
Vergil first came to England in 1501, while Warwick was executed in
1499. <snip>
> Second, what is the context on the "goose from a capon" line? I
know the line is used to claim Warwick was mentally handicapped, but
is that really what it means? <snip>

Carol responds:
Forgive me for returning to an old post that other people have
responded to, but it seems to me that your questions were never fully
answered. Being American, it never occurred to me to think of geese
and capons as food as someone on this list suggested. I was thinking
of them as farm animals (well, live poultry) and the significant
points seemed to me to be that the birds are two distinct species and
different sexes (a goose is female, as distinct from a gander; a capon
is a castrated male chicken). The expression seems comparable to, say,
not knowing a mare from a ox, or, conversely, a cow from a gelding. If
I'm correct, and I can't find the etymology of the expression
anywhere, or any use of it other than Polydore Vergil's description of
Edward, Earl of Warwick (which, as you say, can only be based on
hearsay), the deduction that the expression means simple-minded or
foolish seems at least reasonable.

Ed Simons:
> If Edward of Warwick was unintelligent, why did Richard III's other
heir, John de la Pole, die fighting for Edward's claim in 1487? Why
did Henry IV keep Edward imprisoned from 1485 to 1499 and then execute
him?

Carol:
I think you mean Henry VII, who, together with his son, executed
almost anyone who had a Yorkist claim to the throne. After all,
Henry's claim was shaky and plenty of people would be happy to see any
Yorkist, even an obviously fraudulent one like Lambert Simnel, in his
place. He executed Warwick at the first opportunity, after first
making sure that he associated with Perkin Warbeck and could with at
least the pretense of plausibility be charged with treason. Also, I
think if he wanted people to believe that his predecessor, Richard
III, was a tyrant guilty of "shedding infants' blood," he dien't want
to be openly guilty of the same crime. Edward of Warwick was just ten
years old when Henry put him in the tower, hardly capable of treason
at the time regardless of his mental capacity.

As for John, Earl of Lincoln, who knew his little cousin Edward quite
well from their tiem together at Sheriff Hutton, he could have been
both his rescuer and his mentor, a protector in every sense of the
word (Lambert Simnel having been rewarded for his imposture and sent
off to school somewhere). Or Lincoln might have hoped that his own
claim as Richard's nephew and heir would be honored, with Edward of
Warwick set aside as the minor child or an attainted father, just as
he was when Richard was offered the crown. It's impossible to know.
Even Henry VII lamented that Lincoln died in the Battle of Stoke
Field, presumably because he wanted to question him, not only about
his motives but about the fate of those other two Ricardian nephews,
the so-called Princes in the tower. (Of course, being the insecure
tyrant that he was, Henry probably would have executed Lincoln afterward.)

I don't want to say any more at this point until I get a feel for the
group. I will say, though, that I'm particularly interested in
Margaret of York's motives in supporting Yorkist exiles, including her
nephew the Earl of Lincoln and Richard's friend Viscount Lovell, and
Yorkist pretenders.

Carol, hoping that it's safe to expose a bias against Henry VII in a
group devoted to Richard III!