Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

I need something in Simon Stallworthe's letter to a friend in the
country, dated June 21, 1483. Source cited is Stonor Letters and
Papers, as nearly as I can figure from my 67% copy of Kendall's
lengthy and cramped writing.

Kendall gives a combined paraphrase and quotation from it, and he
also cites what Stallworthe said in this letter as evidence that the
Duke of York was taken from sanctuary three days after the execution
of Hastings, which according to Kendall happened on June 13, instead
of three days before it.

Apparently the other sources for that are Croyland, which is a matter
of choosing between often inaccurate reports, and a vague reference
to boats sent up and down the Thames, as compared to an equally vague
reference to boats involved in going for the young Duke of York.

Leave alone the fact that we may not know if Hastings wasn't executed
until a week later.

Here is what Kendall presents of this part of the letter; "After
giving the news of teh beheading of Hastings and the delivery of the
little York from sanctuary, he reports that..."

In other words, he does not tell us what the letter says about when
these events took place relative to each other. He doesn't quote
that part of the letter.

I can think of only one other thing he could be meaning to say. One
is that he may mean for the reader to draw this reference from teh
fact that the removal of the Duke of York from sanctuary wasn't
mentioned in Stallworthe's previously cited letter, written on June
9. But three days before June 13 was June 10, not June 9. Obviously
if the boy was taken from sanctuary on June 10 Stallworthe would not
have known about it on June 9.

So I really need to know what Stallworthe actually said in his letter
about the taking of the prince from sanctuary and the beheading of
Hastings.

The exact text of what he said could also be important to
establishing when Hastings was really executed.

When Hastings was executed is important. If Richard really failed to
get control of the other prince before tipping his hand with the
Council, since the way I see it it would have been simply intelligent
for Richard to have gotten control of the other prince before tipping
his hand to the council, THAT would be a bombshell. It might mean
Richard was far stupider than he otherwise appeared to be, and it
definately would mean he wasn't cold-bloodedly eliminating rivals as
per his scheme to grab the throne, not that the overall pattern is
real consistent with him doing that. The matter also has relevance
to when Richard learned about the precontract, because if he knew
about that it would have been outright stupid not to get control of
the other prince, to ensure the peace, forget about to ensure his
place on the throne.

If anyone has the text of that part of Stallworthe's letter, or
access to it, I'd really appreciate it if they would quote it to me,
since I doubt I can lay my hands on the original source.

Thanks alot!

Yours,
Dora Smith

Here are the relevant bits of Stallworthe's letter...

As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded sone apone noon.
On Monday last was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest men: ther was the
dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord Cardenale, my lord
Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and with hym mette my
lord of Bukiyngham in the myddes of the hall of Westm.: my lord
protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore with many
lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord Cardenale to the toure,
wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery..... It is thought ther shalbe
xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of Bukyngham men in
London this weeke: to what inten I knowe note but to kepe the
peas.... The lord Arsbyshcop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit in
the toure with Master Olyver Kynge.... ther are men in ther placeses
for sure kepynge..... Mastres Chore (Shore)is in prisone: what schall
happyne hyr I know nott..... All ye lord Chamberleyne mene be come
my lordys of Bokynghame menne.


I hope that helps you.

Jane

Thanks!

For future reference, not that the whole texts of
these sources are there, but while looking into where
I might find those Stonor letters, I found a web site
for some undergraduate class on Richard III that
contains passages from the primary sources - and it
contains that particular snippet from Stallingworth's
letters.

Extensive passages from Croyland and Mancini, as well.
I don't know if the local university library has
Mancini but the local public library doesn't, it is
out of print, and it isn't on line.

http://www.wkac.ac.uk/history/RIII.htm

I have a question, though; Kendall argues that this
passage proves that the prince was taken from
sanctuary three days AFTER Hastings was beheaded and
not three days before.

To prove that, as well as what date Hastings was
really beheaded, I need to see a calendar of the days
of the week with the dates AS THEY WERE IN 1483, not
as they became after the calendar update in the
1700's.

As it stands it is not clear on what date was Friday
last of June 21 1483, nor is it clear whether Monday
last happened before or after Friday last, since I
don't know on what day of the week June 21 fell.

Yours,
Dora

--- Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Here are the relevant bits of Stallworthe's
> letter...
>
> As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded
> sone apone noon.
> On Monday last was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest
> men: ther was the
> dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord
> Cardenale, my lord
> Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and
> with hym mette my
> lord of Bukiyngham in the myddes of the hall of
> Westm.: my lord
> protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore
> with many
> lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord
> Cardenale to the toure,
> wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery..... It is
> thought ther shalbe
> xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of
> Bukyngham men in
> London this weeke: to what inten I knowe note but to
> kepe the
> peas.... The lord Arsbyshcop of Yorke, the Byshop of
> Ely are zit in
> the toure with Master Olyver Kynge.... ther are men
> in ther placeses
> for sure kepynge..... Mastres Chore (Shore)is in
> prisone: what schall
> happyne hyr I know nott..... All ye lord
> Chamberleyne mene be come
> my lordys of Bokynghame menne.
>
>
> I hope that helps you.
>
> Jane
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

Hey, I don't know if I said thanks for this in the
post I just sent.

If not, thanks much for this! Thanks for those
abbreviations, too.

Yours,
Dora

--- Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Here are the relevant bits of Stallworthe's
> letter...
>
> As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded
> sone apone noon.
> On Monday last was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest
> men: ther was the
> dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord
> Cardenale, my lord
> Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and
> with hym mette my
> lord of Bukiyngham in the myddes of the hall of
> Westm.: my lord
> protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore
> with many
> lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord
> Cardenale to the toure,
> wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery..... It is
> thought ther shalbe
> xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of
> Bukyngham men in
> London this weeke: to what inten I knowe note but to
> kepe the
> peas.... The lord Arsbyshcop of Yorke, the Byshop of
> Ely are zit in
> the toure with Master Olyver Kynge.... ther are men
> in ther placeses
> for sure kepynge..... Mastres Chore (Shore)is in
> prisone: what schall
> happyne hyr I know nott..... All ye lord
> Chamberleyne mene be come
> my lordys of Bokynghame menne.
>
>
> I hope that helps you.
>
> Jane
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

At 06:04 PM 11/11/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Thanks!
>
>For future reference, not that the whole texts of
>these sources are there, but while looking into where
>I might find those Stonor letters, I found a web site
>for some undergraduate class on Richard III that
>contains passages from the primary sources - and it
>contains that particular snippet from Stallingworth's
>letters.
>
>Extensive passages from Croyland and Mancini, as well.
>I don't know if the local university library has
>Mancini but the local public library doesn't, it is
>out of print, and it isn't on line.
>
>http://www.wkac.ac.uk/history/RIII.htm
>

Given the location of this page, I'm willing to venture a guess that this
is Michael Hicks' work.

--
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

Hmmm... A Hicks is on the faculty there. At the
bottom of the page the reader is referred to the
bibliography in Hicks' book. Those are the only clues
I found. The page refers back to the main history
department page, not to the course it was developed
for.

Why? Does he have some particular bias?

Dora


--- Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> At 06:04 PM 11/11/02 -0800, you wrote:
> >Thanks!
> >
> >For future reference, not that the whole texts of
> >these sources are there, but while looking into
> where
> >I might find those Stonor letters, I found a web
> site
> >for some undergraduate class on Richard III that
> >contains passages from the primary sources - and it
> >contains that particular snippet from
> Stallingworth's
> >letters.
> >
> >Extensive passages from Croyland and Mancini, as
> well.
> >I don't know if the local university library has
> >Mancini but the local public library doesn't, it is
> >out of print, and it isn't on line.
> >
> >http://www.wkac.ac.uk/history/RIII.htm
> >
>
> Given the location of this page, I'm willing to
> venture a guess that this
> is Michael Hicks' work.
>
> --
> 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
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

I found an online calendar for the 6th through 16th
centuries or so. It says it is accurate, and also
that a mistake was found and corrected. It places teh
15th on a Sunday, which agrees with something
mentioned on the Richard III Society pages to do with
an article on dating in that period.

June 21, 1483, was on Saturday. Monday last was the
16th. Friday last was literally the 20th. But I
question if people in that time would have been any
more likely than people today to mean yesterday by
last Friday. If I spoke on Saturday about last
Friday, I wouldn't mean yesterday, I would mean Friday
a week ago.

The previous Friday to June 20 was June 13.

What do people think?

