Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal

Expand Messages
  • Paul Trevor Bale
    ... Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we should not really have to
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009

      On 31 Jan 2009, at 13:07, Harry Jones wrote:

      I am also a Yorkist supporter but I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on Richard III its an argument I have been having with friends for over thirty years and these days not an area of History I wish to go to


      Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we should not really have to defend? :-)
      The Tudors did a terrific job of denigrating the man, didn't they?
      What I also find interesting is that, as with Richard, Shakespeare did a brilliant dramatisation of the lies of the winners with Macbeth, but you see few people jumping up to defend him, and certainly no organisation formed with the intention of clearing his name from the libels of the poet. This I would say speaks volumes about Richard's charisma. If it wasn't outside the time line I'd suggest we ask why it is Macbeth is more or less left swimming in witches, while thousands of pages are wasted discussing a crime that may never, probably did not, even have taken place?
      Paul


      Richard liveth yet



    • Harry Jones
      Sorry to say paul that while I have a certian agreement with you on the tudor myth of Richard I still hold him responsible for the death of King Edward V and
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009
        Sorry to say paul that while I have a certian agreement with you on the tudor myth of Richard I still hold him responsible for the death of King Edward V and Richard Duke of York and I'm afraid look on him as a ursurper and for me the most damming evidence is that writers of the time with no axe to grind (Like the Crowland Chronicle) accuse him of the deed.
        Also the myth that the Princes were killed on the orders of Henry Tudor also don't really stand up to close scrutinity and Finally if He was not responsible for their deaths, (Don't forget he was their gaurdian) why didn't he just show them to the people when the rumours first started.
        I have a battle royal over this subject about every ten years when I reach the period in my lectures. I really do think that this is a subject where the lines for and against are just so solid that we really will never know exactly what happened.
        However wether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the princes or someone else did the deed for him or themselves Richard was a Medieval Monarch and I'm afraid as with all
        Medieval Monarchs the Buck stops with the King.
        cheers Glyn


         
         


        --- On Sun, 1/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
        From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
        Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
        To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 10:02 AM


        On 31 Jan 2009, at 13:07, Harry Jones wrote:

        I am also a Yorkist supporter but I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on Richard III its an argument I have been having with friends for over thirty years and these days not an area of History I wish to go to


        Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we should not really have to defend? :-)
        The Tudors did a terrific job of denigrating the man, didn't they?
        What I also find interesting is that, as with Richard, Shakespeare did a brilliant dramatisation of the lies of the winners with Macbeth, but you see few people jumping up to defend him, and certainly no organisation formed with the intention of clearing his name from the libels of the poet. This I would say speaks volumes about Richard's charisma. If it wasn't outside the time line I'd suggest we ask why it is Macbeth is more or less left swimming in witches, while thousands of pages are wasted discussing a crime that may never, probably did not, even have taken place?
        Paul


        Richard liveth yet




      • Maria
        Another county heard from here: This is, of course, assuming that Edward and Richard were, in fact, killed, a point which was never completely settled then or
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009
          Another county heard from here:

          This is, of course, assuming that Edward and Richard were, in fact, killed, a point which was never completely settled then or now. The question of it being a question was settled for me when William Stanley said of Perkin Warbeck that, if it proved that he was young Richard, Will Stanley wouldn't stand in his way. It was a dangerous enough declaration that it cost Stanley his life; beyond even that: the Stanley family members made it their business to be on top of as much as possible. If a Stanley couldn't be certain that the Princes were alive or dead, then no one was.

          Maria
          elena@...

