Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

====

Ah, Karen, but Buck wrote it on April 1st...!   From: mailto:@ yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 1:13 PM To: @ yahoogroups.com Subject: Excerpts from George Buck  

   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

I knew that. Mostly he seems to have paraphrased and shortened it.

Just read in Wiki ( I know) that Buck left his History of R3 unfinished and his nephew extensively altered it and published it as his own work. That rings a bell didn't something similar happen to More's History of R3?
Mary

 I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

Doug here:

I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's speech to Parliament.

As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it meant were two different things entirely.

We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has transformed rumor into fact.

As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.

Doug

Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
   Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.

      Karen wrote:

   I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

Doug here:

I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's speech to Parliament.

As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it meant were two different things entirely.

We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has transformed rumor into fact.

As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.

Doug

Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.

Yes, by Barrie Williams in the 1982 Ricardian.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 02 April 2017 15:38
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck

This is certainly a stupid question, but has there been a study of the Portuguese side of the equation?

> On Apr 2, 2017, at 9:30 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] < > wrote:
>
> here:

Pamela wrote:
"This is certainly a stupid question, but has there been a study of the
Portuguese side of the equation?"

Doug here:
All the information I've garnered about the proposed marriages comes either
from posts here, by Maria Torres I believe, and from Annette Carson.
The Portuguese marriage is mentioned on pages 259-260 in my paperback
edition of "The Maligned King" and the source is given as a "Barrie
Williams."
Other than that, I don't know of any specific paper/monograph/book about the
Portuguese marriages, sorry.
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth, hungry for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty. Big mistake.

Karen I don't believe in Saint Richard either, these were times different to ours. But think through the logic. Yes, Richard would know that Anne was dying, but the natural choice of queen for an English king was a foreign bride - someone like Philippa of Hainault who had produced a brace of sons. Edward IV had caused chaos by choosing the wrong English wifeWhy on earth would Richard chose the illegitimate daughter of his brother? Yes, there is the theory that he pretended to favour her to make HT believe she was not an appropriate bride (which is one Philippa Gregory picks up in her novels) but there is nothing to say he intended ever to marry her. In the fifteenth century people married for dynastic reasons, not love. And there is more than a suggestion that in fact Edward never really intended his marriage to EW to be legitimised.As for Elizabeth of York, there is nothing to suggest from her portraits (unlike her mother) or her later gambling habits, that she was anything other than a rather vapid pawn. She certainly lacks the character of either her grandmother, mother, her sister or MB.But you need not go into hiding, we need to challenge everything so that when we are tested we have an answer. H


From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017, 18:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck

  Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
   Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.
On Apr 1, 2017 12:55 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        Karen wrote:    I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs. Doug here: I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's speech to Parliament. As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it meant were two different things entirely. We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal, as well as a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about Richard's and Elizabeth's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has transformed rumor into fact. As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it would have been for someone in Elizabeth's position, especially during the early months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty. Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

We KNOW from Williams' research that Richard's marriage to Joanna and Elizabeth 's to Manuel were to be simultaneous and part of the same transaction. Buck has the wrong end of the stick.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 02 April 2017 16:12
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Excerpts from George Buck

You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth , hungry for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty. Big mistake.

On Apr 1, 2017 3:24 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Karen I don't believe in Saint Richard either, these were times different to ours. But think through the logic. Yes, Richard would know that Anne was dying, but the natural choice of queen for an English king was a foreign bride - someone like Philippa of Hainault who had produced a brace of sons. Edward IV had caused chaos by choosing the wrong English wife

Why on earth would Richard chose the illegitimate daughter of his brother? Yes, there is the theory that he pretended to favour her to make HT believe she was not an appropriate bride (which is one Philippa Gregory picks up in her novels) but there is nothing to say he intended ever to marry her. In the fifteenth century people married for dynastic reasons, not love. And there is more than a suggestion that in fact Edward never really intended his marriage to EW to be legitimised.

As for Elizabeth of York, there is nothing to suggest from her portraits (unlike her mother) or her later gambling habits, that she was anything other than a rather vapid pawn. She certainly lacks the character of either her grandmother, mother, her sister or MB.

But you need not go into hiding, we need to challenge everything so that when we are tested we have an answer. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017, 18:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Excerpts from George Buck

Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true.
Miss Elizabeth the modest maiden I have some doubts about too. I just can't imagine this spectacular beauty who also didn't believe in her beauty and its power.

