Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?

[Kimberly]

" Most historians except Ricardians"........really Eric, where is your source for this statement !

[Eric_Lowe]

Easy. Just read the wikipedia on Eleanor Talbot (Butler) you can see both sides. Richard III was a very curious character. He wasn't the monster as shown by Tudor propraganda nor was he the virtuous knight in shining armor of the Richardians. I think Michael Hicks's book on Richard III is the most balanced as he argued both sides.   

[Kimberly]

Aahhhh Wikipedia .......so nothing scholarly then :-)

[Eric_Lowe]

That is a cheap shot. I don't see you offer anything back. I think the book Michael Hicks wrote is very scholarly. You can learn a few things from him yet...for example manners and courtesy.

[Kimberly]

It is not a " cheap shot" at all , neither is it discourteous of me. I have already suggested Helmholz and as for Eleanor Talbot there is a book out there written by John Ashdown-Hill..
" Eleanor, the Secret Queen; the woman who put Richard III on the throne".
In the UK , Wikipedia is very much frowned on regarding academic studies and there are "students" who read this forum as FA tells us.
I have read several books written by Michael Hicks, in fact I am looking at his "Anne Neville" right now. While I do not agree with his casting of Richard as a "serial incestor" it is an absolutely excellent resource for the explanation on degrees of affinity and such like.
I make no apology for being a "Ricardian" but I do not see Richard as a "whiter than white knight in shining armour", rather, he was a typical medieval King who was just as bloody as the rest of them.

[Kalafrana]

Eric

You make a fair point that the validity of Edward's marriage was not brought into question in 1470-71.

However, Warwick was casting doubt on Edward's own title to the throne, not that of his issue.

I also agree with Kimberly about Wikipedia. It is useful for basic stuff like dates, but  otherwise it's reliability depends entirely on the anonymous authors of individual entries. Some are clearly serious scholars, but by no means all.

Incidentally, what is the source for Cecily's marriage to Scrope?

Ann

[Eric_Lowe]

Ann,

Indeed. I am ready for a point to point discussion. Indeed Michael Hicks (I thought he was a Ricardian, but his book on Richard III was surprisingly fair) deemed Richard III claim as weak and most common people do not support an uncle taking over his nephew's throne. That Richard's popularity dropped once he took the throne (before that he was well respected for his loyalty to his brother and good administration skills in the North, where his power base was). The fact that the marriage was not called into question before made any claims from him selfserving since he was the beneficiary of it (the result him being king).

I agree with Michael Hicks that Richard III's name was already blackened before the Tudor propaganda took over. My belief was that Richard III planned this "take over" and executed it with great accuracy (surprising both Rivers & Hastings). However morally it did not fly with the common people who heard that he swore at his brother's death bed to take care of his family. Elizabeth Woodville was forced into a corner when her husband dies, brother executed and her title & marriage disputed. Richard made an error when he took the young Duke of York from his mother, it created sympathy for the widow & child torn away by a wicked uncle. Had she been allowed to be with Richard (they could be taken together), she would never thrown her lot with Margaret Beaufort and the whole Tudor propaganda would have fallen apart. Richard III's real sin was towards his own house (York) and gave Henry Tudor a cause to enter History. The whole sale fall out of nobles towards Henry Tudor was entirely his mismanagement of both his PR and those who should be close to him.

It was my belief that had Richard III content to be Lord Protector of Edward V, there would be no opening for Henry Tudor & Margaret Beaufort. It would give him time to built up his Southern power base (most of his enemies came from that region) and solidify his situation as "the good uncle" like John of Gaunt (uncle to Richard II) or Duke of Bedford (Uncle to Henry VI) before the strike. He may also marry the girls out of the country into alliances...Instead he thought he could pull it off. Big mistake.   

[DNAgenie]

Indeed Michael Hicks (I thought he was a Ricardian, but his book on Richard III was surprisingly fair) deemed Richard III claim as weak

That depends how you define a Ricardian.   It is a fallacy that a Ricardian must believe that Richard was a great man in all respects. The Ricardian Society makes a point of researching Richard III's period on a strictly factual basis. Michael Hicks has articles on their website, despite the fact that he thinks Richard's claim was weak, as stated above.

[Eric_Lowe]

Well...That is not really rational isn't it ? I love Ella and Missy, but I cannot say that they were "great women in all respects". Everyone has their flaws and Richard III surely had his share of it. I don't think you can have a dialogue with that kind of belief...like the cult of Chairman Mao.

[Kalafrana]

What is a Ricardian?

There are some Richard groupies who will not have a word said against Richard and regard him as  a romantic hero and his marriage to Anne Nevile as a great love story - there are quite a few historical novels which follow that line.

There are others who wish simply to find out how it really was, and I put myself in that category.

Ann

[Kimberly]

Anne, absolutely with you on this and I am in the same camp as you. As with any "interest group" you will get the fanatics, amusingly, the Ricardian variety seem to be pictured among some as wild-haired, tweed wearing matrons with a faint whiff of mothballs and cat pee. I do think that the vast majority of "Ricardians" believe that Richard was a "flawed" human being....after all, who of us isn't?
The Richard III Society is very much a scholarly institution which promotes research into the life and times of the man himself and it is open to anyone to join ( and no, I am not a recruitment officer :-)  ).

That seems pretty rational to me Eric, after all, if we all thought that Richard was whiter than white or blacker than black, there would be very little if any, discussion at all.

( reason for edit...spelling error).

[Kimberly]

Eric

Incidentally, what is the source for Cecily's marriage to Scrope?

Ann

I cannot answer for Eric :-) but this has picqued my interest.
According to Baldwin ( Elizabeth Woodville, mother of the Princes in the Tower), Ralph Scrope of Upsall was first husband to Cecily who then went on to marry John, Viscount Welles and thirdly, Thomas Kyne of Friskey.
Alison Weir's  Britain's Royal families, ( my copy is quite old ) notes that Cecily had only 2 husbands, Welles and Kyne.
The Scrope family page shows that Ralph was married to a certain Eleanor Windsor and elsewhere it is suggested that Eleanor is in fact his 2nd wife having had the previous marriage to Cecily dissolved.
Cecily was buried in Quarr Abbey, Isle of Wight which was lost following the Dissolution. However, there is record of a tomb found in a church ( St Alkmund) in Shropshire which was described as white marble and inscribed "one Lady Scroop, Daughter of K Edward. This church collapsed into ruin in 1711.

[Kalafrana]

Kimberly

Thanks for both your messages.

I too have a fairly old copy of the Weir book and went first to that as a convenient source.

I do belong to the Richard III Society but get impatient with some members who take the romantic view.

Ann

[Eric_Lowe]

I think Richard III was a very complicated human being. I like to know the real person and thus open to the possibility that he wasn't a nice person. But most Ricardians I met are of the Shining armour and romantic sort. I personally think he was a traitor to his House and his taking the throne set in motion the succession of the Tudors and fall of the House of York.

[Kimberly]

Well Eric, sounds like you should meet Anne and me..:-), we are very "normal".