Yours,
Dora Smith


--- Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> Here are the relevant bits of Stallworthe's
> letter...
>
> As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded
> sone apone noon.
> On Monday last was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest
> men: ther was the
> dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord
> Cardenale, my lord
> Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and
> with hym mette my
> lord of Bukiyngham in the myddes of the hall of
> Westm.: my lord
> protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore
> with many
> lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord
> Cardenale to the toure,
> wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery..... It is
> thought ther shalbe
> xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of
> Bukyngham men in
> London this weeke: to what inten I knowe note but to
> kepe the
> peas.... The lord Arsbyshcop of Yorke, the Byshop of
> Ely are zit in
> the toure with Master Olyver Kynge.... ther are men
> in ther placeses
> for sure kepynge..... Mastres Chore (Shore)is in
> prisone: what schall
> happyne hyr I know nott..... All ye lord
> Chamberleyne mene be come
> my lordys of Bokynghame menne.
>
>
> I hope that helps you.
>
> Jane
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

PS: The url for that calendar is
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cal/medcal.shtml

Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

Having read the Stonor/Paston/Plumpton Letters and
other correspondence of the period I think
'yesterday' was a word that appears to have been used
infrequently. It may be a tiny, and pedantic point
but what is said is 'Whateverday *last*', not '*last*
Whateverday', and that may make a subtle difference to
the sense and meaning. Expressions of this sort still
abound, and confound visitors in (mostly) rural areas
of Britain: my grandmother's way of expressing time
passing was virtually unfathomable to me when I was a
child! ;)

Lorraine

--- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote: > I
found an online calendar for the 6th through 16th
> centuries or so. It says it is accurate, and also
> that a mistake was found and corrected. It places
> teh
> 15th on a Sunday, which agrees with something
> mentioned on the Richard III Society pages to do
> with
> an article on dating in that period.
>
> June 21, 1483, was on Saturday. Monday last was the
> 16th. Friday last was literally the 20th. But I
> question if people in that time would have been any
> more likely than people today to mean yesterday by
> last Friday. If I spoke on Saturday about last
> Friday, I wouldn't mean yesterday, I would mean
> Friday
> a week ago.
>
> The previous Friday to June 20 was June 13.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Yours,
> Dora Smith
>
>
> --- Neil <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> > Here are the relevant bits of Stallworthe's
> > letter...
> >
> > As on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn hedded
> > sone apone noon.
> > On Monday last was at Westm. gret plenty of
> harnest
> > men: ther was the
> > dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord
> > Cardenale, my lord
> > Chaunceler, and other many lordes Temporale: and
> > with hym mette my
> > lord of Bukiyngham in the myddes of the hall of
> > Westm.: my lord
> > protectour recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber
> Dore
> > with many
> > lovynge wordys: and so departed with my lord
> > Cardenale to the toure,
> > wher he is, blessid be Jhesus, mery..... It is
> > thought ther shalbe
> > xx thousand of my lord protectour and my lord of
> > Bukyngham men in
> > London this weeke: to what inten I knowe note but
> to
> > kepe the
> > peas.... The lord Arsbyshcop of Yorke, the Byshop
> of
> > Ely are zit in
> > the toure with Master Olyver Kynge.... ther are
> men
> > in ther placeses
> > for sure kepynge..... Mastres Chore (Shore)is in
> > prisone: what schall
> > happyne hyr I know nott..... All ye lord
> > Chamberleyne mene be come
> > my lordys of Bokynghame menne.
> >
> >
> > I hope that helps you.
> >
> > Jane
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
>
> 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/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Michael Hicks first came to wide Ricardian attention
with his big of Clarence: the subject of his thesis.
IIRC 'False, Fleet, Perjur'd Clarence' was the title
of the book. Then he tackled R3 in various articles
and a rather contentious biog, which was overhauled
last year in a nice coffee table format.

I rather like his material, while violently
disagreeing with some of his assumptions (R3 being a
PR genius, for instance) and some of his stuff on R3
when Duke of Gloucester is both well-written and
researched.

Lorraine

mmm... A Hicks is on the faculty there. At the
> bottom of the page the reader is referred to the
> bibliography in Hicks' book. Those are the only
> clues
> I found. The page refers back to the main history
> department page, not to the course it was developed
> for.
>
> Why? Does he have some particular bias?
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...>
> wrote:
> > At 06:04 PM 11/11/02 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Thanks!
> > >
> > >For future reference, not that the whole texts of
> > >these sources are there, but while looking into
> > where
> > >I might find those Stonor letters, I found a web
> > site
> > >for some undergraduate class on Richard III that
> > >contains passages from the primary sources - and
> it
> > >contains that particular snippet from
> > Stallingworth's
> > >letters.
> > >
> > >Extensive passages from Croyland and Mancini, as
> > well.
> > >I don't know if the local university library has
> > >Mancini but the local public library doesn't, it
> is
> > >out of print, and it isn't on line.
> > >
> > >http://www.wkac.ac.uk/history/RIII.htm
> > >
> >
> > Given the location of this page, I'm willing to
> > venture a guess that this
> > is Michael Hicks' work.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
>
> 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/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

At 02:52 PM 11/14/02 +0000, you wrote:

>I rather like his material, while violently
>disagreeing with some of his assumptions (R3 being a
>PR genius, for instance) and some of his stuff on R3
>when Duke of Gloucester is both well-written and
>researched.
>

Do you think Hicks actually believes that Richard was a PR genius? I rather
thought that was a bit of a straw man argument he set up only to knock down
again.

I confess it's been more than a decade since I read the book, and I haven't
seen the coffee-table second edition yet.


--
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

If yesterday wasn't used frequently, does that mean
that "last Friday" would have been used on Saturday to
mean the day before?

When I read Kendall's statement to my mother to show
her what I was talking about, as she owns Kendall's
book and instead of telling me what she thought last
Friday meant, had written back Kendall's report of
five reports that Hastings was executed on the
thirteenth; it became clear to me what was initially
clear to her; Kendall firmly concludes that Hastings
was executed on the 13th. He then uses Stallworth's
letter, which proves conclusively that the prince was
gotten from sanctuary on Monday the 16th, to establish
that that event happened three days after Hastings was
executed and not three days before.

This means that Kendall thinks as I do that "Friday
last" meant Friday a week ago and not yesterday. But
I am still curious, because there is another
contemporary record, not sure offhand if it's a letter
or a Mercer's Guild record or even the Lord Mayor of
London's record, the interpretation of which is
problematic, that appears to state that Hastings was
not executed before the 20th, which Friday that was
yesterday on Saturday the 21st when Stallworth wrote.


Dora

--- Lorraine Pickering <mrslpickering@...>
wrote:
> Having read the Stonor/Paston/Plumpton Letters and
> other correspondence of the period I think
> 'yesterday' was a word that appears to have been
> used
> infrequently. It may be a tiny, and pedantic point
> but what is said is 'Whateverday *last*', not
> '*last*
> Whateverday', and that may make a subtle difference
> to
> the sense and meaning. Expressions of this sort
> still
> abound, and confound visitors in (mostly) rural
> areas
> of Britain: my grandmother's way of expressing time
> passing was virtually unfathomable to me when I was
> a
> child! ;)
>
> Lorraine
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

That's kind of the impression I'm getting too, Hicks
is good but if he makes a real contribution it is in
making material more available, which that web page
certainly does!

I'm not planning at this moment to go read his stuff -
except the Clarence work, which I already checked for
possible new information about Clarence. I'm finding
the information not particulary new, only more
completely thought out.

Ross sure thinks Richard was a PR genius! I am
starting to wonder if Hicks would qualify as a
moderate and intelligent critic of Richard?

I think Richard was fairly politically astute and
managed some tricky public relations problems very
well, and I admire some of his decisionmaking, though
he suffered from family dysfunction when it came to
picking who to trust, and I'm actually in the Richard
didn't quite have the strength and ability to hold
onto the crown and restore peace camp.

Where I take issue with Richard's opponents is with
their continual conclusions that every move Richard
made has his own advantage for an end.

It is hardly true that Richard's public relations
skills mean he was doing evil things or had malicious
intent! Richard faced one very tricky problem right
after another, he needed the ability he had to guage
how people would react and say the right things to
them at the right time in the right ways.

