Richard III Research and Discussion Archive
Re: What are the better books that argue that Richard III killed hi
2002-10-27 01:06:01
Hi (is it tim? No signature)
This is Gloria, jumping in. As I said, I have just started reading
Alison Weir, but that is the impression I already am getting - that she
has formed her opinion already and won't budge from it. I would be
interested to know the full names of the authors you mention - Hicks,
Seward - and the titles of their books so that I can try to find them.
And what is the book by Charles Ross? As you can see, I am a novice at
this - I did read Paul Murray Kendall's biography of R3 years and years
ago, and liked it very much. But I keep reading that it's now largely
discredited, is that true?
Gloria
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:39:45 -0000 tmc_dale <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
writes:
Dora,
Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that no
reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in because
no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against it.
Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and sticks
with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I for
one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and hisses
somewhere off in the distance <g>.
This is Gloria, jumping in. As I said, I have just started reading
Alison Weir, but that is the impression I already am getting - that she
has formed her opinion already and won't budge from it. I would be
interested to know the full names of the authors you mention - Hicks,
Seward - and the titles of their books so that I can try to find them.
And what is the book by Charles Ross? As you can see, I am a novice at
this - I did read Paul Murray Kendall's biography of R3 years and years
ago, and liked it very much. But I keep reading that it's now largely
discredited, is that true?
Gloria
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:39:45 -0000 tmc_dale <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
writes:
Dora,
Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that no
reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in because
no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against it.
Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and sticks
with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I for
one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and hisses
somewhere off in the distance <g>.
What are the better books that argue that Richard III killed his ne
2002-10-27 01:11:48
What are the better researched and more logically
flawless books that argue that Richard III did kill
his nephews? I have citations to the books that argue
that he DIDN'T, I either have them or have located
them, but of the slew of books that apparently argue
that he did kill his nephews I haven't seen any of
them come particularly highly recommended. I have
some real questions that need actual logical and well
researched answers.
Do I correctly understand that I should not bother
going near Alison Weir's book because it is full of
logical holes big enough to drive a truck through?
Yours,
Dora Smith
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
flawless books that argue that Richard III did kill
his nephews? I have citations to the books that argue
that he DIDN'T, I either have them or have located
them, but of the slew of books that apparently argue
that he did kill his nephews I haven't seen any of
them come particularly highly recommended. I have
some real questions that need actual logical and well
researched answers.
Do I correctly understand that I should not bother
going near Alison Weir's book because it is full of
logical holes big enough to drive a truck through?
Yours,
Dora Smith
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: What are the better books that argue that Richard III killed hi
2002-10-27 01:39:48
Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> What are the better researched and more logically
> flawless books that argue that Richard III did kill
> his nephews? I have citations to the books that argue
> that he DIDN'T, I either have them or have located
> them, but of the slew of books that apparently argue
> that he did kill his nephews I haven't seen any of
> them come particularly highly recommended. I have
> some real questions that need actual logical and well
> researched answers.
>
> Do I correctly understand that I should not bother
> going near Alison Weir's book because it is full of
> logical holes big enough to drive a truck through?
>
Dora,
Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that no
reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in because
no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against it.
Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and sticks
with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I for
one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and hisses
somewhere off in the distance <g>.
> Yours,
> Dora Smith
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
> What are the better researched and more logically
> flawless books that argue that Richard III did kill
> his nephews? I have citations to the books that argue
> that he DIDN'T, I either have them or have located
> them, but of the slew of books that apparently argue
> that he did kill his nephews I haven't seen any of
> them come particularly highly recommended. I have
> some real questions that need actual logical and well
> researched answers.
>
> Do I correctly understand that I should not bother
> going near Alison Weir's book because it is full of
> logical holes big enough to drive a truck through?
>
Dora,
Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that no
reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in because
no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against it.
Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and sticks
with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I for
one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and hisses
somewhere off in the distance <g>.
> Yours,
> Dora Smith
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: What are the better books that argue that Richard III killed hi
2002-10-27 10:58:01
Charles Ross - Richard III (Yale English Monarchs Series), Desmond
Seward - Richard III (Penguin Books), Michael Hicks - Richard III
(recently republished with new pics etc).
Kendall's biography certainly reads very well though its a while
since I read it. It does contain errors (but don't most books)
though and to my mind is a little "romantic" in places.
tim
--- In @y..., Gloria Harrison
<harrison110@j...> wrote:
> Hi (is it tim? No signature)
>
> This is Gloria, jumping in. As I said, I have just started reading
> Alison Weir, but that is the impression I already am getting -
that she
> has formed her opinion already and won't budge from it. I would be
> interested to know the full names of the authors you mention -
Hicks,
> Seward - and the titles of their books so that I can try to find
them.
