Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much

Hello all,

Being that I can't find anything online (anything trustworthy, at any rate) that would provide further information on this subject, I was wondering if anyone knew offhand if Lizzykins was in the habit of travelling with Eddiekins during their marriage? (Especially during Edward's trip to York in September of 1478?)

I get the impression that she didn't, though I've nothing on which to base this feeling.

Anything you could tell me will be greatly appreciated. :-)

Tamara

Tamara wrote:

"Being that I can't find anything online (anything trustworthy, at any rate) that would provide further information on this subject, I was wondering if anyone knew offhand if Lizzykins was in the habit of travelling with Eddiekins during their marriage? (Especially during Edward's trip to York in September of 1478?) I get the impression that she didn't, though I've nothing on which to base this feeling."


Carol responds:

One consideration might be her frequent pregnancies (though evidently similar circumstances didn't prevent her mother-in-law, Cecily, from following Duke Richard around). We know that EW's first son by Edward was born in sanctuary at Westminster Abbey and the second apparently at Shrewsbury. You can probably find the birthplaces of at least some of the other children online.

By the way, everyone, the York brothers' infamous ancestor, King John, is now one of the Lives of the Week if anyone is interested: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html As previously indicated, these lives are posted only for a week, so if you live outside the UK and don't have a subscription to the New DNB, you may want to copy it for your files.

Carol

Thanks, Carol.
I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.)
The impression I get is that she didn't dare stray much from London, regardless of where Ed IV went, as she wanted to be on top of all the gossip and intrigue.
Tamara

I believe that Greenwich was her favourite palace..both Anne Mowbray and La Woodville's daughter Mary died at Greenwich which makes you wonder if both these young girls were living there then possibly Elizabeth would have been in residence there and quite a lot too,,,,just a thought. Of course this doesn't help your original question Tamara because we don't know how often Edward was there too,,,,
Off on a tangent...if this was indeed EW favourite residence it makes her ending up in Bermondsey more strange ..surely there was enough palaces to go around to enable her to live out her days in one of them namely Greenwich,
Interestingly Mary died the week before Whit Sunday May 1482. Her father was at Canterbury on 17th May and back in London on 23 May...according to Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs - The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor - it's possible he visited his dying daughter in between these dates...considering how close to death Mary was it seems a bit callous he didn't stay around until the end...Eileen

---In , <khafara@...> wrote :

Thanks, Carol.
I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.)
The impression I get is that she didn't dare stray much from London, regardless of where Ed IV went, as she wanted to be on top of all the gossip and intrigue.
Tamara

Tamara wrote:I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.)
Somehow I recall this too. I think it may have been the Baldwin book about Richard of Shrewsbury ending up as Richard of Eastwell. Anyway, it does seem that Richard was kept close to home, and his wardrobe accounts suggest he may have been a bit more pampered than Edward, whose life at Ludlow was spartan by comparison. Also, Edward's environment was male dominated, whereas Richard's was female dominated with EW and all those sisters. I wonder how they got on in the Tower, as they probably had little in common and had only seen each other on a handful of occasions.
A similar pattern was repeated with Arthur and Henry VIII. Arthur was at Winchester with Henry being a mummy's boy kept close to his parents. It has made me wonder if Elizabeth of York was comfortable with the arrangement, given what happened to Edward V, but then perhaps she knew what happened to him was not as sinister as we have been led to believe.
Nico








On Wednesday, 17 June 2015, 10:50, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


I believe that Greenwich was her favourite palace..both Anne Mowbray and La Woodville's daughter Mary died at Greenwich which makes you wonder if both these young girls were living there then possibly Elizabeth would have been in residence there and quite a lot too,,,,just a thought. Of course this doesn't help your original question Tamara because we don't know how often Edward was there too,,,,
Off on a tangent...if this was indeed EW favourite residence it makes her ending up in Bermondsey more strange ..surely there was enough palaces to go around to enable her to live out her days in one of them namely Greenwich,
Interestingly Mary died the week before Whit Sunday May 1482. Her father was at Canterbury on 17th May and back in London on 23 May...according to Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs - The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor - it's possible he visited his dying daughter in between these dates...considering how close to death Mary was it seems a bit callous he didn't stay around until the end...Eileen