It does create problems when one tries to read
backwards

Yours,
Dora




--- Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> At 02:52 PM 11/14/02 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >I rather like his material, while violently
> >disagreeing with some of his assumptions (R3 being
> a
> >PR genius, for instance) and some of his stuff on
> R3
> >when Duke of Gloucester is both well-written and
> >researched.
> >
>
> Do you think Hicks actually believes that Richard
> was a PR genius? I rather
> thought that was a bit of a straw man argument he
> set up only to knock down
> again.
>
> I confess it's been more than a decade since I read
> the book, and I haven't
> seen the coffee-table second edition yet.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

At 06:34 PM 11/14/02 -0800, you wrote:
>That's kind of the impression I'm getting too, Hicks
>is good but if he makes a real contribution it is in
>making material more available, which that web page
>certainly does!
>

Dora, you'll find a lot more sources available online at
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/



--
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

--- In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
<If yesterday wasn't used frequently, does that mean
> that "last Friday" would have been used on Saturday to
> mean the day before?>

It could have done.

Historian Alison Hanham argued this point in an article in
the 'English Historical Review' academic journal in the mid-70s. Her
theory was soundly trounced by her peers, incl. BP Woolfe, but she
used the Mercers' Records, to which you also referred, and
Stallworth's letter to support her points.

Whilst I agree it does seem simpler to say 'yesterday' if that was
what was meant, as well as the other correspondence I mentioned, I
have also seen examples of similarly confusing dating elsewhere, in
local record offices, for instance.

On a lighter note, I have also tested this theory out in talks I have
given on R3. Maybe the captive audience sample was skewed because of
what I'd previously told them about R3 <g>, but on each occasion when
I have set this problem before them, at least half of the room swear
blind Stallworth could have meant 'yesterday'!

<This means that Kendall thinks as I do that "Friday
last" meant Friday a week ago and not yesterday.>

You & he may well be right. For myself, I know there are those who
think Kendall is the be-all and end-all on things R3, but I have a
few problems with his specifics at times, not least because some of
his findings have been superceded by newer discoveries in the 50 yrs
since he wrote his biography. I'm in the camp that thinks Hastings
was arrested on the 13th, along with Morton & Stanley, but that he
got the chop a week later. I don't agree with Hanham's theory that
the re-dating puts a different, more malice-aforethought spin on R's
actions - I think it means Hastings had time for a swift trial of
sorts, rather like the one afforded later to young Warwick, which
whilst probably a foregone conclusion, at least took place!

It's just a pet theory - I know I've rather a lone voice in this! ;)

Lorraine

hi Laura & Dora

< > Do you think Hicks actually believes that Richard
> > was a PR genius? I rather
> > thought that was a bit of a straw man argument he
> > set up only to knock down
> > again.
> >
> > I confess it's been more than a decade since I read
> > the book, and I haven't
> > seen the coffee-table second edition yet.>

I've got both versions and he's not altered the PR passages,
IIRC.

I took Hicks to task about this on another List and his son (a fellow
contributor) kindly passed my comments onto him. A brief discussion
subsequently ensued. Certainly in order to put over his version of
Richard, I feel Hicks has either chosen to confuse what good PR
actually means and entails, or is genuinely confused as to what it
means/entails.

I would still recommend Ricardians read him, though!

Regards - Lorraine

At 06:41 PM 11/22/02 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
I'm in the camp that thinks Hastings
>was arrested on the 13th, along with Morton & Stanley, but that he
>got the chop a week later. I don't agree with Hanham's theory that
>the re-dating puts a different, more malice-aforethought spin on R's
>actions - I think it means Hastings had time for a swift trial of
>sorts, rather like the one afforded later to young Warwick, which
>whilst probably a foregone conclusion, at least took place!
>
>It's just a pet theory - I know I've rather a lone voice in this! ;)
>

When you say "pet theory," do you mean it in the sense of "educated guess",
or do you think certain pieces of evidence point that way?

I have this pet theory about the aftermath of Queen Anne's death and
Richard's need for a public denial of any intention to marry his niece,
which is more "educated guess" than evidence-based.

--
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

I'm glad I'm not the only one trying to figure that
out. I have a list of articles to get from English
Historical Review, which is at my local university
library. Can you please give me the complete
references (atleast year, volume and page numbers) and
I will add these to the list.

Thanks!

Dora

--- mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> --- In @y..., Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...>
> wrote:
> <If yesterday wasn't used frequently, does that mean
> > that "last Friday" would have been used on
> Saturday to
> > mean the day before?>
>
> It could have done.
>
> Historian Alison Hanham argued this point in an
> article in
> the 'English Historical Review' academic journal in
> the mid-70s. Her
> theory was soundly trounced by her peers, incl. BP
> Woolfe, but she
> used the Mercers' Records, to which you also
> referred, and
> Stallworth's letter to support her points.
>
> Whilst I agree it does seem simpler to say
> 'yesterday' if that was
> what was meant, as well as the other correspondence
> I mentioned, I
> have also seen examples of similarly confusing
> dating elsewhere, in
> local record offices, for instance.
>
> On a lighter note, I have also tested this theory
> out in talks I have
> given on R3. Maybe the captive audience sample was
> skewed because of
> what I'd previously told them about R3 <g>, but on
> each occasion when
> I have set this problem before them, at least half
> of the room swear
> blind Stallworth could have meant 'yesterday'!
>
> <This means that Kendall thinks as I do that "Friday
> last" meant Friday a week ago and not yesterday.>
>
> You & he may well be right. For myself, I know
> there are those who
> think Kendall is the be-all and end-all on things
> R3, but I have a
> few problems with his specifics at times, not least
> because some of
> his findings have been superceded by newer
> discoveries in the 50 yrs
> since he wrote his biography. I'm in the camp that
> thinks Hastings
> was arrested on the 13th, along with Morton &
> Stanley, but that he
> got the chop a week later. I don't agree with
> Hanham's theory that
> the re-dating puts a different, more
> malice-aforethought spin on R's
> actions - I think it means Hastings had time for a
> swift trial of
> sorts, rather like the one afforded later to young
> Warwick, which
> whilst probably a foregone conclusion, at least took
> place!
>
> It's just a pet theory - I know I've rather a lone
> voice in this! ;)
>
> Lorraine
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ý Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

What other list?

Dora

--- mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> hi Laura & Dora
>
> < > Do you think Hicks actually believes that
> Richard
> > > was a PR genius? I rather
> > > thought that was a bit of a straw man argument
> he
> > > set up only to knock down
> > > again.
> > >
> > > I confess it's been more than a decade since I
> read
> > > the book, and I haven't
> > > seen the coffee-table second edition yet.>
>
> I've got both versions and he's not altered the PR
> passages,
> IIRC.
>
> I took Hicks to task about this on another List and
> his son (a fellow
> contributor) kindly passed my comments onto him. A
> brief discussion
> subsequently ensued. Certainly in order to put over
> his version of
> Richard, I feel Hicks has either chosen to confuse
> what good PR
> actually means and entails, or is genuinely confused
> as to what it
> means/entails.
>
> I would still recommend Ricardians read him, though!
>
> Regards - Lorraine
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ý Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re the question of was Friday yesterday or Friday of the previous
week.I referr to the Friday of the following week as next Friday and
the Friday of the curent week as this Friday and the Friday of the
week gone as last Friday,the one after the current Saturday is
yesterday.I'm glad I typed this because I dont think I could
understand it otherwise.
--



- In @y..., Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...>
wrote:
> At 06:41 PM 11/22/02 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
> I'm in the camp that thinks Hastings
> >was arrested on the 13th, along with Morton & Stanley, but that he
> >got the chop a week later. I don't agree with Hanham's theory
that
> >the re-dating puts a different, more malice-aforethought spin on
R's
> >actions - I think it means Hastings had time for a swift trial of
> >sorts, rather like the one afforded later to young Warwick, which
> >whilst probably a foregone conclusion, at least took place!
> >
> >It's just a pet theory - I know I've rather a lone voice in
this! ;)
> >
>
> When you say "pet theory," do you mean it in the sense of "educated
guess",
> or do you think certain pieces of evidence point that way?
>
> I have this pet theory about the aftermath of Queen Anne's death and
> Richard's need for a public denial of any intention to marry his
niece,
> which is more "educated guess" than evidence-based.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

The War of the Roses List, Dora.

Lorraine

--- In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
> What other list?
>
> Dora
in reply to my

<I took Hicks to task about this on another List and
> > his son (a fellow
> > contributor) kindly passed my comments onto him. >

On the subject of Hastings, I do think that a particular reading of
the available evidence suggests that Hastings may well have been
alive, Laura. Whether this is me making an educated guess based on a
slective reading of the evidence, is up to others to decide. I
studied the Hanham/Woolfe et al debate thoroughly at the time, and
whilst I get a sense that clearly something dramatic happened on the
13th, I remain unconvinced it was Hastings' actual demise. The work
on the house could have stopped upon his arrest, as something
similar, I cannot recall exactly what, happened when Rivers was
arrested. The main circumstantial evidence is, as I mentioned, the
young Warwick 'trial' (described by someone as barely a proper trial
at all (I parphrase), and the Pontefract trial of the afore-mentioned
Rivers. For such celebrated defendants, we have very little to go on
that there WAS any kind of trial anyway (Rous is the only source for
Rivers, I believe, though there's plenty of other palarver mentioned
about writing wills and so forth, similar to that for Hastings'
arrest).