> And what is the book by Charles Ross? As you can see, I am a
novice at
> this - I did read Paul Murray Kendall's biography of R3 years and
years
> ago, and liked it very much. But I keep reading that it's now
largely
> discredited, is that true?
>
> Gloria
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:39:45 -0000 tmc_dale <no_reply@y...>
> writes:
>
> Dora,
> Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
> come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that
no
> reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in
because
> no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
> anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
> books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
> are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against
it.
> Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
> facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
> him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
> Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
> Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and
sticks
> with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I
for
> one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
> my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
> Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
> say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and
hisses
> somewhere off in the distance <g>.
>
>
Seward - Richard III (Penguin Books), Michael Hicks - Richard III
(recently republished with new pics etc).
Kendall's biography certainly reads very well though its a while
since I read it. It does contain errors (but don't most books)
though and to my mind is a little "romantic" in places.
tim
--- In @y..., Gloria Harrison
<harrison110@j...> wrote:
> Hi (is it tim? No signature)
>
> This is Gloria, jumping in. As I said, I have just started reading
> Alison Weir, but that is the impression I already am getting -
that she
> has formed her opinion already and won't budge from it. I would be
> interested to know the full names of the authors you mention -
Hicks,
> Seward - and the titles of their books so that I can try to find
them.
> And what is the book by Charles Ross? As you can see, I am a
novice at
> this - I did read Paul Murray Kendall's biography of R3 years and
years
> ago, and liked it very much. But I keep reading that it's now
largely
> discredited, is that true?
>
> Gloria
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:39:45 -0000 tmc_dale <no_reply@y...>
> writes:
>
> Dora,
> Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
> come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that
no
> reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in
because
> no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
> anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
> books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
> are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against
it.
> Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
> facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
> him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
> Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
> Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and
sticks
> with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I
for
> one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
> my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
> Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
> say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and
hisses
> somewhere off in the distance <g>.
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What are the better books that
2002-10-27 13:05:59
At 10:57 AM 10/27/02 -0000, Tim Dale wrote:
>
>Charles Ross - Richard III (Yale English Monarchs Series), Desmond
>Seward - Richard III (Penguin Books), Michael Hicks - Richard III
>(recently republished with new pics etc).
I would recommend A.J. Pollard's _Richard III and the Princes in the Tower_
over either Ross or Hicks. Seward, to my mind and despite the footnotes,
should be classified as a "popular" work rather than a scholarly one, along
with Bertram Field's _Royal Blood_ and Alison Weir's _The Princes in the
Tower_.
We've put up a reading list on the American Branch website,
http://www.r3.org/biblio.html -- this may be helpful to some readers.
>Kendall's biography certainly reads very well though its a while
>since I read it. It does contain errors (but don't most books)
>though and to my mind is a little "romantic" in places.
>
>tim
>
>
>--- In @y..., Gloria Harrison
><harrison110@j...> wrote:
>> Hi (is it tim? No signature)
>>
>> This is Gloria, jumping in. As I said, I have just started reading
>> Alison Weir, but that is the impression I already am getting -
>that she
>> has formed her opinion already and won't budge from it. I would be
>> interested to know the full names of the authors you mention -
>Hicks,
>> Seward - and the titles of their books so that I can try to find
>them.
>> And what is the book by Charles Ross? As you can see, I am a
>novice at
>> this - I did read Paul Murray Kendall's biography of R3 years and
>years
>> ago, and liked it very much. But I keep reading that it's now
>largely
>> discredited, is that true?
>>
>> Gloria
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:39:45 -0000 tmc_dale <no_reply@y...>
>> writes:
>>
>> Dora,
>> Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
>> come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that
>no
>> reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in
>because
>> no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
>> anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
>> books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
>> are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against
>it.
>> Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
>> facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
>> him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
>> Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
>> Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and
>sticks
>> with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I
>for
>> one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
>> my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
>> Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
>> say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and
>hisses
>> somewhere off in the distance <g>.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>
>Charles Ross - Richard III (Yale English Monarchs Series), Desmond
>Seward - Richard III (Penguin Books), Michael Hicks - Richard III
>(recently republished with new pics etc).
I would recommend A.J. Pollard's _Richard III and the Princes in the Tower_
over either Ross or Hicks. Seward, to my mind and despite the footnotes,
should be classified as a "popular" work rather than a scholarly one, along
with Bertram Field's _Royal Blood_ and Alison Weir's _The Princes in the
Tower_.