On Apr 1, 2017 12:55 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Karen wrote:

 I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio . You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)
2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown.
3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on. Molinet claims Elizabeth bore his child, but we will never know. I can accept that Richard could be a bastard at times. Now I will hide behind a wall to escape the bombs.

Doug here:

I see nothing contentious about points one and two; although it would be interesting to learn just where Buck got his copy of Richard's speech to Parliament.

As for the third point, Annette Carson (I believe) and Audrey Williamson, as well as several posters here, have gone into some detail about the contents of the letter that supposedly shows Elizabeth was going to marry Anne and concluded that what Buck read and what he thought it meant were two different things entirely.

We know that, while Anne was dying, inquiries were being made about a possible marriage between Richard and Princess Joanna of Portugal , as well as a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel, the cousin of the King of Portugal. No one denies that there were rumors about a marriage between Richard and Elizabeth, with Richard going on public record with a vehement denial. The most likely cause of the rumors was, IMO anyway, overheard bits and pieces about Richard's and Elizabeth 's proposed future marri=ages. Possibly related by servants as they went about their duties, or underlings not personally present at the meetings when the marriages were discussed, but with some idea of what the meetings. And, of course, Tudor propaganda since has transformed rumor into fact.

As for Molinet's claims, one only need consider how difficult it would have been for someone in Elizabeth 's position, especially during the early months of 1485, to hide a pregnancy and following birth of a child from being discovered. IOW, Molinet is merely playing to his French audience by showing how immoral the English were, up to and including they royalty.

Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I read where an ambassador said her portrait did not come close to the full extent of her beauty.

  Eileen: But where does this idea come from that EofY was a 'spectacular beauty'?    Sandra: Her diary? That's how we know Henry was so handsome.   .

On Sunday, April 2, 2017, 6:14 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Yep Sandra we know he was a handsome chap. Consumptive looking with a few blackened teeth..what's not to like?

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?

One small point. If you see EOYs wrtiting she can hardly write her name. How could she have written that letter? And it's not the sort of thing you'd dictate particularly at that time. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Sunday, April 2, 2017, 6:14 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@googlemail. com [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Yep Sandra we know he was a handsome chap.  Consumptive looking with a few blackened teeth..what's not to like?

You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth, hungry for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty. Big mistake.

Doug here:

I'm starting to have serious doubts about Sir George (or, more likely, his nephew).

Mostly because there wasn't any betrothal between HT and EoY, only a promise made by HT to marry EoY. An actual betrothal would require the consent of both parties buttressed by various legal documents, none of which, as far as I know, ever existed.

And the idea that it was so necessary for Richard to stamp on any idea of HT marrying EoY that he had to marry her himself is, frankly, ridiculous. I rather wonder if this isn't yet another example of making past events fit into what we know happened? It did turn out that EoY was of great importance to HT, as he'd likely have lost his throne had he not married her, but that wasn't true in 1485 and wasn't known by those involved. EoY only really became important after Bosworth when HT not only claimed the throne by conquest, but made the deaths of EoY's brothers official policy; thus making her the oldest heir, albeit female, of Edward IV.

And if Richard really was that fearful of HT marrying EoY, all he needed to do was find her a suitable husband; which wouldn't have been difficult. After all, marriage to a member of the royal family, even an illegitimate member, would have been a marital coup for almost any family.

FWIW, I found the following link that had quite a few copies of Buck's History for sale:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=History+Life+Reigne+Richard+Third

Some are used, but some seem to be new and the price/s didn't seem to be outrageous.

Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.

Doug here:

I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.

Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?

Doug here:

Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.

Doug

On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.

Doug here:

I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.

Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?

Doug here:

Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.

Doug

If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?

Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously.  However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.
So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.

Doug here:

I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.

Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?

Doug here:

Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.

Doug

I wouldn't like to suggest that all 15th Century women could write, but Margaret Paston certainly could, and she was a lot lower in rank than a princess.
Margaret usually apologises for writing in her own hand - for lack of a clerk. This explains a lot, I think.
I, for example, rarely write (as such) nowadays. Consequently my handwriting is absymal - it was never copperplate in the first instance - indeed, practically illegible. Yet I was educated to degree standard.
Secondly, writing in the middle ages was a messy business. Done with a quill, and with ink that you had to mix yourself. A lot harder as a mechanical task than wielding a Parker.  All too easy to get the ink on your hands, or indeed on your very expensive gown. And there were no dry cleaners back then.
So, if you were a medieval lady, you might well be able to write, but you usually wouldn't. You would employ your clerk most of the time. And when you do write, due to lack of practice your handwriting will be shaky at best. You would nevertheless be shocked if anyone suggested you were illiterate, just as I would be if anyone suggested that I am.
Brian W.

