to read

as a relatively new person to Richard III who is looking towards purchasing books about him, are there any that you would advise me to get and stay away from? thank you

as a relatively new person to Richard III who is looking towards purchasing books about him, are there any that you would advise me to get and stay away from? thank you

On Friday, July 22, 2016, 08:24, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary - David Horspool Richard III A Ruler and His Reputation Came out in October
Trouble is people believe this; see the amazon reviews! Marie would be horrified at his poor knowledge of canon law. I reckon a lot has been picked from other books and he hasn't actually read the original sources. For example, he says that Stillington conducted the marriage ceremony for E and E Butler. Oh, and Buckingham was just horrified when he discovered Richard had killed the princes 'Shock, Horror' (sorry Doug!) H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2016, 12:03
Subject: Re: to read

Who on earth wrote that rubbish about the Woodvilles Hilary?

Thanks Mary. There's a comment on the DVD of the Hollow Crown (and I rather liked Benedict Cumberbatch who was young and not unhandsome) which accuses us of 'psychobabble'. And that's presumably because of Phil Stone's comment? We do get a mention in the Horsepool book - he liked JAH's white suit. You have to be tough to be one of us :).
But can I endorse I do think Annette's little book is brilliant. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2016, 15:40
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

This is the problem. If they have not previously read any of the books based on evidence they are bound to think it is true. As for his take on Buckingham and the Princes maybe he " was there" like Amy Licence and the strawberries. Seriously though I think lots of people are jumping on the bandwagon and writing anything that they think will sell books. Thank goodness that revisonists tend to do lots of research before committing pen to paper. Ralph Fiennes has been appearing on television and on the internet promoting his version of that play and if I didn't know any better I would assume that it was the absolute truth. He looks very old and not a suitable person to portray Richard and neither does Vanessa Redgrave who plays Marguerite. You couldn't make it up- oh wait a minute Shakespeare did didn't he. Keep up the excellent work.
Mary

ÿ I joined the group because I wanted to increase my personal knowledge, which you all certainly have done for me. The request for a reading list prompted a personal response, so it wouldn't be annoying to anyone else - I never wanted anyone to think that the autosignature on my emails is anything more than informational. However, in thinking it over the last couple of days, I realized that you all may not be aware that KING'S GAMES The Commentaries contains both a narrative timeline, and Appendix B, a month-by-month timeline beginning in 1400 with Salisbury's birth. The book is actually the second section of the "Memoir" (play) book, presented primarily for actors or others who are not familiar with the history. The Commentaries are published separately for those who aren't interested in delving into the play, but are curious about Richard, Shakespeare, and other ancilliary matters. I've been assured it's a good introduction and overview for a new Richardian, supplying, as it does, a list of the people involved and their relationships. Murrey & Blue did publish a review, last year in December, which you might find of interest: http://bit.ly/1U2Ey5V. You won't see any reviews of my work on Amazon UK because (for whatever senseless reason) Amazon does not cross-publish reviews from its different domains and, so far, no one outside the U.S. has done so for either book. The only other comments available to the U.K. at the moment are from respected playwrights, on the back of both books. Just wanted you all to know. I love sitting in, here. www.NanceCrawford.com
Re: KING'S GAMES: A Memoir of Richard III http://bit.ly/1U2Ey5V
http://amzn.to/1VvKiHV ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

Thanks Mary. There's a comment on the DVD of the Hollow Crown (and I rather liked Benedict Cumberbatch who was young and not unhandsome) which accuses us of 'psychobabble'. And that's presumably because of Phil Stone's comment? We do get a mention in the Horsepool book - he liked JAH's white suit. You have to be tough to be one of us :).
But can I endorse I do think Annette's little book is brilliant. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2016, 15:40
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

This is the problem. If they have not previously read any of the books based on evidence they are bound to think it is true. As for his take on Buckingham and the Princes maybe he " was there" like Amy Licence and the strawberries. Seriously though I think lots of people are jumping on the bandwagon and writing anything that they think will sell books. Thank goodness that revisonists tend to do lots of research before committing pen to paper. Ralph Fiennes has been appearing on television and on the internet promoting his version of that play and if I didn't know any better I would assume that it was the absolute truth. He looks very old and not a suitable person to portray Richard and neither does Vanessa Redgrave who plays Marguerite. You couldn't make it up- oh wait a minute Shakespeare did didn't he. Keep up the excellent work.
Mary

as a relatively new person to Richard III who is looking towards purchasing books about him, are there any that you would advise me to get and stay away from? thank you

as a relatively new person to Richard III who is looking towards purchasing books about him, are there any that you would advise me to get and stay away from? thank you

David wrote:

"Now, I thought that - accepting for a moment that Commynes and Stillington are both accurate - such a wedding was outlawed by the 4th Lateran. Perhaps Marie could clarify that question."