          -----Original Message-----
          >From: Harry Jones <cihtoguk@...>
          >Sent: Feb 1, 2009 1:02 PM
          >To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
          >
          >Sorry to say paul that while I have a certian agreement with you on the tudor myth of Richard I still hold him responsible for the death of King Edward V and Richard Duke of York and I'm afraid look on him as a ursurper and for me the most damming evidence is that writers of the time with no axe to grind (Like the Crowland Chronicle) accuse him of the deed.
          >Also the myth that the Princes were killed on the orders of Henry Tudor also don't really stand up to close scrutinity and Finally if He was not responsible for their deaths, (Don't forget he was their gaurdian) why didn't he just show them to the people when the rumours first started.
          >I have a battle royal over this subject about every ten years when I reach the period in my lectures. I really do think that this is a subject where the lines for and against are just so solid that we really will never know exactly what happened.
          >However wether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the princes or someone else did the deed for him or themselves Richard was a Medieval Monarch and I'm afraid as with all
          >Medieval Monarchs the Buck stops with the King.
          >cheers Glyn
          >
          >


          >
          >
          >
          >
          >--- On Sun, 1/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
          >
          >From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
          >Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
          >To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
          >Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 10:02 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >On 31 Jan 2009, at 13:07, Harry Jones wrote:
          >
          >I am also a Yorkist supporter but I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on Richard III its an argument I have been having with friends for over thirty years and these days not an area of History I wish to go to
          >
          >
          >
          >Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we should not really have to defend? :-)
          >The Tudors did a terrific job of denigrating the man, didn't they?
          >What I also find interesting is that, as with Richard, Shakespeare did a brilliant dramatisation of the lies of the winners with Macbeth, but you see few people jumping up to defend him, and certainly no organisation formed with the intention of clearing his name from the libels of the poet. This I would say speaks volumes about Richard's charisma. If it wasn't outside the time line I'd suggest we ask why it is Macbeth is more or less left swimming in witches, while thousands of pages are wasted discussing a crime that may never, probably did not, even have taken place?
          >Paul
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Richard liveth yet
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Paul Trevor Bale
          Quite frankly I don t care all that much what happened to the bastards in the Tower, but I am certain Richard did not kill or have them killed. Nothing in his
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009
            Quite frankly I don't care all that much what happened to the bastards in the Tower, but I am certain Richard did not kill or have them killed. Nothing in his life up to that point shows him capable of such an act. And he had no need to kill them, having been declared king by Commons and Lords legally.
            As for contemporary accusers, you are incorrect.
            Mancini in December 83 said "whether he has been done away with, so far I have not at all discovered"
            Crowland actually says, talking of when the King was in York in September "while these things were happening the two sons of Edward IV remained in the Tower with a specially appointed guard" and adds that the rumour of their death was spread in September. Rumour is not fact, but in the fifteenth century was a weapon of huge political value.

            Over 600 people lived in the Tower at the time, yet not one mentioned, talked about, gossiped, or accused anybody of anything, certainly not of the boys apartments suddenly being empty one morning. Information of such a sudden and dramatic disappearance of such important prisoners would have leaked out, as not all  600 plus people at the Tower would have been Richard's servants, or even supporters. And they would have all have had to be deaf to not hear any violence taking place in the middle of the night. Don't forget a nice quiet smothering as a means of death did not get mentioned until much much later.

            I won't go on any more about this. I regret deeply that the issue has become such a large part of any discussion of Richard's life and career. But...
            I will quote one of the latest writers on the subject, Annette Carson, who in her book "Richard III The Maligned King" includes an extensive, up to date, discussion of all the evidence:-
            "Despite Shakespeare and centuries of tradition, the idea that Richard III had the princes killed in the Tower, with nobody noticing, is as laughable as the idea that he killed them and kept it secret."
            Paul


            On 1 Feb 2009, at 18:02, Harry Jones wrote:

            Sorry to say paul that while I have a certian agreement with you on the tudor myth of Richard I still hold him responsible for the death of King Edward V and Richard Duke of York and I'm afraid look on him as a ursurper and for me the most damming evidence is that writers of the time with no axe to grind (Like the Crowland Chronicle) accuse him of the deed.
            Also the myth that the Princes were killed on the orders of Henry Tudor also don't really stand up to close scrutinity and Finally if He was not responsible for their deaths, (Don't forget he was their gaurdian) why didn't he just show them to the people when the rumours first started.
            I have a battle royal over this subject about every ten years when I reach the period in my lectures. I really do think that this is a subject where the lines for and against are just so solid that we really will never know exactly what happened.
            However wether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the princes or someone else did the deed for him or themselves Richard was a Medieval Monarch and I'm afraid as with all 
            Medieval Monarchs the Buck stops with the King.
            cheers Glyn


             
             


            --- On Sun, 1/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
            From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
            Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
            To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 10:02 AM


            On 31 Jan 2009, at 13:07, Harry Jones wrote:

            I am also a Yorkist supporter but I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on Richard III its an argument I have been having with friends for over thirty years and these days not an area of History I wish to go to


            Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we should not really have to defend? :-)
            The Tudors did a terrific job of denigrating the man, didn't they?
            What I also find interesting is that, as with Richard, Shakespeare did a brilliant dramatisation of the lies of the winners with Macbeth, but you see few people jumping up to defend him, and certainly no organisation formed with the intention of clearing his name from the libels of the poet. This I would say speaks volumes about Richard's charisma. If it wasn't outside the time line I'd suggest we ask why it is Macbeth is more or less left swimming in witches, while thousands of pages are wasted discussing a crime that may never, probably did not, even have taken place?
            Paul


            Richard liveth yet





            Richard liveth yet



          • S.Kevin Wojtaszek
            Hmmm... At first that would seem to eliminate my favorite theory, collusion. I ve long held that since the Woodvilles were the only party that could benefit
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009

              Hmmm... At first that would seem to eliminate my favorite theory, collusion.
               
              I've long held that since the Woodvilles were the only party that could benefit from the Princes' survival, the lads' deaths were most likely a result of other factions coming to the conclusion that the boys needed to be removed in order for the game to proceed apace.
               
              You're right, Elena. The Stanleys would have known of such dealings. .....But perhaps they didn't trust the agents hired to do the deed, even if they knew of their employment. Therefore, some Stanleys might just suspect that Perkin was the real thing. ....There again, since my collusion theory depends on all parties seeing the real Princes as disposable pawns, it's possible that the Stanleys were prepared to use Perkin to gain what they could, and liquidate him later.



              To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com; sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
              From: elena@...
              Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:53:17 -0500
              Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal


              Another county heard from here:

              This is, of course, assuming that Edward and Richard were, in fact, killed, a point which was never completely settled then or now. The question of it being a question was settled for me when William Stanley said of Perkin Warbeck that, if it proved that he was young Richard, Will Stanley wouldn't stand in his way. It was a dangerous enough declaration that it cost Stanley his life; beyond even that: the Stanley family members made it their business to be on top of as much as possible. If a Stanley couldn't be certain that the Princes were alive or dead, then no one was.

              Maria
              elena@pipeline. com

              -----Original Message-----
              >From: Harry Jones <cihtoguk@yahoo. co.uk>
              >Sent: Feb 1, 2009 1:02 PM
              >To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
              >Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
              >
              >Sorry to say paul that while I have a certian agreement with you on the tudor myth of Richard I still hold him responsible for the death of King Edward V and Richard Duke of York and I'm afraid look on him as a ursurper and for me the most damming evidence is that writers of the time with no axe to grind (Like the Crowland Chronicle) accuse him of the deed.
              >Also the myth that the Princes were killed on the orders of Henry Tudor also don't really stand up to close scrutinity and Finally if He was not responsible for their deaths, (Don't forget he was their gaurdian) why didn't he just show them to the people when the rumours first started.
              >I have a battle royal over this subject about every ten years when I reach the period in my lectures. I really do think that this is a subject where the lines for and against are just so solid that we really will never know exactly what happened.
              >However wether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the princes or someone else did the deed for him or themselves Richard was a Medieval Monarch and I'm afraid as with all
              >Medieval Monarchs the Buck stops with the King.
              >cheers Glyn
              >
              >