---In , <khafara@...> wrote :

Thanks, Carol.
I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.)
The impression I get is that she didn't dare stray much from London, regardless of where Ed IV went, as she wanted to be on top of all the gossip and intrigue.
Tamara

If Elizabeth of York believed any ill of Richard, she had ample opportunity to say so, and I'm sure Henry would have applauded her. But she didn't. Nor did her sisters. So yes, Nico, I think they all knew Richard was innocent of wrongdoing. As did Henry, of course. Louse that he was. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:16 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Tamara wrote:I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.) Somehow I recall this too. I think it may have been the Baldwin book about Richard of Shrewsbury ending up as Richard of Eastwell. Anyway, it does seem that Richard was kept close to home, and his wardrobe accounts suggest he may have been a bit more pampered than Edward, whose life at Ludlow was spartan by comparison. Also, Edward's environment was male dominated, whereas Richard's was female dominated with EW and all those sisters. I wonder how they got on in the Tower, as they probably had little in common and had only seen each other on a handful of occasions. A similar pattern was repeated with Arthur and Henry VIII. Arthur was at Winchester with Henry being a mummy's boy kept close to his parents. It has made me wonder if Elizabeth of York was comfortable with the arrangement, given what happened to Edward V, but then perhaps she knew what happened to him was not as sinister as we have been led to believe. Nico



On Wednesday, 17 June 2015, 10:50, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


I believe that Greenwich was her favourite palace..both Anne Mowbray and La Woodville's daughter Mary died at Greenwich which makes you wonder if both these young girls were living there then possibly Elizabeth would have been in residence there and quite a lot too,,,,just a thought. Of course this doesn't help your original question Tamara because we don't know how often Edward was there too,,,, Off on a tangent...if this was indeed EW favourite residence it makes her ending up in Bermondsey more strange ..surely there was enough palaces to go around to enable her to live out her days in one of them namely Greenwich, Interestingly Mary died the week before Whit Sunday May 1482. Her father was at Canterbury on 17th May and back in London on 23 May...according to Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs - The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor - it's possible he visited his dying daughter in between these dates...considering how close to death Mary was it seems a bit callous he didn't stay around until the end...Eileen

---In , <khafara@...> wrote :

Thanks, Carol. I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.) The impression I get is that she didn't dare stray much from London, regardless of where Ed IV went, as she wanted to be on top of all the gossip and intrigue. Tamara

Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes.
Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible!

JessFrom: 'Sandra J Machin' sandramachin@... []
Sent: 17/06/2015 12:40
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

If Elizabeth of York believed any ill of Richard, she had ample opportunity to say so, and I'm sure Henry would have applauded her. But she didn't. Nor did her sisters. So yes, Nico, I think they all knew Richard was innocent of wrongdoing. As did Henry, of course. Louse that he was. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:16 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Tamara wrote:I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.) Somehow I recall this too. I think it may have been the Baldwin book about Richard of Shrewsbury ending up as Richard of Eastwell. Anyway, it does seem that Richard was kept close to home, and his wardrobe accounts suggest he may have been a bit more pampered than Edward, whose life at Ludlow was spartan by comparison. Also, Edward's environment was male dominated, whereas Richard's was female dominated with EW and all those sisters. I wonder how they got on in the Tower, as they probably had little in common and had only seen each other on a handful of occasions. A similar pattern was repeated with Arthur and Henry VIII. Arthur was at Winchester with Henry being a mummy's boy kept close to his parents. It has made me wonder if Elizabeth of York was comfortable with the arrangement, given what happened to Edward V, but then perhaps she knew what happened to him was not as sinister as we have been led to believe. Nico