We've put up a reading list on the American Branch website,
http://www.r3.org/biblio.html -- this may be helpful to some readers.
>Kendall's biography certainly reads very well though its a while
>since I read it. It does contain errors (but don't most books)
>though and to my mind is a little "romantic" in places.
>
>tim
>
>
>--- In @y..., Gloria Harrison
><harrison110@j...> wrote:
>> Hi (is it tim? No signature)
>>
>> This is Gloria, jumping in. As I said, I have just started reading
>> Alison Weir, but that is the impression I already am getting -
>that she
>> has formed her opinion already and won't budge from it. I would be
>> interested to know the full names of the authors you mention -
>Hicks,
>> Seward - and the titles of their books so that I can try to find
>them.
>> And what is the book by Charles Ross? As you can see, I am a
>novice at
>> this - I did read Paul Murray Kendall's biography of R3 years and
>years
>> ago, and liked it very much. But I keep reading that it's now
>largely
>> discredited, is that true?
>>
>> Gloria
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:39:45 -0000 tmc_dale <no_reply@y...>
>> writes:
>>
>> Dora,
>> Well researched books should offer a variety of possibilities and
>> come down in favour of one or the other. The simple fact is that
>no
>> reputable historian will state 100% that Richard did them in
>because
>> no-one can prove it. Personally I would stay clear of fiction for
>> anything other than pleasure because it will colour what factual
>> books you then read to pursue your interest further though if you
>> are aware of it then of course you can easily safeguard against
>it.
>> Penman writes well but she is well off the mark in parts of her
>> facts particular on Warwick and Richard's supposed childhood with
>> him, she is also well off the mark over his relationship with the
>> Wydeville's prior to Edward IV's death.
>> Weir is universally disliked because she choses her view and
>sticks
>> with it rather than expanding a theory to a conclusion though I
>for
>> one have enjoyed some of her stuff on Henry VIII though it isn't
>> my "bible" <g>. For a balanced view of Richard I still think
>> Charles Ross is fairly unbeatable certainly Hicks has something to
>> say and even Seward has his good points (tim detects boos and
>hisses
>> somewhere off in the distance <g>.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
What are the better books that argue that Richard III killed his ne
2002-10-27 14:12:00
Thank you, Tim! Also thanks for putting me right on betrothals. In
other words, with the right lawyers, you could break any contract
*legally*! :-)
Gloria
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:57:56 -0000 "tim" <tmc_dale@...> writes:
Charles Ross - Richard III (Yale English Monarchs Series), Desmond
Seward - Richard III (Penguin Books), Michael Hicks - Richard III
(recently republished with new pics etc).
Kendall's biography certainly reads very well though its a while
since I read it. It does contain errors (but don't most books)
though and to my mind is a little "romantic" in places.
tim
other words, with the right lawyers, you could break any contract
*legally*! :-)
Gloria
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:57:56 -0000 "tim" <tmc_dale@...> writes:
Charles Ross - Richard III (Yale English Monarchs Series), Desmond
Seward - Richard III (Penguin Books), Michael Hicks - Richard III
(recently republished with new pics etc).
Kendall's biography certainly reads very well though its a while
since I read it. It does contain errors (but don't most books)
though and to my mind is a little "romantic" in places.
tim
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What are the better books that
2002-10-28 00:43:49
Thanks, folks.
I'll look for Pollard, Ross, Seward, Hicks and
Kendall. Noone thought better of Alison Weir's book
than what I've seen.
Dora
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
I'll look for Pollard, Ross, Seward, Hicks and
Kendall. Noone thought better of Alison Weir's book
than what I've seen.
Dora
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What are the better books that
2002-10-29 02:54:10
Found Ross and Kendall.
Dora
--- tim <tmc_dale@...> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Dora
--- tim <tmc_dale@...> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Need footnote from Ross, Richard III, and some abbreviations
2002-11-01 12:31:12
The bottom of the page got clipped when I photocopied
from Ross's Richard III.
In chapter II, Duke of Gloucester, p 32, the text
makes the following oblique reference that it doesn't
explain, referring only to a footnote.
"Recent research, however, strongly suggests that
there is much evidence to support Mancini's stated
belief that, at least behind the scenes, the queen and
her Woodville relatives provided the main
driving-force in brining about the duke's overthrow."
Nice little bombshell, too bad he provides no idea
what this evidence is! He refers to footnote 37,
missing from the bottom of the page.