I wouldn't like to suggest that all 15th Century women could write, but Margaret Paston certainly could, and she was a lot lower in rank than a princess.

Oh no agreed..certainly not all. Even today we have young people leaving school who cannot read. I did have Margaret Paston in mind too as an example that it was just not the nobility. Luckily the Paston letters have survived as proof and of course the majority havent.

If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?

Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously.  However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.
So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert.

Doug here:

I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle.

Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal?

Doug here:

Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks.

Doug

Who was that Paul?

Right..Of course some things are so vital to keep secret they never get written down in the first place. But you never know....one of these days...

Firstly to say I'm sorry that I wrote such a brief thing about ladies and writing. I was away and writing anything lengthy on an IPhone is a pig.
What I was trying to say is that there is handwriting and writing. To actually put pen to velum in the Middle Ages was a laborious, messy (if you weren't good at it) and expensive undertaking. If you went wrong you couldn't just screw it up, throw it in the bin and start again. So it was much more sensible to get an expert to do it (cleric, attorney, scrivener) and then put your name to it, hence folk could sign their name but not do much else. We know Richard was well-schooled because of the annotations in his books, but even letters to his mother were dictated and then signed by him - given that as King he probably hadn't got much time anyway. The epitome of this of course is Napoleon would could dictate six letters simultaneously ! Until we get to Henry VIII I haven't seen a full letter in what we know is definitely the handwriting of an individual.  (Re the Paston letters, Paston was a lawyer which was useful. Do we know Margaret wrote her own or was it amanuensis again?).
I'm not saying that upper class women were uneducated, quite the opposite in a lot of cases, and they did of course 'write' to people. EW at Westminster would no doubt have had access to plenty of people who could pen her letters but if the EOY letter did exist it doesn't seem to me the sort of letter that she would dictate to someone, more likely that, as Eileen joked, someone wrote it for her. I don't buy the reference to Manuel bit, it's way too girlish and why mention the Queen dying which is rather tasteless whichever way you look at it. EOY also later signs her household accounts, but she never annotates them like the men. I don't have her as one of our scholarly queens.
I am tending more and more towards the opinion that it was written by someone (if it was written at all) to make mischief in the hope it would cause more trouble for Richard's reputation, either before of after his death. H From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 4:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck



  I think in the Tristan romance she writes her name beneath his. They put it in the middle so you wouldn't tear the page out. I guess he'd read it two or three times.
On Apr 3, 2017 9:37 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember?
On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously.  However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion.
So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:       Karen wrote:
EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert. Doug here: I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle. Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal? Doug here: Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

...Et honuré frere, vous prie chierment que vous vuillés prendre bone garde à la lettre escript de ma mayn quele je vous envoie par le porteur d'ycestes...

Firstly to say I'm sorry that I wrote such a brief thing about ladies and writing. I was away and writing anything lengthy on an IPhone is a pig. What I was trying to say is that there is handwriting and writing. To actually put pen to velum in the Middle Ages was a laborious, messy (if you weren't good at it) and expensive undertaking. If you went wrong you couldn't just screw it up, throw it in the bin and start again. So it was much more sensible to get an expert to do it (cleric, attorney, scrivener) and then put your name to it, hence folk could sign their name but not do much else. We know Richard was well-schooled because of the annotations in his books, but even letters to his mother were dictated and then signed by him - given that as King he probably hadn't got much time anyway. The epitome of this of course is Napoleon would could dictate six letters simultaneously ! Until we get to Henry VIII I haven't seen a full letter in what we know is definitely the handwriting of an individual. (Re the Paston letters, Paston was a lawyer which was useful. Do we know Margaret wrote her own or was it amanuensis again?). I'm not saying that upper class women were uneducated, quite the opposite in a lot of cases, and they did of course 'write' to people. EW at Westminster would no doubt have had access to plenty of people who could pen her letters but if the EOY letter did exist it doesn't seem to me the sort of letter that she would dictate to someone, more likely that, as Eileen joked, someone wrote it for her. I don't buy the reference to Manuel bit, it's way too girlish and why mention the Queen dying which is rather tasteless whichever way you look at it. EOY also later signs her household accounts, but she never annotates them like the men. I don't have her as one of our scholarly queens. I am tending more and more towards the opinion that it was written by someone (if it was written at all) to make mischief in the hope it would cause more trouble for Richard's reputation, either before of after his death. H From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 4:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Excerpts from George Buck