On Wednesday, 17 June 2015, 10:50, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


I believe that Greenwich was her favourite palace..both Anne Mowbray and La Woodville's daughter Mary died at Greenwich which makes you wonder if both these young girls were living there then possibly Elizabeth would have been in residence there and quite a lot too,,,,just a thought. Of course this doesn't help your original question Tamara because we don't know how often Edward was there too,,,, Off on a tangent...if this was indeed EW favourite residence it makes her ending up in Bermondsey more strange ..surely there was enough palaces to go around to enable her to live out her days in one of them namely Greenwich, Interestingly Mary died the week before Whit Sunday May 1482. Her father was at Canterbury on 17th May and back in London on 23 May...according to Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs - The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor - it's possible he visited his dying daughter in between these dates...considering how close to death Mary was it seems a bit callous he didn't stay around until the end...Eileen

---In , <khafara@...> wrote :

Thanks, Carol. I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.) The impression I get is that she didn't dare stray much from London, regardless of where Ed IV went, as she wanted to be on top of all the gossip and intrigue. Tamara

I find it interesting that documents were shredded. Why? If they proved Richard was a bad king or had murdered the princes then it would be marvellous evidence. What if what is left to us is selective and leads us down a particular path? Where was EW at the time of Bosworth, where was Cis? There has to be a window between HT's forces winning Bosworth and reaching London (HT I recall went to Guildford to see MB). Is it possible that the boys never left the Tower but were spirited away by EW and the City (who loved Edward) before London was secured by the new regime? And when HT's forces arrived they were completely perplexed. There is so much scurrying abroad by Yorkist servants in the next decade that I, a sceptic for a long time, am beginning to think there was something out there and for quite some time too. H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2015, 13:53
Subject: RE: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes.
Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible!

Jess

From: 'Sandra J Machin' sandramachin@... []
Sent: 17/06/2015 12:40
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

If Elizabeth of York believed any ill of Richard, she had ample opportunity to say so, and I'm sure Henry would have applauded her. But she didn't. Nor did her sisters. So yes, Nico, I think they all knew Richard was innocent of wrongdoing. As did Henry, of course. Louse that he was. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:16 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much? Tamara wrote:I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.) Somehow I recall this too. I think it may have been the Baldwin book about Richard of Shrewsbury ending up as Richard of Eastwell. Anyway, it does seem that Richard was kept close to home, and his wardrobe accounts suggest he may have been a bit more pampered than Edward, whose life at Ludlow was spartan by comparison. Also, Edward's environment was male dominated, whereas Richard's was female dominated with EW and all those sisters. I wonder how they got on in the Tower, as they probably had little in common and had only seen each other on a handful of occasions. A similar pattern was repeated with Arthur and Henry VIII. Arthur was at Winchester with Henry being a mummy's boy kept close to his parents. It has made me wonder if Elizabeth of York was comfortable with the arrangement, given what happened to Edward V, but then perhaps she knew what happened to him was not as sinister as we have been led to believe. Nico



On Wednesday, 17 June 2015, 10:50, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


I believe that Greenwich was her favourite palace..both Anne Mowbray and La Woodville's daughter Mary died at Greenwich which makes you wonder if both these young girls were living there then possibly Elizabeth would have been in residence there and quite a lot too,,,,just a thought. Of course this doesn't help your original question Tamara because we don't know how often Edward was there too,,,, Off on a tangent...if this was indeed EW favourite residence it makes her ending up in Bermondsey more strange ..surely there was enough palaces to go around to enable her to live out her days in one of them namely Greenwich, Interestingly Mary died the week before Whit Sunday May 1482. Her father was at Canterbury on 17th May and back in London on 23 May...according to Anne F Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs - The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor - it's possible he visited his dying daughter in between these dates...considering how close to death Mary was it seems a bit callous he didn't stay around until the end...Eileen

---In , <khafara@...> wrote :