Marie replies:

Sorry all, haven't been paying attention. Not exactly, is the answer to that. The Fourth Lateran Council did try to encourage people to get married in church after issue of banns in order to make sure that impediments were brought to light and to make bigamy less easy, but it did not go so far as to make clandestine marriages invalid. It did, however, expressly forbid priests to celebrate them, and the general run of clandestine marriages that came before Church courts in the 15th century had been made without any involvement of clergy; in fact I've never seen a case that involved a priest. On those grounds alone I'd take Commines' claim with a pinch of salt.

What the Church's dim view of clandestine marriages (probably also from Lateran 4 but I'd need to check) did mean is that Elizabeth Woodville's married status and the legitimacy of her children enjoyed no protection from the effects of her husband's undeclared bigamy. Had Edward and Elizabeth married publicly, such protection would have been afforded them and Edward V could not have been deposed.

On the subject of David Horspool, I actually felt he dealt well with the validity of Richard's marriage, much better obviously than Michael Hicks and considerably better than the late lamented David Baldwin, who couldn't quite bring himself to believe that Hicks could be so wrong. I have only read part of David H's book so far, and I found his treatment of the dispensation much more satisfactory than, say, his undecidedness regarding Richard's late crossing to the Low Countries in 1470. He'd looked at all the available evidence, and it all points in the same direction so I understand Anne Sutton's frustration with this, to which she alludes in her latest Ricardian article. I was getting rather fed up with the purely Hicksian interpretation of the George of Bedford issue when I got too busy for reading and put the book aside, so I don't know how he treats the precontract. It's a pity he didn't take a bit longer over his research or get more comments on his draft before publishing because he's probably the most intelligent author to have waded into the fray since the Dig and is a very gifted writer. I just don't think that people taking on the subject of Richard's life who are not already specialists in the period realise what a minefield they are entering.

Just to clarify your last point - I recall that it was only children who were born after Edward and Elizabeth married publicly that could not have been deposed? So an attempt to put the matter straight after Edward junior's birth wouldn't have worked? H

Marie here:

Nope. If they'd married publicly in the first place, with Elizabeth Woodville unaware of the bigamy, and Eleanor Butler hadn't come forward to claim her marriage and no witness to it had come forward to declare the impediment, then Elizabeth as an innocent party would have had her children's legitimacy protected in canon law (whether common law would have taken the same stance, I'm not sure). But by marrying Edward clandestinely, without giving the public a chance to come forward to disclose impediments, she was accepting the risk that she was marrying someone who was not free to marry her.

As for Edward marrying her legally later - well, there was a further canon which said that an adulterer was barred from ever marrying a woman with whom he had committed adultery. So strictly speaking Edward and Elizabeth could never have made a legal marriage.

In terms of evidence for there having been a precontract, I find it interesting that Edward didn't go through a public marriage with Elizabeth after his clandestine one had been announced. Apparently most clandestine marriages were followed up with public weddings in church. In fact, the Burgundian chronicler Wavrin was so confused by this that he mistook Elizabeth's coronation for a public marriage to the King.

Could parliament have declared King Edward's issue legitimate in common law? Of course - despite the fact that there were solid grounds in canon law for declaring Edward V and his siblings bastards (assuming the truth of the precontract story), the matter was never ruled on by a church court - it was parliament that bastardised them and therefore they were only ever declared bastards under common law. Parliament could equally have taken the opposite view. The point is that Richard/ the parliamentary representatives had a choice, and they chose the other route.