              >
              >
              >
              >
              >--- On Sun, 1/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com> wrote:
              >
              >From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@sky. com>
              >Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
              >To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
              >Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 10:02 AM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >On 31 Jan 2009, at 13:07, Harry Jones wrote:
              >
              >I am also a Yorkist supporter but I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on Richard III its an argument I have been having with friends for over thirty years and these days not an area of History I wish to go to
              >
              >
              >
              >Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we should not really have to defend? :-)
              >The Tudors did a terrific job of denigrating the man, didn't they?
              >What I also find interesting is that, as with Richard, Shakespeare did a brilliant dramatisation of the lies of the winners with Macbeth, but you see few people jumping up to defend him, and certainly no organisation formed with the intention of clearing his name from the libels of the poet. This I would say speaks volumes about Richard's charisma. If it wasn't outside the time line I'd suggest we ask why it is Macbeth is more or less left swimming in witches, while thousands of pages are wasted discussing a crime that may never, probably did not, even have taken place?
              >Paul
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Richard liveth yet
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >




              Windows Live™ Hotmail®…more than just e-mail. See how it works.
            • Paul Trevor Bale
              Quite Maria. And Henry VII himself never knew for sure, if he had he would have made such a fuss about it there would not be having this discussion. With the
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009
                Quite Maria. And Henry VII himself never knew for sure, if he had he
                would have made such a fuss about it there would not be having this
                discussion. With the money and forces available to him, would he not
                have found out something more concrete? And he never ever accused
                Richard directly of any crime! Look also at how he 'managed' the so-
                called confession from Tyrell. A written document was never seen,
                there was no public confession at his execution, as with all other
                prisoners on the block, just a statement given out some time after
                his death. Did he make it? I think there was pork in the trees at the
                time!!
                Paul

                On 1 Feb 2009, at 18:53, Maria wrote:

                > Another county heard from here:
                >
                > This is, of course, assuming that Edward and Richard were, in fact,
                > killed, a point which was never completely settled then or now.
                > The question of it being a question was settled for me when William
                > Stanley said of Perkin Warbeck that, if it proved that he was young
                > Richard, Will Stanley wouldn't stand in his way. It was a
                > dangerous enough declaration that it cost Stanley his life; beyond
                > even that: the Stanley family members made it their business to be
                > on top of as much as possible. If a Stanley couldn't be certain
                > that the Princes were alive or dead, then no one was.
                >
                > Maria
                > elena@...
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                >> From: Harry Jones <cihtoguk@...>
                >> Sent: Feb 1, 2009 1:02 PM
                >> To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                >> Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                >>
                >> Sorry to say paul that while I have a certian agreement with you
                >> on the tudor myth of Richard I still hold him responsible for the
                >> death of King Edward V and Richard Duke of York and I'm afraid
                >> look on him as a ursurper and for me the most damming evidence is
                >> that writers of the time with no axe to grind (Like the Crowland
                >> Chronicle) accuse him of the deed.
                >> Also the myth that the Princes were killed on the orders of Henry
                >> Tudor also don't really stand up to close scrutinity and Finally
                >> if He was not responsible for their deaths, (Don't forget he was
                >> their gaurdian) why didn't he just show them to the people when
                >> the rumours first started.
                >> I have a battle royal over this subject about every ten years when
                >> I reach the period in my lectures. I really do think that this is
                >> a subject where the lines for and against are just so solid that
                >> we really will never know exactly what happened.
                >> However wether or not Richard ordered the deaths of the princes or
                >> someone else did the deed for him or themselves Richard was a
                >> Medieval Monarch and I'm afraid as with all
                >> Medieval Monarchs the Buck stops with the King.
                >> cheers Glyn
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> --- On Sun, 1/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
                >>
                >> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
                >> Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                >> To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                >> Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 10:02 AM
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> On 31 Jan 2009, at 13:07, Harry Jones wrote:
                >>
                >> I am also a Yorkist supporter but I doubt we would ever see eye to
                >> eye on Richard III its an argument I have been having with friends
                >> for over thirty years and these days not an area of History I wish
                >> to go to
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> Because you have acknowledged defeat, or because you recognise
                >> that us true Ricardians are relentless in our defence of what we
                >> should not really have to defend? :-)
                >> The Tudors did a terrific job of denigrating the man, didn't they?
                >> What I also find interesting is that, as with Richard, Shakespeare
                >> did a brilliant dramatisation of the lies of the winners with
                >> Macbeth, but you see few people jumping up to defend him, and
                >> certainly no organisation formed with the intention of clearing
                >> his name from the libels of the poet. This I would say speaks
                >> volumes about Richard's charisma. If it wasn't outside the time
                >> line I'd suggest we ask why it is Macbeth is more or less left
                >> swimming in witches, while thousands of pages are wasted
                >> discussing a crime that may never, probably did not, even have
                >> taken place?
                >> Paul
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> Richard liveth yet
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >

                Richard liveth yet
              • phaecilia
                Hello Maria, Thanks for your recommendations. My library has Townsend Miller s biography of Henry IV. So I can start with that and find the others through
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009
                  Hello Maria,

                  Thanks for your recommendations. My library has Townsend Miller's
                  biography of Henry IV. So I can start with that and find the others
                  through interlibrary loan.

                  You're fortunate to have a biography of Joana. Even if it doesn't
                  say much about Richard, you've got much deeper insight into the
                  person who might have been his second wife. And you can read it in
                  the original language instead of in translation.

                  Thanks again,

                  Marion



                  --- In sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com, Maria <elena@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > As far as I can tell, these ladies are considered "supporting
                  players" for the most part, and offhand, I don't know of any books
                  (in English) that focus on them. I do have a lovely book on Joana
                  of Portugal in Portuguese. It was sent to me by a Portuguese member
                  of one of the Medieval Spanish groups I belong to. I mentioned
                  interest in her; he said he was planning a trek to the convent of
                  Aveiro, where Joana eventually had her way, became a nun, and died
                  in 1492; he said he had heard of a bio that the convent had
                  published and would look for it for me. About a year later, he made
                  the trip, and sent it over (I had forgotten all about his offer). A
                  lovely gesture.
                  >
                  > As for the others, they get nice full mentions in two books by
                  Townsend Miller (a contemporary of Paul Kendall): "Castles and the
                  Crown", which focuses on Isabel, Fernando, Juana la Loca and her
                  husband Philip the Handsome; and "Henry IV", a sympathetic bio of
                  this unlucky and rather inept king. I also have an English
                  translation of a fascinating dual chronicle of a 1465 European tour
                  taken by a Bohemian group, headed by a man name Rozmital. Two
                  members of the party kept a record. They (and in consequence, you)
                  become nodding acquaintances with such personages as Edward IV, Rene
                  of Anjou, and others. You get to hear about food and accomodations
                  (hardly ever satisfactory). During the trek, the party headed to
                  Iberia, which they considered just barely civiilized and Christian.
                  They dropped in to meet Enrique IV and Juana, who is described as "a
                  handsome brown girl". The book is worth finding, believe me: it's
                  a hoot.
                  >
                  > (Totally off topic and period, but if you'd like to read another
                  terribly disgruntled and entertaining travel book, in the mid-1800s,
                  the great French actress Rachel toured the US and Cuba. One of her
                  co-actors kept a journal and published it. Oh, how everything,
                  everything, everything and everyone was just so inadequate! As for
                  New York, it was so trashed that officials demanded an apology for
                  this writer declaring that anyone would stab you in the back during
                  the night. The Frenchman duly aplologized, saying he was mistaken:
                  you could just as easily be stabbed during the day. I have hte book
                  at home and will look it up tonight).
                  >
                  > Maria
                  > elena@...
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > >From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
                  > >Sent: Jan 29, 2009 7:35 PM
                  > >To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                  > >
                  > >Hello Maria, and everybody,
                  > >
                  > >Thanks again for your answers. Can anyone recommend good books
                  in
                  > >English about the Portuguese ladies?
                  > >
                  > >My local library is good in some subjects, but there's a big gap
                  > >where Spanish and Portuguese medival history books should be.
                  The