Can somone who has Ross's book handy please tell me
what is footnote 37?
Also, I didn't copy his abbreviations for his sources;
I hadn't realized when I was at the library that it
existed. Could anyone please tell me waht are,
CPR
CC
PV
RP
Thanks alot!
Yours,
Dora
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
from Ross's Richard III.
In chapter II, Duke of Gloucester, p 32, the text
makes the following oblique reference that it doesn't
explain, referring only to a footnote.
"Recent research, however, strongly suggests that
there is much evidence to support Mancini's stated
belief that, at least behind the scenes, the queen and
her Woodville relatives provided the main
driving-force in brining about the duke's overthrow."
Nice little bombshell, too bad he provides no idea
what this evidence is! He refers to footnote 37,
missing from the bottom of the page.
Can somone who has Ross's book handy please tell me
what is footnote 37?
Also, I didn't copy his abbreviations for his sources;
I hadn't realized when I was at the library that it
existed. Could anyone please tell me waht are,
CPR
CC
PV
RP
Thanks alot!
Yours,
Dora
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Re: Need footnote from Ross, Richard III, and some abbreviations
2002-11-03 12:08:39
It is footnote 36 in the edition I have, but it refers to Michael
Hicks' Ph.D thesis on Clarence, p.123ff and Mancini 63, 69.
Since Ross was writing Hicks' thesis has been published as 'False
Fleeting perjur'd Clarence', so you should be able to track down the
reference, though the page numbering will probably be different,
since theses in the UK are usually printed on A4 paper.
Abbreviations:
CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476-85
CC Croyland Chronicle
PV Polydore Vergil
RP Rotuli Parliamentorum
Hope this helps.
Ann
--- In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
> The bottom of the page got clipped when I photocopied
> from Ross's Richard III.
>
> In chapter II, Duke of Gloucester, p 32, the text
> makes the following oblique reference that it doesn't
> explain, referring only to a footnote.
>
> "Recent research, however, strongly suggests that
> there is much evidence to support Mancini's stated
> belief that, at least behind the scenes, the queen and
> her Woodville relatives provided the main
> driving-force in brining about the duke's overthrow."
>
>
> Nice little bombshell, too bad he provides no idea
> what this evidence is! He refers to footnote 37,
> missing from the bottom of the page.
>
> Can somone who has Ross's book handy please tell me
> what is footnote 37?
>
> Also, I didn't copy his abbreviations for his sources;
> I hadn't realized when I was at the library that it
> existed. Could anyone please tell me waht are,
> CPR
> CC
> PV
> RP
>
> Thanks alot!
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Hicks' Ph.D thesis on Clarence, p.123ff and Mancini 63, 69.
Since Ross was writing Hicks' thesis has been published as 'False
Fleeting perjur'd Clarence', so you should be able to track down the
reference, though the page numbering will probably be different,
since theses in the UK are usually printed on A4 paper.
Abbreviations:
CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476-85
CC Croyland Chronicle
PV Polydore Vergil
RP Rotuli Parliamentorum
Hope this helps.
Ann
--- In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
> The bottom of the page got clipped when I photocopied
> from Ross's Richard III.
>
> In chapter II, Duke of Gloucester, p 32, the text
> makes the following oblique reference that it doesn't
> explain, referring only to a footnote.
>
> "Recent research, however, strongly suggests that
> there is much evidence to support Mancini's stated
> belief that, at least behind the scenes, the queen and
> her Woodville relatives provided the main
> driving-force in brining about the duke's overthrow."
>
>
> Nice little bombshell, too bad he provides no idea
> what this evidence is! He refers to footnote 37,
> missing from the bottom of the page.
>
> Can somone who has Ross's book handy please tell me
> what is footnote 37?
>
> Also, I didn't copy his abbreviations for his sources;
> I hadn't realized when I was at the library that it
> existed. Could anyone please tell me waht are,
> CPR
> CC
> PV
> RP
>
> Thanks alot!
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Need footnote from Ross, Richar
2002-11-04 01:56:40
Oh, good lord, that book is actually in my local
library. Though only half the books on Richard III
people suggested I look for are. I looked at it and
must have found it didn't have a whole lot of new
news, since I didn't zerox anything from it - or
atleast I THINK I saw it. I looked at a couple of
books that weren't ones I went after.
Thanks alot!
I'm compiling what I have into a table of notes; I
suppose when I get done I'll have to make a separate
table of hysterically funny statements by Mancini and
More! Apparently Mancini was a French spy, and he
"objectively" reported back ALL of teh gossip he
heard, without sifting or rating it for accuracy.