I think in the Tristan romance she writes her name beneath his. They put it in the middle so you wouldn't tear the page out. I guess he'd read it two or three times. On Apr 3, 2017 9:37 PM, "Karen O" <karenoder4@...> wrote:
If that is so why did King Richard give Elizabeth two books, one Tristan and the other I can't remember? On Apr 3, 2017 2:37 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <mailto:> wrote:
Great ladies in the fifteenth century were rarely educated to the level of men. They could probably read religious tracts but to enable someone to write meant they could communicate and that wasn't always desirable. MB was certainly an educated woman and we know she swapped books with Cis and Anne. So yes Elizabeth could crudely write her name and it is very crudely but in fact I've never even seen signatures of EW or Anne. It wasn't till the sainted More influenced Henry VIII about the education of women that it was taken very seriously. However for the majority of women and working class men writing was something discouraged until the nineteenth century because writing empowered and empowerment mean rebellion. So even though EOY had been brought up as a royal it didn't mean she had the education of her brothers or Richard whose writing is worthy of a cleric. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, April 3, 2017, 3:47 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <mailto:> wrote: Karen wrote: EoY could hardly write her name? Don't get that. John Ashdown Hill says the proposed letter is misinterpreted, that she is referring to the Portuguese marriage. I'm not getting that but I'm not an expert. Doug here: I believe the general consensus here is that the letter was about the Portuguese marriage; which certainly makes more sense than the idea that EoY ever thought she had a chance of marrying her uncle. Karen concluded:
Also could the great changing gown controversy be an elevation of Elizabeth s status due to this betrothal? Doug here: Most likely the great changing gown controversy was yet another ginned-up controversy to demonstrate how wasteful and degenerate Richard's Court was. If I understand it correctly; it wasn't uncommon during festivities such as Christmas for participants to wear dresses, for the females, and outfits, for the males, made to similar designs and from similar material. Sort of a version of a masquerade but, I believe, without any masks. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I dont doubt Buck's sincerity one bit..but his original draft was a) damaged in a fire and b) added to dramatically by his grand-nephew. This person added to the original by one half. Therefore we must look at Buck's 'History' very, very cautiously. This letter to be honest, for me, anyway dont ring true. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. There is too much doubt about this book to consider seriously thanks to the actions of Buck's selfish grand-nephew.

What did happen to John of Gloucester? Anyone know anything about this..

What did happen to John of Gloucester? Anyone know anything about this..

"I finally got Buck's book on inter library loan in Ohio. You cannot buy this book. I know this topic is not popular with Ricardians but I am brave.
1. Richard s Sonne the Prince of Wales was in London for the coronation ( I know he wasn't Prince of Wales then but Buck says he was there in a procession)"

Carol responds:

Hi, Karen. This part is a mistake. Prince Edward as we know from Rous was at Middleham and then in York for his investiture as Prince of Wales. At least one chronicler (Crowland?) mistook the York ceremony for a second coronation. Possibly that's the source of Buck's mistake.

Karen wrote:

"2. The book contains the text of Richard's speech before Parliament before he accepts the crown."

Carol responds:

Does it? Are you sure it's authentic? I don't think we have that in any contemporary source (except for some paraphrased remarks about wanting to be a good ruler that I can't precisely recall right now).

Karen wrote:

"3. Buck is an apologist of Richard but assets that the King made inquiries into divorcing Anne, wooed the Lady Elizabeth (falsely),then claimed he never had any intention of marrying her (true. He was playing games). I don't believe in Saint Richard. My gut tells me Buck is spot on."

Carol responds:

Someone else has already responded regarding the letter from Elizabeth that he recalls seeing (he's quoting from memory) and has apparently misinterpreted. Certainly, as you say, Richard never had any intention of marrying her (what could be the and he vehemently and publicly denied the rumor. But are you sure you have the original version? Buck's nephew, Sir George Buck, published a highly edited version that's less trustworthy. I don't believe in St. Richard, either, but I don't think he played games.