Thanks, Carol. I remember reading somewhere (of course, I didn't write it down) that Richard of Shrewsbury never left her side, which I find hard to believe, especially as Elizabeth had no problem with sending RoS' brother Edward off to his own court in Ludlow near Wales, with Woodvilles in firm control of his upbringing, almost before he'd finished teething. (Then, again, maybe it might have been precisely because her son Edward was so far away that she kept her younger boy Richard by her side at all times.) The impression I get is that she didn't dare stray much from London, regardless of where Ed IV went, as she wanted to be on top of all the gossip and intrigue. Tamara

very good points Jan....it makes no sense...EW, EoY, Cicely Neville I especially find puzzling. EW , the mother, making her peace with Richard and telling her son Grey to come back to England..all will be well..why did she never make a mention as far as we know of her missing sons? Cicely Neville ..the grandmother...not one word...and EoY...the sister..what of her? Mixed feelings maybe,,after all if one or other of them turned up it would be likely she would be a widow, turfed of the throne and her sons in danger...awkward...very, very awkward. Eileen

Cicely Neville welcomed Richard back into her home, and seems to have been supportive of him.
I can't imagine how I would feel if one of my daughters killed two of the other daughter's children.
I certainly can't see myself welcoming them home with open arms.
I know it was different days and different ways, but even so how many of us then or now would just write off the deaths of our grandchildren?
It truly doesn't make sense to me.

JessFrom: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: 17/06/2015 14:34
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

very good points Jan....it makes no sense...EW, EoY, Cicely Neville I especially find puzzling. EW , the mother, making her peace with Richard and telling her son Grey to come back to England..all will be well..why did she never make a mention as far as we know of her missing sons? Cicely Neville ..the grandmother...not one word...and EoY...the sister..what of her? Mixed feelings maybe,,after all if one or other of them turned up it would be likely she would be a widow, turfed of the throne and her sons in danger...awkward...very, very awkward. Eileen

Sandra wrote:

"If Elizabeth of York believed any ill of Richard, she had ample opportunity to say so, and I'm sure Henry would have applauded her. But she didn't. Nor did her sisters. So yes, Nico, I think they all knew Richard was innocent of wrongdoing. As did Henry, of course. Louse that he was."

Carol responds:

I agree. To me, the big clue that all the sisters knew he was innocent is that Cecily, when she was finally free of the court, named her son Richard. I doubt that he was named after her little brother, though of course that's possible, and it's even less likely that she named him after the grandfather she never knew. Historians have ignored that detail, but I think it's important. (I like to think that her daughter Margaret was named after Margaret of York rather than MB, whose supposedly close relationship with Cecily strikes me as Tudor propaganda, but it's impossible to say. Still, if she were naming a daughter after MB, why not do it while she was at court married to Viscount Welles? Instead, she named those daughters Elizabeth and Anne, presumably after her sisters [and/or her mother in the case of Elizabeth].)

But the idea of her naming her son Richard if she believed that her uncle Richard had killed her brothers strikes me as highly improbable.

Carol

What an excellent point, Carol.
Really, if you know someone who is horrible, it really does put you off their name, because of the unpleasant association of ideas.
None of this makes emotional sense if the family really believed that Richard killed the princes.
It seems to me that there was a cover up to effectively suppress what really happened.
By who?
Goodness knows!

JessFrom: justcarol67@... []
Sent: 17/06/2015 18:17
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Sandra wrote:

"If Elizabeth of York believed any ill of Richard, she had ample opportunity to say so, and I'm sure Henry would have applauded her. But she didn't. Nor did her sisters. So yes, Nico, I think they all knew Richard was innocent of wrongdoing. As did Henry, of course. Louse that he was."