Political expediency - and for Richard his own safety - would have been a big consideration, but if you read Titulus Regius you very much see a religious way of looking at the country's ills which identified the promise of Edward IV's reign as having turned rotten at the point of, and because of, his sham marriage to Elizabeth Woodville - and that of course was a clear sign that it was irredeemably wrong. The country therefore couldn't return to a happy and healthy path until the results of that false marriage - perhaps effected by witchcraft - were undone. Now this may have been cynical spin on someone's part, but I bet you it was deeply believable to Richard and a lot of others who had had to endure exile, battle, the deaths of dear friends and family on both sides, and then, in Richard's case of course, the execution of his other brother. His only qualms would have been about whether or not it was right for him to make use of Clarence's attainder to set aside his children as well. If they were going ahead with bastardising the Woodvilles, though, I don't think he'd really have had a choice because no one would accept putting an even younger child on the throne instead.

Presumably, the same strictures would have affected the Widville “marriage” anyway, so it was either invalid through bigamy or invalid for other reasons?

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 24 July 2016 19:21
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

David wrote:

"Now, I thought that - accepting for a moment that Commynes and Stillington are both accurate - such a wedding was outlawed by the 4th Lateran. Perhaps Marie could clarify that question."

Marie replies:

Sorry all, haven't been paying attention. Not exactly, is the answer to that. The Fourth Lateran Council did try to encourage people to get married in church after issue of banns in order to make sure that impediments were brought to light and to make bigamy less easy, but it did not go so far as to make clandestine marriages invalid. It did, however, expressly forbid priests to celebrate them, and the general run of clandestine marriages that came before Church courts in the 15th century had been made without any involvement of clergy; in fact I've never seen a case that involved a priest. On those grounds alone I'd take Commines' claim with a pinch of salt.

What the Church's dim view of clandestine marriages (probably also from Lateran 4 but I'd need to check) did mean is that Elizabeth Woodville's married status and the legitimacy of her children enjoyed no protection from the effects of her husband's undeclared bigamy. Had Edward and Elizabeth married publicly, such protection would have been afforded them and Edward V could not have been deposed.

On the subject of David Horspool, I actually felt he dealt well with the validity of Richard's marriage, much better obviously than Michael Hicks and considerably better than the late lamented David Baldwin, who couldn't quite bring himself to believe that Hicks could be so wrong. I have only read part of David H's book so far, and I found his treatment of the dispensation much more satisfactory than, say, his undecidedness regarding Richard's late crossing to the Low Countries in 1470. He'd looked at all the available evidence, and it all points in the same direction so I understand Anne Sutton's frustration with this, to which she alludes in her latest Ricardian article. I was getting rather fed up with the purely Hicksian interpretation of the George of Bedford issue when I got too busy for reading and put the book aside, so I don't know how he treats the precontract. It's a pity he didn't take a bit longer over his research or get more comments on his draft before publishing because he's probably the most intelligent author to have waded into the fray since the Dig and is a very gifted writer. I just don't think that people taking on the subject of Richard's life who are not already specialists in the period realise what a minefield they are entering.

Indeed, the same rules would apply to the Woodville marriage. But I have read that it was witnessed by the bride's mother, a named priest and two ladies. I am not sure of the original source for this.

Surely, Jacquetta would be too worldly to allow her magic spells go to waste.

The lateran ban is quite specific to ceremonies where only a priest is present.

Regards

David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Presumably, the same strictures would have affected the Widville marriage anyway, so it was either invalid through bigamy or invalid for other reasons?

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 24 July 2016 19:21
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

David wrote:

"Now, I thought that - accepting for a moment that Commynes and Stillington are both accurate - such a wedding was outlawed by the 4th Lateran. Perhaps Marie could clarify that question."

Marie replies:

Sorry all, haven't been paying attention. Not exactly, is the answer to that. The Fourth Lateran Council did try to encourage people to get married in church after issue of banns in order to make sure that impediments were brought to light and to make bigamy less easy, but it did not go so far as to make clandestine marriages invalid. It did, however, expressly forbid priests to celebrate them, and the general run of clandestine marriages that came before Church courts in the 15th century had been made without any involvement of clergy; in fact I've never seen a case that involved a priest. On those grounds alone I'd take Commines' claim with a pinch of salt.