On the question of what we call Friday just gone, this Friday and
necxt Friday, I have to say I agree with what's been said. Whether
it is how our chums 500 years ago would have put it is of course the
problem - I've had headaches sorting ouut dates in local record
offices here for years as these sort of handy descriptions were not
as universally popular as they are now - just read through the York
Records, the Pastons etc. for what I mean. They change from letter
to letter, never mind writer to writer. And the Plumptons may even
use different ways to describe time passing as well, despite them
being contemporaneous corrospondents! :(

Regards - Lorraine

--- In @y..., "div2sig" <leinad@d...> wrote:
> Re the question of was Friday yesterday or Friday of the previous
> week.I referr to the Friday of the following week as next Friday
and
> the Friday of the curent week as this Friday and the Friday of the
> week gone as last Friday,the one after the current Saturday is
> yesterday.I'm glad I typed this because I dont think I could
> understand it otherwise.
> --
>
>
>
> - In @y..., Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...>
> wrote:
> > At 06:41 PM 11/22/02 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
> > I'm in the camp that thinks Hastings
> > >was arrested on the 13th, along with Morton & Stanley, but that
he
> > >got the chop a week later. I don't agree with Hanham's theory
> that
> > >the re-dating puts a different, more malice-aforethought spin on
> R's
> > >actions - I think it means Hastings had time for a swift trial
of
> > >sorts, rather like the one afforded later to young Warwick,
which
> > >whilst probably a foregone conclusion, at least took place!
> > >
> > >It's just a pet theory - I know I've rather a lone voice in
> this! ;)
> > >
> >
> > When you say "pet theory," do you mean it in the sense
of "educated
> guess",
> > or do you think certain pieces of evidence point that way?
> >
> > I have this pet theory about the aftermath of Queen Anne's death
and
> > Richard's need for a public denial of any intention to marry his
> niece,
> > which is more "educated guess" than evidence-based.
> >
> > --
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> > Collections Libraries
> > lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> > Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Laura

In my last, hastily written reply (hence typos), I forget to ask you
for more information on this:

<I have this pet theory about the aftermath of Queen Anne's death
and Richard's need for a public denial of any intention to marry his
niece, which is more "educated guess" than evidence-based. >

I'd be interested to hear about it - offlist, if you prefer.

I'm not against educated guesses regarding the period, esp. when so
much evidence out there was *someone's* educated guess in the first
place <g>.

Coincidentally, I've just been re-reading some old Ricardian Journal
articles, one of which concerned Buck's letter from Young Liz to
Norfolk and pointing out that certain later additions and amendments
to the text really do alter the shades of meaning Buck may have
originally ascribed to it. For instance, in the original it's not
even clear who Elizabeth is describing as her 'only maker and joy'
etc. - Norfolk or Richard, esp. when she is asking Norfolk's help in
approaching the king. Why, the article writer ponders (sorry, I've
forgotten now just who the author was), would this intercession be
necessary if she was already Richard's in thought, body etc.
Interesting stuff...

Regards - Lorraine

At 04:27 PM 11/28/02 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
>Laura
>
>In my last, hastily written reply (hence typos), I forget to ask you
>for more information on this:
>
><I have this pet theory about the aftermath of Queen Anne's death
>and Richard's need for a public denial of any intention to marry his
>niece, which is more "educated guess" than evidence-based. >
>
>I'd be interested to hear about it - offlist, if you prefer.
>
>I'm not against educated guesses regarding the period, esp. when so
>much evidence out there was *someone's* educated guess in the first
>place <g>.

Onlist is fine.

If you will cast your mind back to March 1983....Barrie Williams wrote in
_The Ricardian_ of the double marriage offered to the Portuguese just after
the death of Anne Neville: Richard would marry the princess Joanna, and
Elizabeth of York would have married Manuel, Duke of Beja. (It would have
made Elizabeth queen of Portugal when Duke Manuel became king, as it turns
out, not exactly making her "meanly matched in marriage.")

My pet theory is that some eavesdropper heard snatches of a council
conversation discussing the offer -- "The King....Elizabeth....marriage" --
but missed other important bits, e.g., "Joanna...Duke Manuel." This
eavesdropper, in my pet theory, came to the obvious but dead wrong
conclusion, as eavesdroppers often do, and spread the story far and wide,
upsetting Catesby and Ratcliffe and forcing the public denial.

Of course, I don't have a shred of evidence that I'm correct, but I like to
think it could have happened. It explains all the facts to my satisfaction.
Too bad I can't prove it...

By the way, I put the Portuguese princess tale up in our Bosworth section
at r3.org. In the draft, I had a temporary lapse and referred to Barrie
Williams as Barrie Dobson. Oops, that's not right, I said to myself, and
Barrie Dobson wouldn't thank me for that. So I promptly corrected it -- to
J. M. Barrie, prompting Geoffrey Wheeler to comment that I must have been
in Never Never Land when I did my keyboarding!


>Coincidentally, I've just been re-reading some old Ricardian Journal
>articles, one of which concerned Buck's letter from Young Liz to
>Norfolk and pointing out that certain later additions and amendments
>to the text really do alter the shades of meaning Buck may have
>originally ascribed to it. For instance, in the original it's not
>even clear who Elizabeth is describing as her 'only maker and joy'
>etc. - Norfolk or Richard, esp. when she is asking Norfolk's help in
>approaching the king. Why, the article writer ponders (sorry, I've
>forgotten now just who the author was), would this intercession be
>necessary if she was already Richard's in thought, body etc.
>Interesting stuff...
>

I don't know if this was your author or not, but I believe Arthur Noel
Kincaid made the same points in the foreword to his edition of Buck.
Someone also made the point, as I recall, that "my only joy and maker" was
fairly conventional language to discribe someone from whom the writer is
hoping to get a big favor. If Elizabeth was hoping for a brilliant marriage
(to duke Manuel, maybe?) but had to wait for Anne to die for it to be
negotiated as part of a package, the letter suddenly makes perfect sense
without being in any way a wish to marry Richard.


--
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

hi Dora

Bit late getting back on this and I don't think it's the whole
discussion but it'll do to be going on with:

R3, Lord Hastings & the Historians, English Historical Review
LXXXVII, 1972 (A Hanham)

R3 & Lord Hastings - a problematical case reviewed, Bulletin of the
Institute of Historical Research, XLVIII, 1975 (JAF Thomson)

When & Why did Hastings Lose His Head?, EHR, LXXXIX, 1974 (BP Wolffe)

Hastings Redivivus, EHR, XC, 1975 (Hanham)

Hastings Reinterred, EHR, XCI, 1976 (Wolffe)

Two other blokes weighed in with more info after this exchange, IIRC,
to do with little black books and refs abroad, but I haven't got
those refs here at hand - I expect the updated editions of Hicks,
Pollard et al, or Society literature will have these refs for you
though, if you fancy a search - it's a popular topic.

Lorraine

--- In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
> I'm glad I'm not the only one trying to figure that
> out. I have a list of articles to get from English
> Historical Review, which is at my local university
> library. Can you please give me the complete
> references (atleast year, volume and page numbers) and
> I will add these to the list.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dora

Sorry I'm so late getting back to this, Laura - deadlines are looming!

I do recall you mentioning this theory on another list Laura (sorry,
can't recall which one), and I agree it sounds very plausible indeed,
if one takes Whoever's word for it that Catesby and Ratcliffe did
indeed trot off to speak to the widowered R3 about such things - I'm
not convinced they did. (Not saying you think this, BTW, Laura, it's
just I know it's often said these 2 men were fairly close to R3, and
whilst it's true they both gained substantial returns for their
support, but I've not found any clear evidence that would suggest
they would have been familiar enough with him to have approached R3
on such a sensitive topic at such a senstive time).

regarding the Portuguese negotiations, I read during my recent trawl
through the old UK Ric. Journals, that despite her Holy Princess tag,
Barrie W. makes a pretty good case that in fact Joanna came closer to
marrying R3 than she had ever done with her other suitors, which I
found intriguing, and rather upsetting (what might have been, etc.).