Carol responds:

I agree. To me, the big clue that all the sisters knew he was innocent is that Cecily, when she was finally free of the court, named her son Richard. I doubt that he was named after her little brother, though of course that's possible, and it's even less likely that she named him after the grandfather she never knew. Historians have ignored that detail, but I think it's important. (I like to think that her daughter Margaret was named after Margaret of York rather than MB, whose supposedly close relationship with Cecily strikes me as Tudor propaganda, but it's impossible to say. Still, if she were naming a daughter after MB, why not do it while she was at court married to Viscount Welles? Instead, she named those daughters Elizabeth and Anne, presumably after her sisters [and/or her mother in the case of Elizabeth].)

But the idea of her naming her son Richard if she believed that her uncle Richard had killed her brothers strikes me as highly improbable.

Carol

Jess wrote:
Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes. Doug here: That, I think, sums up the situation very nicely. The whole situation only makes sense if one begins with the premise that EW trusted Richard. And it's because that premise goes against almost every history ever written that we have this cognizant dissonance (another one I've always wanted to use!) about the reactions, or lack of them, by EW once she'd been freed from of the horrors that was Richard's reign. There weren't any reactions because what's in the histories is nothing more than propaganda aimed at providing a reason for Tudor's treason. Of course, while Henry and the other Tudors occupied the throne, it couldn't be called what it was, but that's no excuse for those historians that followed! Jess concluded: Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible! Doug here: Much (all?) of the problem with any history of Richard is found in your phrase Nothing that we know explains... because so much of what we know isn't based on facts, but rather on what was either believed to have occurred or what the official position on events was. That's not history. Doug

It seems to me that so much actual written evidence was destroyed.
The almost complete destruction of "Titulus Regius" is so suspicious.
Why?
What other paperwork was destroyed?
We don't have enough evidence to make sense of this.
It just doesn't hang together on a psychological level with what written evidence survives.
I am completely averse to conspiracy theories, but in this case something was almost certainly going on.
Oh for that tardis=?

JessFrom: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18/06/2015 17:11
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Jess wrote:
Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes. Doug here: That, I think, sums up the situation very nicely. The whole situation only makes sense if one begins with the premise that EW trusted Richard. And it's because that premise goes against almost every history ever written that we have this cognizant dissonance (another one I've always wanted to use!) about the reactions, or lack of them, by EW once she'd been freed from of the horrors that was Richard's reign. There weren't any reactions because what's in the histories is nothing more than propaganda aimed at providing a reason for Tudor's treason. Of course, while Henry and the other Tudors occupied the throne, it couldn't be called what it was, but that's no excuse for those historians that followed! Jess concluded: Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible! Doug here: Much (all?) of the problem with any history of Richard is found in your phrase Nothing that we know explains... because so much of what we know isn't based on facts, but rather on what was either believed to have occurred or what the official position on events was. That's not history. Doug

There is on record testimony that Polydore Vergil had bonfires for documents while 'researching' his history for Tudor.
Paul


On 18/06/2015 22:21, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
It seems to me that so much actual written evidence was destroyed.
The almost complete destruction of "Titulus Regius" is so suspicious.
Why?
What other paperwork was destroyed?
We don't have enough evidence to make sense of this.
It just doesn't hang together on a psychological level with what written evidence survives.
I am completely averse to conspiracy theories, but in this case something was almost certainly going on.
Oh for that tardis=?

Jess From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18/06/2015 17:11
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

 

    Jess wrote:
Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes.   Doug here: That, I think, sums up the situation very nicely. The whole situation only makes sense if one begins with the premise that EW trusted Richard. And it's because that premise goes against almost every history ever written that we have this cognizant dissonance (another one I've always wanted to use!) about the reactions, or lack of them, by EW once she'd been freed from of the horrors that was Richard's reign. There weren't any reactions because what's in the histories is nothing more than propaganda aimed at providing a reason for Tudor's treason. Of course, while Henry and the other Tudors occupied the throne, it couldn't be called what it was, but that's no excuse for those historians that followed!   Jess concluded: Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible!   Doug here: Much (all?) of the problem with any history of Richard is found in your phrase Nothing that we know explains... because so much of what we know isn't based on facts, but rather on what was either believed to have occurred or what the official position on events was. That's not history. Doug