What the Church's dim view of clandestine marriages (probably also from Lateran 4 but I'd need to check) did mean is that Elizabeth Woodville's married status and the legitimacy of her children enjoyed no protection from the effects of her husband's undeclared bigamy. Had Edward and Elizabeth married publicly, such protection would have been afforded them and Edward V could not have been deposed.

On the subject of David Horspool, I actually felt he dealt well with the validity of Richard's marriage, much better obviously than Michael Hicks and considerably better than the late lamented David Baldwin, who couldn't quite bring himself to believe that Hicks could be so wrong. I have only read part of David H's book so far, and I found his treatment of the dispensation much more satisfactory than, say, his undecidedness regarding Richard's late crossing to the Low Countries in 1470. He'd looked at all the available evidence, and it all points in the same direction so I understand Anne Sutton's frustration with this, to which she alludes in her latest Ricardian article. I was getting rather fed up with the purely Hicksian interpretation of the George of Bedford issue when I got too busy for reading and put the book aside, so I don't know how he treats the precontract. It's a pity he didn't take a bit longer over his research or get more comments on his draft before publishing because he's probably the most intelligent author to have waded into the fray since the Dig and is a very gifted writer. I just don't think that people taking on the subject of Richard's life who are not already specialists in the period realise what a minefield they are entering.

Let me be clear - having a priest celebrate a clandestine marriage would not invalidate the marriage, just get the priest into trouble if he was found out. The invalidity of the Woodville marriage rests elsewhere entirely.

I'm pretty sure, David, that that the above description of the Woodville marriage comes from a Tudor source. I would personally take it with a pinch of salt because what is described there is just too proper to be credible - it would have been difficult to keep that sort of arrangement entirely secret from the Woodville household at large or the king's attendants, surely. It comes across to me as simply an attempt to make the marriage sound more respectable than it was. Titulus Regius, on the other hand, states that it took place 'in a private chamber, a profane place', and although that sounds like the opposite sort of propaganda it would actually have been much more normal for a clandestine marriage. You would expect a couple of witnesses, though, unless the bride was being really careless, because otherwise there would be no comeback if the guy turned round afterwards and tried to deny he'd ever made a commitment of marriage.

i thank you all for all the advice, there are lot of reading for me.

apologies for the late reply, i am way behind my emails

IF they were free to marry at the time of birth, a subsequent marriage would legitimise a child.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 26 July 2016 13:14
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

I agree. Most women were flattered to be a king's mistress, unless they were the daughter of the Dowager Duchess of Bedford .

Incidentally, one for Marie, if a child is conceived in an adulterous relationship but the parents marry before it's born then does it legitimise it? I'm thinking Elizabeth I here. The whole area is fraught, isn't it? H

From: "maryfriend@... []" < >
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016, 11:35
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read

I was thinking about this last night. Edward must have been aware that he should make a marriage with a foreign princess/duchess and that Warwick was negotiating for the hand of Bona of Savoy. Maybe because he had got away with marrying Eleanor and it not being discovered made him think he could get away with it again with Elizabeth . After all he was the King wasn't he ? I think that he possibly reckoned without taking account of Jacquetta. Just a thought.

Mary

Henry made it up as he went along..Church say you can't do what you want to do..change church then..

Hi Hilary again,

I've only just read your post properly! If a child was conceived in adultery then the parents couldn't marry. The Elizabeth I question is different because Henry denied the validity of his marriage to Katherine of Aragon. According to him, he had not been married to Katherine and so Mary was a bastard and Elizabeth was legitimate. According to Katherine Henry was her husband so, Mary was legitimate and Elizabeth was a bastard.

Hi Hilary,

Yes, a child conceived outside marriage but born within it was legitimate.

A child born outside marriage to two single people who later married became, on its parents' marriage, legitimate in canon law but remained a bastard under common law. I guess the common-law stance was to protect the rights of the children born within an arranged marriage as the young man would often have illegitimate children already.

To Mary: Yes indeed, I think it's very likely that Edward hadn't meant to recognise his marriage to Elizabeth but had reckoned without her ability to make trouble for him abroad. If he had meant to acknowledge the marriage then why the delay?

Just found you in my trash (again!). Nice to hear from you! H

From: "'sandramachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016, 15:20
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] to read
Simples. From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:08 PM To: Subject: Re: to read Henry made it up as he went along..Church say you can't do what you want to do..change church then..