Thanks too for the author reminder - yes, it was Kincaid I was on
about. [Funny how I think some recorded instances concerning R3
are utter tosh and yet I absolutely believe Buck saw that letter!] :)

Lorraine

--- In @y..., Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...>
wrote:
> At 04:27 PM 11/28/02 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
> >Laura
> >
> >In my last, hastily written reply (hence typos), I forget to ask
you
> >for more information on this:
> >
> ><I have this pet theory about the aftermath of Queen Anne's death
> >and Richard's need for a public denial of any intention to marry
his
> >niece, which is more "educated guess" than evidence-based. >
> >
> >I'd be interested to hear about it - offlist, if you prefer.
> >
> >I'm not against educated guesses regarding the period, esp. when
so
> >much evidence out there was *someone's* educated guess in the
first
> >place <g>.
>
> Onlist is fine.
>
> If you will cast your mind back to March 1983....Barrie Williams
wrote in
> _The Ricardian_ of the double marriage offered to the Portuguese
just after
> the death of Anne Neville: Richard would marry the princess Joanna,
and
> Elizabeth of York would have married Manuel, Duke of Beja. (It
would have
> made Elizabeth queen of Portugal when Duke Manuel became king, as
it turns
> out, not exactly making her "meanly matched in marriage.")
>
> My pet theory is that some eavesdropper heard snatches of a council
> conversation discussing the offer -- "The
King....Elizabeth....marriage" --
> but missed other important bits, e.g., "Joanna...Duke Manuel." This
> eavesdropper, in my pet theory, came to the obvious but dead wrong
> conclusion, as eavesdroppers often do, and spread the story far and
wide,
> upsetting Catesby and Ratcliffe and forcing the public denial.
>
> Of course, I don't have a shred of evidence that I'm correct, but I
like to
> think it could have happened. It explains all the facts to my
satisfaction.
> Too bad I can't prove it...
>
> By the way, I put the Portuguese princess tale up in our Bosworth
section
> at r3.org. In the draft, I had a temporary lapse and referred to
Barrie
> Williams as Barrie Dobson. Oops, that's not right, I said to
myself, and
> Barrie Dobson wouldn't thank me for that. So I promptly corrected
it -- to
> J. M. Barrie, prompting Geoffrey Wheeler to comment that I must
have been
> in Never Never Land when I did my keyboarding!
>
>
> >Coincidentally, I've just been re-reading some old Ricardian
Journal
> >articles, one of which concerned Buck's letter from Young Liz to
> >Norfolk and pointing out that certain later additions and
amendments
> >to the text really do alter the shades of meaning Buck may have
> >originally ascribed to it. For instance, in the original it's not
> >even clear who Elizabeth is describing as her 'only maker and joy'
> >etc. - Norfolk or Richard, esp. when she is asking Norfolk's help
in
> >approaching the king. Why, the article writer ponders (sorry,
I've
> >forgotten now just who the author was), would this intercession be
> >necessary if she was already Richard's in thought, body etc.
> >Interesting stuff...
> >
>
> I don't know if this was your author or not, but I believe Arthur
Noel
> Kincaid made the same points in the foreword to his edition of Buck.
> Someone also made the point, as I recall, that "my only joy and
maker" was
> fairly conventional language to discribe someone from whom the
writer is
> hoping to get a big favor. If Elizabeth was hoping for a brilliant
marriage
> (to duke Manuel, maybe?) but had to wait for Anne to die for it to
be
> negotiated as part of a package, the letter suddenly makes perfect
sense
> without being in any way a wish to marry Richard.
>
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 04:26 PM 12/5/02 -0000, you wrote:
>hi Dora
>
>Bit late getting back on this and I don't think it's the whole
>discussion but it'll do to be going on with:
>
>R3, Lord Hastings & the Historians, English Historical Review
>LXXXVII, 1972 (A Hanham)
>
>R3 & Lord Hastings - a problematical case reviewed, Bulletin of the
>Institute of Historical Research, XLVIII, 1975 (JAF Thomson)
>
>When & Why did Hastings Lose His Head?, EHR, LXXXIX, 1974 (BP Wolffe)
>
>Hastings Redivivus, EHR, XC, 1975 (Hanham)
>
>Hastings Reinterred, EHR, XCI, 1976 (Wolffe)
>
>Two other blokes weighed in with more info after this exchange, IIRC,
>to do with little black books and refs abroad, but I haven't got
>those refs here at hand - I expect the updated editions of Hicks,
>Pollard et al, or Society literature will have these refs for you
>though, if you fancy a search - it's a popular topic.
>
>Lorraine
>
>
try http://www.r3.org/basics/basic2.html#hastings
or http://www.r3.org/bookcase/pollard1.html (Chapter 4 - usurpation and
rebellion)

for citations

--
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

Thanks! Actually I think it may be January before I
actually have a chance to go to the university
library.

Dora

--- mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> hi Dora
>
> Bit late getting back on this and I don't think it's
> the whole
> discussion but it'll do to be going on with:
>
> R3, Lord Hastings & the Historians, English
> Historical Review
> LXXXVII, 1972 (A Hanham)
>
> R3 & Lord Hastings - a problematical case reviewed,
> Bulletin of the
> Institute of Historical Research, XLVIII, 1975 (JAF
> Thomson)
>
> When & Why did Hastings Lose His Head?, EHR, LXXXIX,
> 1974 (BP Wolffe)
>
> Hastings Redivivus, EHR, XC, 1975 (Hanham)
>
> Hastings Reinterred, EHR, XCI, 1976 (Wolffe)
>
> Two other blokes weighed in with more info after
> this exchange, IIRC,
> to do with little black books and refs abroad, but I
> haven't got
> those refs here at hand - I expect the updated
> editions of Hicks,
> Pollard et al, or Society literature will have these
> refs for you
> though, if you fancy a search - it's a popular
> topic.
>
> Lorraine
>
> --- In @y..., Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...>
> wrote:
> > I'm glad I'm not the only one trying to figure
> that
> > out. I have a list of articles to get from
> English
> > Historical Review, which is at my local university
> > library. Can you please give me the complete
> > references (atleast year, volume and page numbers)
> and
> > I will add these to the list.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Dora
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Laura:

Could you please provide me with the citations for
these two sources. I'd like to take a look at them.
I'm afraid I don't know who Barrie W. and Kinkaid are.
Thanks!

Dora

>
> regarding the Portuguese negotiations, I read during
> my recent trawl
> through the old UK Ric. Journals, that despite her
> Holy Princess tag,
> Barrie W. makes a pretty good case that in fact
> Joanna came closer to
> marrying R3 than she had ever done with her other
> suitors, which I
> found intriguing, and rather upsetting (what might
> have been, etc.).
>
> Thanks too for the author reminder - yes, it was
> Kincaid I was on
> about. [Funny how I think some recorded instances
> concerning R3
> are utter tosh and yet I absolutely believe Buck saw
> that letter!] :)
>
> Lorraine
>
> --- In @y..., Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@r...>
> wrote:
> > At 04:27 PM 11/28/02 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
> > >Laura
> > >
> > >In my last, hastily written reply (hence typos),
> I forget to ask
> you
> > >for more information on this:
> > >
> > ><I have this pet theory about the aftermath of
> Queen Anne's death
> > >and Richard's need for a public denial of any
> intention to marry
> his
> > >niece, which is more "educated guess" than
> evidence-based. >
> > >
> > >I'd be interested to hear about it - offlist, if
> you prefer.
> > >
> > >I'm not against educated guesses regarding the
> period, esp. when
> so
> > >much evidence out there was *someone's* educated
> guess in the
> first
> > >place <g>.
> >
> > Onlist is fine.
> >
> > If you will cast your mind back to March
> 1983....Barrie Williams
> wrote in
> > _The Ricardian_ of the double marriage offered to
> the Portuguese
> just after
> > the death of Anne Neville: Richard would marry the
> princess Joanna,
> and
> > Elizabeth of York would have married Manuel, Duke
> of Beja. (It
> would have
> > made Elizabeth queen of Portugal when Duke Manuel
> became king, as
> it turns
> > out, not exactly making her "meanly matched in
> marriage.")
> >
> > My pet theory is that some eavesdropper heard
> snatches of a council
> > conversation discussing the offer -- "The
> King....Elizabeth....marriage" --
> > but missed other important bits, e.g.,
> "Joanna...Duke Manuel." This
> > eavesdropper, in my pet theory, came to the
> obvious but dead wrong
> > conclusion, as eavesdroppers often do, and spread
> the story far and
> wide,
> > upsetting Catesby and Ratcliffe and forcing the
> public denial.
> >
> > Of course, I don't have a shred of evidence that
> I'm correct, but I
> like to
> > think it could have happened. It explains all the
> facts to my
> satisfaction.
> > Too bad I can't prove it...
> >
> > By the way, I put the Portuguese princess tale up
> in our Bosworth
> section
> > at r3.org. In the draft, I had a temporary lapse
> and referred to
> Barrie
> > Williams as Barrie Dobson. Oops, that's not right,
> I said to
> myself, and
> > Barrie Dobson wouldn't thank me for that. So I
> promptly corrected
> it -- to
> > J. M. Barrie, prompting Geoffrey Wheeler to
> comment that I must
> have been
> > in Never Never Land when I did my keyboarding!
> >
> >
> > >Coincidentally, I've just been re-reading some
> old Ricardian
> Journal
> > >articles, one of which concerned Buck's letter
> from Young Liz to
> > >Norfolk and pointing out that certain later
> additions and
> amendments
> > >to the text really do alter the shades of meaning
> Buck may have
> > >originally ascribed to it. For instance, in the
> original it's not
> > >even clear who Elizabeth is describing as her
> 'only maker and joy'
> > >etc. - Norfolk or Richard, esp. when she is
> asking Norfolk's help
> in
> > >approaching the king. Why, the article writer
> ponders (sorry,
> I've
> > >forgotten now just who the author was), would
> this intercession be
> > >necessary if she was already Richard's in
> thought, body etc.
> > >Interesting stuff...
> > >
> >
> > I don't know if this was your author or not, but I
> believe Arthur
> Noel
> > Kincaid made the same points in the foreword to
> his edition of Buck.
> > Someone also made the point, as I recall, that "my
> only joy and
> maker" was
> > fairly conventional language to discribe someone
> from whom the
> writer is
> > hoping to get a big favor. If Elizabeth was hoping
> for a brilliant
> marriage
> > (to duke Manuel, maybe?) but had to wait for Anne
> to die for it to
> be
> > negotiated as part of a package, the letter
> suddenly makes perfect
> sense
> > without being in any way a wish to marry Richard.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of
> Special
> > Collections Libraries
> > lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> > Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I suspect it is indeed the same citations, but I asked
in case there was something I didn't already have.