Jan wrote:
It seems to me that so much actual written evidence was destroyed.
The almost complete destruction of "Titulus Regius" is so suspicious.
Why?
What other paperwork was destroyed?
We don't have enough evidence to make sense of this.
It just doesn't hang together on a psychological level with what written evidence survives.
I am completely averse to conspiracy theories, but in this case something was almost certainly going on.
Oh for that tardis=? Doug here:
The suppression of Richard's Titulus Regius was, IMO, mainly because Henry couldn't refute its' contents and if the contents were true, then Henry's marriage to EoY wouldn't unite the Houses of York and Lancaster as neither participant was the legitimate heir of their respective House. If the contents were true, either the Earl of Lincoln or the Earl of Warwick was the legitimate Yorkist heir; depending on one's views about Clarence's Attainder. As for the House of Lancaster, its closest legitimate heirs were the members of the Portugese, and I believe Castilian as well, ruling Houses. Conversely, if the contents of Titulus Regius were false, then, yes, EoY was legitimate, but so were her brothers  and Henry didn't know what had happened to them. So, rather than opening the can of worms that an official refutation of Titulus Regius would result in, Henry took the simplest way and had the Act suppressed unread. The idea that Henry wanted to spare the feelings of his wife and mother-in-law are, to put it mildly, laughable. Why, until recently anyway, no well-known historian worthy of the name questioned Henry's actions in regard to the suppression of Titulus Regius is beyond me! The only reason I can imagine for a historian not to inquire into Titulus Regius is the idea that the writing of History was supposed to provide a moral story for the betterment of the reader and what kind of morality would an honest, factually accurate telling of Henry Tudor's climb to the throne of England promote? Would you want your children to read such a story? Really? Which, unfortunately, would also help to explain the disappearance of inconvenient bits of parchment and paper as mentioned by Paul in his post. At the very best, Vergil was unforgivably irresponsible in his treatment of official documents, and at the worst simply got rid of documents that didn't fit in with the version of history he was writing for the Tudors. Later generations, should something be found that contradicted the official history that everyone just knew was what had really, truly happened; well, it obviously was false and didn't need to be kept (What could old Sir X have been thinking? Obviously rubbish, out it goes!) I also understand that paper makes marvelous nesting material for rodents and that there's some nutritional value in parchment. Add to that the destruction the passage of time by itself can cause and there we are! Doug who's really miffed one can't purchase a TARDIS via the Dr. Who site...

Couple of things: 1. Surely the only evidence you'd destroy would be that which damaged HT/MB? If it damaged Richard (or Edward) then you'd brandish it as justification like a PM recently brandished a note from his predecessors saying we were bankrupt? So anything which proved Richard had disposed of the princes would be nectar. I suppose there is the possibility that it was foreign correspondence regarding HT's intentions, or reports of the spymasters (I understand Edward was good at using women for this):) 2. It's difficult to judge the reactions of the HOY women because they were living in 'occupied territory' In such a case you're forced to go underground and use the resistance - which Cis almost certainly did. And all had experienced tragedy before, even EW who had lost her father and brother in violent circumstances. It sort of went with the job in those days. H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015, 22:21
Subject: RE: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

It seems to me that so much actual written evidence was destroyed.
The almost complete destruction of "Titulus Regius" is so suspicious.
Why?
What other paperwork was destroyed?
We don't have enough evidence to make sense of this.
It just doesn't hang together on a psychological level with what written evidence survives.
I am completely averse to conspiracy theories, but in this case something was almost certainly going on.
Oh for that tardis=?