I did confirm that Stillington was in the tower just
after Clarence was executed, and also that Edward IV
gave him all those wonder posts, though not clear he
didn't deserve it, he was an Oxford genius. What is
not clear is why Stillington should have been chosen
to witness an undercover plight troth.
Dora
--- aelyon2001 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> It is footnote 36 in the edition I have, but it
> refers to Michael
> Hicks' Ph.D thesis on Clarence, p.123ff and Mancini
> 63, 69.
>
> Since Ross was writing Hicks' thesis has been
> published as 'False
> Fleeting perjur'd Clarence', so you should be able
> to track down the
> reference, though the page numbering will probably
> be different,
> since theses in the UK are usually printed on A4
> paper.
>
> Abbreviations:
>
> CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476-85
> CC Croyland Chronicle
> PV Polydore Vergil
> RP Rotuli Parliamentorum
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> --- In @y..., Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...>
> wrote:
> > The bottom of the page got clipped when I
> photocopied
> > from Ross's Richard III.
> >
> > In chapter II, Duke of Gloucester, p 32, the text
> > makes the following oblique reference that it
> doesn't
> > explain, referring only to a footnote.
> >
> > "Recent research, however, strongly suggests that
> > there is much evidence to support Mancini's stated
> > belief that, at least behind the scenes, the queen
> and
> > her Woodville relatives provided the main
> > driving-force in brining about the duke's
> overthrow."
> >
> >
> > Nice little bombshell, too bad he provides no idea
> > what this evidence is! He refers to footnote 37,
> > missing from the bottom of the page.
> >
> > Can somone who has Ross's book handy please tell
> me
> > what is footnote 37?
> >
> > Also, I didn't copy his abbreviations for his
> sources;
> > I hadn't realized when I was at the library that
> it
> > existed. Could anyone please tell me waht are,
> > CPR
> > CC
> > PV
> > RP
> >
> > Thanks alot!
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> > http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
library. Though only half the books on Richard III
people suggested I look for are. I looked at it and
must have found it didn't have a whole lot of new
news, since I didn't zerox anything from it - or
atleast I THINK I saw it. I looked at a couple of
books that weren't ones I went after.
Thanks alot!
I'm compiling what I have into a table of notes; I
suppose when I get done I'll have to make a separate
table of hysterically funny statements by Mancini and
More! Apparently Mancini was a French spy, and he
"objectively" reported back ALL of teh gossip he
heard, without sifting or rating it for accuracy.
I did confirm that Stillington was in the tower just
after Clarence was executed, and also that Edward IV
gave him all those wonder posts, though not clear he
didn't deserve it, he was an Oxford genius. What is
not clear is why Stillington should have been chosen
to witness an undercover plight troth.
Dora
--- aelyon2001 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> It is footnote 36 in the edition I have, but it
> refers to Michael
> Hicks' Ph.D thesis on Clarence, p.123ff and Mancini
> 63, 69.
>
> Since Ross was writing Hicks' thesis has been
> published as 'False
> Fleeting perjur'd Clarence', so you should be able
> to track down the
> reference, though the page numbering will probably
> be different,
> since theses in the UK are usually printed on A4
> paper.
>
> Abbreviations:
>
> CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476-85
> CC Croyland Chronicle
> PV Polydore Vergil
> RP Rotuli Parliamentorum
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> --- In @y..., Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...>
> wrote:
> > The bottom of the page got clipped when I
> photocopied
> > from Ross's Richard III.
> >
> > In chapter II, Duke of Gloucester, p 32, the text
> > makes the following oblique reference that it
> doesn't
> > explain, referring only to a footnote.
> >
> > "Recent research, however, strongly suggests that
> > there is much evidence to support Mancini's stated
> > belief that, at least behind the scenes, the queen
> and
> > her Woodville relatives provided the main
> > driving-force in brining about the duke's
> overthrow."
> >
> >
> > Nice little bombshell, too bad he provides no idea
> > what this evidence is! He refers to footnote 37,
> > missing from the bottom of the page.
> >
> > Can somone who has Ross's book handy please tell
> me
> > what is footnote 37?
> >
> > Also, I didn't copy his abbreviations for his
> sources;
> > I hadn't realized when I was at the library that
> it
> > existed. Could anyone please tell me waht are,
> > CPR
> > CC
> > PV
> > RP
> >
> > Thanks alot!
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> > http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/