Dora


try http://www.r3.org/basics/basic2.html#hastings
> or http://www.r3.org/bookcase/pollard1.html (Chapter
> 4 - usurpation and
> rebellion)
>
> for citations
>
> --
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

At 04:52 PM 12/5/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Laura:
>
>Could you please provide me with the citations for
>these two sources. I'd like to take a look at them.
>I'm afraid I don't know who Barrie W. and Kinkaid are.
>Thanks!
>
>
Barrie Williams was writing in an early 1980s issue of the Ricardian --
1981, if memory serves. It's listed in the Bosworth section of the
http://www.r3.org/ website if you'd like the precise reference -- see the
page on legends, and click the more information link by the Portuguese
princess item.

Arthur Noel Kincaid brought out an edition of Sir George Buck's history.
You should be able to find a reference in the British Library catalog.

--
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

Thanks!

Dora

--- Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> At 04:52 PM 12/5/02 -0800, you wrote:
> >Laura:
> >
> >
> Barrie Williams was writing in an early 1980s issue
> of the Ricardian --
> 1981, if memory serves. It's listed in the Bosworth
> section of the
> http://www.r3.org/ website if you'd like the precise
> reference -- see the
> page on legends, and click the more information link
> by the Portuguese
> princess item.
>
> Arthur Noel Kincaid brought out an edition of Sir
> George Buck's history.
> You should be able to find a reference in the
> British Library catalog.
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

This is from an answer someone made to my post on the
medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.

"I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the helmet
Henry V wore at
Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached, with
what is
supposedly
damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys" from
the coronet. If
you
watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so far as
to include the
incident
whent he damage is done.

I should think Richard could well have worn a
similarly decorated
helmet
(though in a later style), "

Yours,
Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Dora, I think you have essentially the right idea here. The crown
refered to would not be a crown like the one that was used for
ceremonial occasions. No doubt there were many different crowns that
were used, depending on the occasion. Richard's wearing of a crown
into battle most likely meant some type of circlet that was attached
to the helmet. It would have undoubtably marked him as the king, and
thus a target, and so would his armor, possibly. As for RIII having
his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no doubt these were
brought with him as symbols of authority and power, and likely always
traveled with the king. He meant to win the battle, and likely felt
that the odds were in his favor. It is therefore likely that another
crown - sans helmet - would have been worn by RIII after the battle,
to address his troops, perhaps. Although I work in a museum and have
handled various pieces of armor, I'm not an armor expert, so if
anyone out there is, please feel free to correct me. The circlet
reminds me of some busts of particular military heros or rulers, such
as Cosimo I of Italy - the marble bust is still intact, but holes on
the head of the figure suggest that a metal crown or circlet was
attached to the bust at one time. Since they were separately
attached, it appears that time - or perhaps thievery - has done it's
work and the circlets don't survive. Much the same for a circlet
attached to a helmet, subjected to the stresses of hand to hand
combat and ambush. Best, Kim

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> This is from an answer someone made to my post on the
> medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
> incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.
>
> "I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the helmet
> Henry V wore at
> Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached, with
> what is
> supposedly
> damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys" from
> the coronet. If
> you
> watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so far as
> to include the
> incident
> whent he damage is done.
>
> I should think Richard could well have worn a
> similarly decorated
> helmet
> (though in a later style), "
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

It kind of looks like it was a crown, it wasn't what the stories have
made of it. Certainly not quite what Hughes made of it. It would be
interesting to know exactly how big and shiny it looked, though!

I suspect this is as far as I'll get on it. I posted to the big
soc.medieval newsgroup, and noone responded.

Dora



--- In , "Kim <kim@d...>"
<kim@d...> wrote:
> Dora, I think you have essentially the right idea here. The crown
> refered to would not be a crown like the one that was used for
> ceremonial occasions. No doubt there were many different crowns
that
> were used, depending on the occasion. Richard's wearing of a crown
> into battle most likely meant some type of circlet that was
attached
> to the helmet. It would have undoubtably marked him as the king,
and
> thus a target, and so would his armor, possibly. As for RIII
having
> his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no doubt these were
> brought with him as symbols of authority and power, and likely
always
> traveled with the king. He meant to win the battle, and likely
felt
> that the odds were in his favor. It is therefore likely that
another
> crown - sans helmet - would have been worn by RIII after the
battle,
> to address his troops, perhaps. Although I work in a museum and
have
> handled various pieces of armor, I'm not an armor expert, so if
> anyone out there is, please feel free to correct me. The circlet
> reminds me of some busts of particular military heros or rulers,
such
> as Cosimo I of Italy - the marble bust is still intact, but holes
on
> the head of the figure suggest that a metal crown or circlet was
> attached to the bust at one time. Since they were separately
> attached, it appears that time - or perhaps thievery - has done
it's
> work and the circlets don't survive. Much the same for a circlet
> attached to a helmet, subjected to the stresses of hand to hand
> combat and ambush. Best, Kim
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > This is from an answer someone made to my post on the
> > medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
> > incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.
> >
> > "I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the helmet
> > Henry V wore at
> > Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached, with
> > what is
> > supposedly
> > damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys" from
> > the coronet. If
> > you
> > watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so far as
> > to include the
> > incident
> > whent he damage is done.
> >
> > I should think Richard could well have worn a
> > similarly decorated
> > helmet
> > (though in a later style), "
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Someone on the medievl-l list wrote that the new book
by Michael K. Jones, "Bosworth 1485: The Psychology
of Battle" contains information on the rituals of the
battle and the crown. She didn't say what
information.

I htink this book is mentioned in the pages on
Bosworth at the r3.org web site. If it is very new I
may not be able to get my paws on it, unless access to
it comes with my Richard III Society membership, but I
will look for it.

I recommend that list, too. Seems to be far morea
live than the big soc.history.medieval newsgroup,
where I got no answers to my question about the crown,
and there are long discussions about Tolkien, Tolkien
as current instrument of war, and medieval epidemics
and chances that they will recur - and Canada falls
into line on the evil empire.