Jess

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18/06/2015 17:11
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Jess wrote:
Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes. Doug here: That, I think, sums up the situation very nicely. The whole situation only makes sense if one begins with the premise that EW trusted Richard. And it's because that premise goes against almost every history ever written that we have this cognizant dissonance (another one I've always wanted to use!) about the reactions, or lack of them, by EW once she'd been freed from of the horrors that was Richard's reign. There weren't any reactions because what's in the histories is nothing more than propaganda aimed at providing a reason for Tudor's treason. Of course, while Henry and the other Tudors occupied the throne, it couldn't be called what it was, but that's no excuse for those historians that followed! Jess concluded: Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible! Doug here: Much (all?) of the problem with any history of Richard is found in your phrase Nothing that we know explains... because so much of what we know isn't based on facts, but rather on what was either believed to have occurred or what the official position on events was. That's not history. Doug

Hilary, but would you not destroy evidence that supported Richard's claim to the throne, and showed that he was perfectly justified in taking the action that he did.
Anything that showed HT as an invading usurper would be well worth destroying.

As to the reactions of the women, it was a different time, and things were seen in a different way, but do basic emotions like grief, loss, bitterness and jealousy really change?
Society changes its attitudes to things, but basic human nature, I am not sure that ever changes.
JessFrom: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 20/06/2015 08:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV andElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Couple of things: 1. Surely the only evidence you'd destroy would be that which damaged HT/MB? If it damaged Richard (or Edward) then you'd brandish it as justification like a PM recently brandished a note from his predecessors saying we were bankrupt? So anything which proved Richard had disposed of the princes would be nectar. I suppose there is the possibility that it was foreign correspondence regarding HT's intentions, or reports of the spymasters (I understand Edward was good at using women for this):) 2. It's difficult to judge the reactions of the HOY women because they were living in 'occupied territory' In such a case you're forced to go underground and use the resistance - which Cis almost certainly did. And all had experienced tragedy before, even EW who had lost her father and brother in violent circumstances. It sort of went with the job in those days. H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015, 22:21
Subject: RE: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

It seems to me that so much actual written evidence was destroyed.
The almost complete destruction of "Titulus Regius" is so suspicious.
Why?
What other paperwork was destroyed?
We don't have enough evidence to make sense of this.
It just doesn't hang together on a psychological level with what written evidence survives.
I am completely averse to conspiracy theories, but in this case something was almost certainly going on.
Oh for that tardis=?

Jess

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18/06/2015 17:11
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Jess wrote:
Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes. Doug here: That, I think, sums up the situation very nicely. The whole situation only makes sense if one begins with the premise that EW trusted Richard. And it's because that premise goes against almost every history ever written that we have this cognizant dissonance (another one I've always wanted to use!) about the reactions, or lack of them, by EW once she'd been freed from of the horrors that was Richard's reign. There weren't any reactions because what's in the histories is nothing more than propaganda aimed at providing a reason for Tudor's treason. Of course, while Henry and the other Tudors occupied the throne, it couldn't be called what it was, but that's no excuse for those historians that followed! Jess concluded: Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible! Doug here: Much (all?) of the problem with any history of Richard is found in your phrase Nothing that we know explains... because so much of what we know isn't based on facts, but rather on what was either believed to have occurred or what the official position on events was. That's not history. Doug

Hi Jess, I think TR was a bit different. For one thing the current generation knew about it and secondly Richard's entitlement was hardly an issue as HT took the throne by conquest (who had better entitlement than Richard II). As has been said before, by destroying or repealing TR, HT was just restoring the entitlement of other members of the House of York, including down the line, his wife. And although it was probably nicer to have her as legitimate he went out of his way to say the Crown was his, not hers. I was actually thinking of documents which clearly incriminated supporters of HT for a start. Think of the dossier on MB, Morton and Reggie Bray; and then of course we get to the Courtenays, the Hungerfords and many of the so-called discontented traitors who had flocked to HT in Brittany. Let alone the true story of Buckingham's allegiances.
As for the women, I'm not saying they didn't have emotions, merely that then was not the time or place to show them. And both EW and Cis for a start were consummate politicians. Hope this clarifies it. H From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 20 June 2015, 11:47
Subject: RE: Re: Edward IV andElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Hilary, but would you not destroy evidence that supported Richard's claim to the throne, and showed that he was perfectly justified in taking the action that he did.
Anything that showed HT as an invading usurper would be well worth destroying.