Carol

"Well a denial is a denial, but that is pretty meaningless to me. It shows me that the talk was pretty rampant. I just have trouble with 'Saint Richard would never do that.'
I don't know if the rumours were true but conversely we don't know that they were utterly false. Nixon denied it too but it turned out to be true."

Carol responds:

I forgot to mention that even if Richard were as self-interested as you seem to believe him to be, he would not have considered marrying his niece, not only because of the incest angle but because his claim depended on the illegitimacy of Elizabeth's brothers. To marry her, he would have had to reverse Titulus Regius. Even if you suppose that her brothers were dead at this point, *her* claim would be at least as strong as his and he would appear to be a liar and a hypocrite. So, simply put, a marriage to Elizabeth of York, his illegitimized niece, was not in his interest. Marrying a foreign princess like Joanna of Portugal of one of the Ferdinand and Isabella's daughters (an alternative proposal he was also considering) definitely was.

Carol

"You have misunderstood. I am saying according to Buck Richard was fueling the rumours himself to break up the betrothal between Elizabeth and HT. His public denial is the truth. He never intended marriage but Elizabeth, hungry for a return to her status might have fallen for it. Beautiful women are prone to believe in their beauty. Big mistake."

Carol responds:

My apologies for misunderstanding you (as others did as well). Can you quote the passage from Buck on which you're basing your speculations (or with which you're agreeing)? You don't need to quote the letter itself, with which I'm sure we're all familiar. And, again, which edition of Buck are you reading, the original or Sir George Buck's? It may or may not make a difference.

Of course, Buck (the original author) is interpreting (or misinterpreting) a letter he's quoting (is that the only evidence?), but in any case, the letter reflects only Elizabeth's point of view. Why would that lead Buck to think that Richard himself would pretend to be interested in a marriage that would only hurt him? He had already promised to find good husbands for EW's daughters--" And such gentlemen as shall hap to marry with them, I shall straitly charge lovingly to love and entreat them as wives and my kinswomen . . . ."--and, of course, Duke Manuel of Portugal was more than a mere gentleman.

Certainly, he didn't fuel the rumors, which were not at all in his interest--unless the public denial hurt more than it helped.

I do agree that Elizabeth herself, far from loathing the uncle who had supposedly murdered her brothers (as Tudor propaganda in the form of post-Bosworth ballads would have us believe) may have had a bit of a crush on her young uncle. She did keep a book that he had given her and put her signature and motto under his. But her crush, if indeed she had one, has nothing whatever to do with his feelings for her or his fueling rumors spread by his enemies (who may have feared that he would marry EoY to thwart Tudor, whose weak claim might have benefited in a way that Richard's strong one, clearly outlined in Titulus Regius, would not have).

Sorry if this post is incoherent. Interrupted several times by visitors with children and now by a ringing bell.

Carol

Well ladies were sewn into their gowns in those days so I expect, yes a gown could fit several shapes. As to the length...well that might prove a problem although of course the gowns were long too but It would have been impractical, and dangerous, for a gown to be so long that you could have constantly tripped over. I do believe some sort of dress changing went on and the fabrics were maybe similar. But Croyland is really over egging the pudding here implying an awful lot. If Richard was hankering after EoY and wanting to make her his wife and IF the dress changes fabrics etc, were symbolic of that he was hardly going to do that in front of his wife and the whole court was he? People should remember Anne was a Neville and the daughter of the Kingmaker..people up north were not going to take to it to kindly if Richard was humiliating her openly. He was trying to win hearts not hatred. I believe a man like Richard, from what we know of him, would have had a lot of respect for his wife and her lineage and treated her as such. Croyland was just being nasty, spiteful and a bit naughty.

Eileen wrote:

"The great gown changing question..the only source we have for that is  Good Old Croyland having his usual dig at Richard....what a total  old misery guts and anything to blacken Richard's name.  Probably just Anne and Elizabeth having a bit of harmless fun."
  Sandra:   Just a thought, but the portraits we have of Elizabeth of York show her to be a wee bit embonpoint. OK, maybe she became so after childbirth (don't a huge number of us?) but maybe she was that way inclined anyway. She was EIV's daughter, after all, and took after him, not EW. We are also stuck with an image of Anne Neville as being slender, probably to the point of being too thin because of ill health. Anyway, if the gown-swapping story is true, surely they had to be more or less the same size? So, which was it? Willowy? Or curvy?   Don't tell me the gowns were so loose and adaptable that anyone from a Size 6 to Size 32 could wear them!