Dora



--- "Kim <kim@...>" <kim@...> wrote:
> Dora, I think you have essentially the right idea
> here. The crown
> refered to would not be a crown like the one that
> was used for
> ceremonial occasions. No doubt there were many
> different crowns that
> were used, depending on the occasion. Richard's
> wearing of a crown
> into battle most likely meant some type of circlet
> that was attached
> to the helmet. It would have undoubtably marked him
> as the king, and
> thus a target, and so would his armor, possibly.
> As for RIII having
> his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no
> doubt these were
> brought with him as symbols of authority and power,
> and likely always
> traveled with the king. He meant to win the battle,
> and likely felt
> that the odds were in his favor. It is therefore
> likely that another
> crown - sans helmet - would have been worn by RIII
> after the battle,
> to address his troops, perhaps. Although I work in
> a museum and have
> handled various pieces of armor, I'm not an armor
> expert, so if
> anyone out there is, please feel free to correct me.
> The circlet
> reminds me of some busts of particular military
> heros or rulers, such
> as Cosimo I of Italy - the marble bust is still
> intact, but holes on
> the head of the figure suggest that a metal crown or
> circlet was
> attached to the bust at one time. Since they were
> separately
> attached, it appears that time - or perhaps thievery
> - has done it's
> work and the circlets don't survive. Much the same
> for a circlet
> attached to a helmet, subjected to the stresses of
> hand to hand
> combat and ambush. Best, Kim
>
> --- In , Dora
> Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > This is from an answer someone made to my post on
> the
> > medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
> > incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.
> >
> > "I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the
> helmet
> > Henry V wore at
> > Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached,
> with
> > what is
> > supposedly
> > damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys"
> from
> > the coronet. If
> > you
> > watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so far
> as
> > to include the
> > incident
> > whent he damage is done.
> >
> > I should think Richard could well have worn a
> > similarly decorated
> > helmet
> > (though in a later style), "
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I posted the information someone sent me that Michael Jones' book on
Bosworth is supposed to contain information on battle ritual and
Richard's crown - she didn't say what information but told me it
would be useful for me to read it. I don't know what happened to
this post - I don't see it.

I did look into getting access to this book. Local university
library is currently processing it for location undetermined. This
could take months. Book is new and available in hard cover for $30.
Let's see - I can either join the R3 organization - or buy this
book. I hope membership gives us access to books!

Yours,
Dora

--- In , "Kim <kim@d...>"
<kim@d...> wrote:
> Dora, I think you have essentially the right idea here. The crown
> refered to would not be a crown like the one that was used for
> ceremonial occasions. No doubt there were many different crowns
that
> were used, depending on the occasion. Richard's wearing of a crown
> into battle most likely meant some type of circlet that was
attached
> to the helmet. It would have undoubtably marked him as the king,
and
> thus a target, and so would his armor, possibly. As for RIII
having
> his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no doubt these were
> brought with him as symbols of authority and power, and likely
always
> traveled with the king. He meant to win the battle, and likely
felt
> that the odds were in his favor. It is therefore likely that
another
> crown - sans helmet - would have been worn by RIII after the
battle,
> to address his troops, perhaps. Although I work in a museum and
have
> handled various pieces of armor, I'm not an armor expert, so if
> anyone out there is, please feel free to correct me. The circlet
> reminds me of some busts of particular military heros or rulers,
such
> as Cosimo I of Italy - the marble bust is still intact, but holes
on
> the head of the figure suggest that a metal crown or circlet was
> attached to the bust at one time. Since they were separately
> attached, it appears that time - or perhaps thievery - has done
it's
> work and the circlets don't survive. Much the same for a circlet
> attached to a helmet, subjected to the stresses of hand to hand
> combat and ambush. Best, Kim
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > This is from an answer someone made to my post on the
> > medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
> > incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.
> >
> > "I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the helmet
> > Henry V wore at
> > Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached, with
> > what is
> > supposedly
> > damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys" from
> > the coronet. If
> > you
> > watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so far as
> > to include the
> > incident
> > whent he damage is done.
> >
> > I should think Richard could well have worn a
> > similarly decorated
> > helmet
> > (though in a later style), "
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Kim observed:
"As for RIII having
his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no doubt these were
brought with him as symbols of authority and power, and likely
always
traveled with the king. "

I thought the royal treasury was looted by the Marquise of Dorset,
Elizabeth Woodville's son. Doesn't seem like he'd miss "the crown"
when gathering up all the royal jewels.
I think the surmise that it was a gold circlet on the battle helm
is much more likely. And of course, one has to allow for legend and
tall tales to be spun about the Battle and its aftermath. Ballad
makers are not always accurate historical sources. Sometimes when
we have so little information, we grab on to anything and make it
hisotical truth. Authors of novels do that alot to flesh out their
story.

Janet


--- In , "Kim <kim@d...>"
<kim@d...> wrote:
> Dora, I think you have essentially the right idea here. The crown
> refered to would not be a crown like the one that was used for
> ceremonial occasions. No doubt there were many different crowns
that
> were used, depending on the occasion. Richard's wearing of a
crown
> into battle most likely meant some type of circlet that was
attached
> to the helmet. It would have undoubtably marked him as the king,
and
> thus a target, and so would his armor, possibly. As for RIII
having
> his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no doubt these
were
> brought with him as symbols of authority and power, and likely
always
> traveled with the king. He meant to win the battle, and likely
felt
> that the odds were in his favor. It is therefore likely that
another
> crown - sans helmet - would have been worn by RIII after the
battle,
> to address his troops, perhaps. Although I work in a museum and
have
> handled various pieces of armor, I'm not an armor expert, so if
> anyone out there is, please feel free to correct me. The circlet
> reminds me of some busts of particular military heros or rulers,
such
> as Cosimo I of Italy - the marble bust is still intact, but holes
on
> the head of the figure suggest that a metal crown or circlet was
> attached to the bust at one time. Since they were separately
> attached, it appears that time - or perhaps thievery - has done
it's
> work and the circlets don't survive. Much the same for a circlet
> attached to a helmet, subjected to the stresses of hand to hand
> combat and ambush. Best, Kim
>
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > This is from an answer someone made to my post on the
> > medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
> > incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.
> >
> > "I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the helmet
> > Henry V wore at
> > Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached, with
> > what is
> > supposedly
> > damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys" from
> > the coronet. If
> > you
> > watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so far as
> > to include the
> > incident
> > whent he damage is done.
> >
> > I should think Richard could well have worn a
> > similarly decorated
> > helmet
> > (though in a later style), "
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com

At 03:45 PM 1/7/03 -0000, you wrote:
>I posted the information someone sent me that Michael Jones' book on
>Bosworth is supposed to contain information on battle ritual and
>Richard's crown - she didn't say what information but told me it
>would be useful for me to read it. I don't know what happened to
>this post - I don't see it.
>
>I did look into getting access to this book. Local university
>library is currently processing it for location undetermined. This
>could take months. Book is new and available in hard cover for $30.
>Let's see - I can either join the R3 organization - or buy this
>book. I hope membership gives us access to books!
>

Hello, Dora and all. When you join the American Branch, you get access to
the Branch library of more than 400 nonfiction works and a significant
number of fiction works as well (the number escapes me at the moment). You
borrow books through the mail -- the librarian mails them to you and when
you mail them back (insured) you tuck the money for the initial postage
into the pocket in the back of the book. Members can access the booklists
from the member section of the American Branch website.

The Society's library is somewhat larger than the American Branch library
and operates on the same scheme. Because of the vagaries of international
mail, it does not lend to overseas members, one reason that we have our own
over here.

Given that one of the benefits of membership this year will be a 500-plus
page Festschrift celebrating Anne Sutton's 25 years as editor of the
Ricardian, I'd say that membership is definitely the better value than the
purchase of most other books right now! We have some information on the
Festschrift, supplied to us by Wendy Moorhen, the society's research
officer, on the homepage at http://www.r3.org/ and there may be something
on the society site as well.



--
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

> Someone on the medievl-l list wrote that the new book
> by Michael K. Jones, "Bosworth 1485: The Psychology
> of Battle" contains information on the rituals of the
> battle and the crown. She didn't say what
> information.
>

I have read Michael K Jones on Bosworth - a fascinating book which proposes
an entirely new theory with regard to Richard's motivation in taking the
crown. A must buy!

Jones seems to theorise that Richard paraded before his troops wearing the
actual crown of England (St Edward's crown) to signify the validity of his
claim as the only true heir of York. (Thereafter he would have worn a light
circlet into battle on his helm).

Jones cites a number of sources, in particular the Spanish ambassador Diego
de Valera. He also produces an eye-witness account of Richard's defeat from
one of Henry VII's mercenaries fighting with Phillippe de Chande! Jones
relocates the site of the battle entirely.