As to the reactions of the women, it was a different time, and things were seen in a different way, but do basic emotions like grief, loss, bitterness and jealousy really change?
Society changes its attitudes to things, but basic human nature, I am not sure that ever changes.
Jess

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 20/06/2015 08:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV andElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Couple of things: 1. Surely the only evidence you'd destroy would be that which damaged HT/MB? If it damaged Richard (or Edward) then you'd brandish it as justification like a PM recently brandished a note from his predecessors saying we were bankrupt? So anything which proved Richard had disposed of the princes would be nectar. I suppose there is the possibility that it was foreign correspondence regarding HT's intentions, or reports of the spymasters (I understand Edward was good at using women for this):) 2. It's difficult to judge the reactions of the HOY women because they were living in 'occupied territory' In such a case you're forced to go underground and use the resistance - which Cis almost certainly did. And all had experienced tragedy before, even EW who had lost her father and brother in violent circumstances. It sort of went with the job in those days. H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015, 22:21
Subject: RE: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

It seems to me that so much actual written evidence was destroyed.
The almost complete destruction of "Titulus Regius" is so suspicious.
Why?
What other paperwork was destroyed?
We don't have enough evidence to make sense of this.
It just doesn't hang together on a psychological level with what written evidence survives.
I am completely averse to conspiracy theories, but in this case something was almost certainly going on.
Oh for that tardis=?

Jess

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18/06/2015 17:11
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV and ElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Jess wrote:
Unless, of course, if none of them knew what had happened to the princes. Doug here: That, I think, sums up the situation very nicely. The whole situation only makes sense if one begins with the premise that EW trusted Richard. And it's because that premise goes against almost every history ever written that we have this cognizant dissonance (another one I've always wanted to use!) about the reactions, or lack of them, by EW once she'd been freed from of the horrors that was Richard's reign. There weren't any reactions because what's in the histories is nothing more than propaganda aimed at providing a reason for Tudor's treason. Of course, while Henry and the other Tudors occupied the throne, it couldn't be called what it was, but that's no excuse for those historians that followed! Jess concluded: Whatever physical evidence there is, (not much to none), it is all psychologically and emotionally very strange.
Nothing that we know explains the reactions of any of the family members or the way they acted.
I know that "the past is another country, they do things differently there," but even though that is correct I am not sure that basic human nature has changed much in millenia.
In view of this, the behaviour of the people involved in the disappearance of the princes is incomprehensible! Doug here: Much (all?) of the problem with any history of Richard is found in your phrase Nothing that we know explains... because so much of what we know isn't based on facts, but rather on what was either believed to have occurred or what the official position on events was. That's not history. Doug

Hilary wrote :

"I think TR was a bit different. For one thing the current generation knew about it and secondly Richard's entitlement was hardly an issue as HT took the throne by conquest (who had better entitlement than Richard II)."

Carol responds:

Even so, destroying Richard's (entirely legitimate) claim made Henry look like less of a usurper. Otherwise, I agree with your post.

Carol

I agree entirely Carol. Anything which made HT look/feel better could not be ignored. After all he had to live with the conscience of having killed an annointed king. H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 June 2015, 20:39
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV andElizabethWoodville: Did she travel with him very much?

Hilary wrote :

"I think TR was a bit different. For one thing the current generation knew about it and secondly Richard's entitlement was hardly an issue as HT took the throne by conquest (who had better entitlement than Richard II)."

Carol responds:

Even so, destroying Richard's (entirely legitimate) claim made Henry look like less of a usurper. Otherwise, I agree with your post.

Carol