Jessica

Alright! I already thought joining was well worth the $30. Unless
my tooth needs to completely come out in two weeks after I get a
paycheck with actual money in it - I'm hoping to consult and get any
emergency treatment in two weeks and get the tooth out the following
month, knock on wood, total cost for required consult and then
extraction is $200 and my dental insurance would have paid 25% of the
higher fee of a different dentist, either three months from now or
within 72 hours and BEFORE I've even got the money to pay the rent -
I will pay my dues at that time! I joined online yesterday, but I
think I have to actually pay my dues before I am a member.

Dora

-- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 03:45 PM 1/7/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >I posted the information someone sent me that Michael Jones' book
on
> >Bosworth is supposed to contain information on battle ritual and
> >Richard's crown - she didn't say what information but told me it
> >would be useful for me to read it. I don't know what happened to
> >this post - I don't see it.
> >
> >I did look into getting access to this book. Local university
> >library is currently processing it for location undetermined.
This
> >could take months. Book is new and available in hard cover for
$30.
> >Let's see - I can either join the R3 organization - or buy this
> >book. I hope membership gives us access to books!
> >
>
> Hello, Dora and all. When you join the American Branch, you get
access to
> the Branch library of more than 400 nonfiction works and a
significant
> number of fiction works as well (the number escapes me at the
moment). You
> borrow books through the mail -- the librarian mails them to you
and when
> you mail them back (insured) you tuck the money for the initial
postage
> into the pocket in the back of the book. Members can access the
booklists
> from the member section of the American Branch website.
>
> The Society's library is somewhat larger than the American Branch
library
> and operates on the same scheme. Because of the vagaries of
international
> mail, it does not lend to overseas members, one reason that we have
our own
> over here.
>
> Given that one of the benefits of membership this year will be a
500-plus
> page Festschrift celebrating Anne Sutton's 25 years as editor of the
> Ricardian, I'd say that membership is definitely the better value
than the
> purchase of most other books right now! We have some information on
the
> Festschrift, supplied to us by Wendy Moorhen, the society's research
> officer, on the homepage at http://www.r3.org/ and there may be
something
> on the society site as well.
>
>
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I've made it a commitment to join the society once I graduate high school in
2004. I mentioned it to my mom and she said it sounds like "a group of
english teachers." weird, and she used to like it that I had taken an
interest in history.

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

Something could have gotten twisted, alright.

I think you're right on the second point. There is
evidence only part of the royal treasury was looted by
Woodvilles and company. Receipts show substantial
bills paid out of what was left, for example!

Dora


--- "Janet <forevere@...>"
<forevere@...> wrote:
> Kim observed:
> "As for RIII having
> his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no
> doubt these were
> brought with him as symbols of authority and power,
> and likely
> always
> traveled with the king. "
>
> I thought the royal treasury was looted by the
> Marquise of Dorset,
> Elizabeth Woodville's son. Doesn't seem like he'd
> miss "the crown"
> when gathering up all the royal jewels.
> I think the surmise that it was a gold circlet on
> the battle helm
> is much more likely. And of course, one has to
> allow for legend and
> tall tales to be spun about the Battle and its
> aftermath. Ballad
> makers are not always accurate historical sources.
> Sometimes when
> we have so little information, we grab on to
> anything and make it
> hisotical truth. Authors of novels do that alot to
> flesh out their
> story.
>
> Janet
>
>
> --- In , "Kim
> <kim@d...>"
> <kim@d...> wrote:
> > Dora, I think you have essentially the right idea
> here. The crown
> > refered to would not be a crown like the one that
> was used for
> > ceremonial occasions. No doubt there were many
> different crowns
> that
> > were used, depending on the occasion. Richard's
> wearing of a
> crown
> > into battle most likely meant some type of circlet
> that was
> attached
> > to the helmet. It would have undoubtably marked
> him as the king,
> and
> > thus a target, and so would his armor, possibly.
> As for RIII
> having
> > his crown and jewels, etc. at the battle field, no
> doubt these
> were
> > brought with him as symbols of authority and
> power, and likely
> always
> > traveled with the king. He meant to win the
> battle, and likely
> felt
> > that the odds were in his favor. It is therefore
> likely that
> another
> > crown - sans helmet - would have been worn by RIII
> after the
> battle,
> > to address his troops, perhaps. Although I work
> in a museum and
> have
> > handled various pieces of armor, I'm not an armor
> expert, so if
> > anyone out there is, please feel free to correct
> me. The circlet
> > reminds me of some busts of particular military
> heros or rulers,
> such
> > as Cosimo I of Italy - the marble bust is still
> intact, but holes
> on
> > the head of the figure suggest that a metal crown
> or circlet was
> > attached to the bust at one time. Since they were
> separately
> > attached, it appears that time - or perhaps
> thievery - has done
> it's
> > work and the circlets don't survive. Much the
> same for a circlet
> > attached to a helmet, subjected to the stresses of
> hand to hand
> > combat and ambush. Best, Kim
> >
> > --- In ,
> Dora Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > This is from an answer someone made to my post
> on the
> > > medievl-l list on how a crown might have been
> > > incorporated onto Richard's battle helmet.
> > >
> > > "I've seen photos of what is suposed to be the
> helmet
> > > Henry V wore at
> > > Agincourt. It has a light gold coronet attached,
> with
> > > what is
> > > supposedly
> > > damage from Agincourt - a missing "fleur-de-lys"
> from
> > > the coronet. If
> > > you
> > > watch the Olivier movie of Henry V they go so
> far as
> > > to include the
> > > incident
> > > whent he damage is done.
> > >
> > > I should think Richard could well have worn a
> > > similarly decorated
> > > helmet
> > > (though in a later style), "
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Yup, it definately looks worth reading for the key new
data.

Does he even discuss actual wearing of the crown in
battle? Because the Spanish observer did - atleast
among other things. Wearing the crown in a ceremony
the day before isn't what Hughes was talking about, as
it wouldn't imply insanity, and it wouldn't have the
helmet with the crown on it end up under a bush at the
battle.

I seriously question the new theory of why Richard
took the throne without having read it yet. He
proposes that Richard believed his BROTHER's birth was
illegitimate. An old rumor, and an old explanation of
Richard's motives for seizing the throne. It is
logically consistent only with the idea that Richard
intended to seize the throne from the moment he
learned Edward was dead. How would something he had
heard all of his life inspire him to seize the throne
at the last minute?

It appears there is also some outright playing with
the data equal to Moore's in the book.

I saw a picture of the author - he looks like a
veritable Ricardian. Even better than that actor
REes.

But a book can have problems and still yield important
information, and it looks to me like this one does. I
may wait for it to be available in the university
library though. Or to reach Half Price Books.

Dora



--- Jessica Rydill <la@...> wrote:
> > Someone on the medievl-l list wrote that the new
> book
> > by Michael K. Jones, "Bosworth 1485: The
> Psychology
> > of Battle" contains information on the rituals of
> the
> > battle and the crown. She didn't say what
> > information.
> >
>
> I have read Michael K Jones on Bosworth - a
> fascinating book which proposes
> an entirely new theory with regard to Richard's
> motivation in taking the
> crown. A must buy!
>
> Jones seems to theorise that Richard paraded before
> his troops wearing the
> actual crown of England (St Edward's crown) to
> signify the validity of his
> claim as the only true heir of York. (Thereafter he
> would have worn a light
> circlet into battle on his helm).
>
> Jones cites a number of sources, in particular the
> Spanish ambassador Diego
> de Valera. He also produces an eye-witness account
> of Richard's defeat from
> one of Henry VII's mercenaries fighting with
> Phillippe de Chande! Jones
> relocates the site of the battle entirely.
>
> Jessica
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I confess I am at a disadvantage as I haven't read Hughes. I found him
rather annoying and got stuck.

However Jones does discuss the whole crown issue at some length.

I was quite taken with his theory about the bastardy of Edward IV. He seems
to argue that Cecily Neville propagated this story herself, and he cites
where she was during Richard's protectorship and the transitional period
before he became king. I can't recall his sources but he certainly cites
the rumour or story that Cecily called Edward a bastard (not in the
colloquial sense!) when incensed by his marriage (clandestine) to Elizabeth
Woodville. I can't remember which chronicler put that one about but Jones
builds on it. Of course his reading of the sources is selective but the
evidence is based on where the "players" were at certain times. He
effectively has Cecily guiding Richard's bid for the throne as the only true
heir of York and lays great emphasis on Richard's relationship with his
father. He also has some fascinating stuff to say about Richard's view of
himself as a general, drawing on De re militari - he likens Richard (and his
father) to Stilicho. In this he draws on the Sutton and Visser-Fuchs book
about Richard's books.

Jessica