                  > >interlibrary loan service is good, so I can hopefully use it to
                  > >borrow anything you can recommend.
                  > >
                  > >TIA,
                  > >
                  > >Marion
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >--- In sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com, Maria <elena@> wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> I can't say much at the moment about the Portuguese fashions,
                  but
                  > >will play in my Hispanic Costume book and see if it helps.
                  > >Meanwhile, I can say that Joana was active regent of Portugal
                  while
                  > >her father and brother were on campaign in North Africa; she was
                  > >very effective at it. If she had been of a mind to marry, her
                  > >husband would have either benefitted or suffered, depending on
                  his
                  > >own attitude toward very stubborn partners -- her father Afonso
                  V,
                  > >no laidback soul, was beaten down by his daughter's
                  intransigence.
                  > >She was reported as beautiful; so was her niece (or cousin -- I
                  have
                  > >to check the family tree), Isabel, who married Juan II of
                  Castile,
                  > >and who became the mother of Isabel the Catholic; and so was
                  another
                  > >close relative, another Joana, who became the unfortunately high-
                  > >spirited Juana of Portugal, second wife Enrique IV (son of Juan
                  II),
                  > >and who became the mother of the very unlucky Juana "La
                  Beltraneja"
                  > >(so called because her actual father may or may not have been don
                  > >Beltran de la Cueva). Isabel of Portugal, like Joana, took an
                  > >active hand in government, bringing down the Castilian favortie,
                  don
                  > >Alvaro de Luna, a task that all the nobility of Castile failed to
                  > >accomplish over the space of about half a century (Castile didn't
                  > >profit from don Alvaro's downfall).
                  > >>
                  > >> Those female Portugese ladies were a caution....
                  > >>
                  > >> Maria
                  > >> elena@
                  > >>
                  > >> -----Original Message-----
                  > >> >From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
                  > >> >Sent: Jan 28, 2009 6:43 PM
                  > >> >To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                  > >> >Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                  > >> >
                  > >> >Hello Maria, and everyone,
                  > >> >
                  > >> >I have a question about the cap and hair-do worn by Joanna of
                  > >Portugal in the Wikipedia portrait:
                  > >> >
                  > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joana,_Princess_of_Portugal
                  > >> >
                  > >> >Was this typical Portuguese fashion in 1485? Fashion really
                  > >changed since Isabel of Portugal, duchess of Burgundy was
                  portrayed
                  > >in the 1430s.
                  > >> >
                  > >> >I've read that Joana was very ascetic and turned down all of
                  her
                  > >marriage proposals before Richard III began negotiations in 1485.
                  > >> >
                  > >> >The richness of the embroidery and her loose hair surprised
                  me.
                  > >Her brother King John, was anxious to conclude a marriage
                  alliance
                  > >through Joana, and the rich clothing may have been part of his
                  self-
                  > >promotion effort. But Joana looks so different from what I'd
                  > >expected from the brief description I'd read about her.
                  > >> >
                  > >> >This portrait is reproduced opposite a portrait of Elizabeth
                  of
                  > >York in "Richard III; maligned king." I found the comparison
                  very
                  > >thought-provoking. It's worth a look for anyone who can find a
                  copy.
                  > >> >
                  > >> >Marion
                  > >> >
                  > >> >
                  > >> >
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Helen Rowe
                  Thinking about Joana of Portugal. I hope I have the correct lady, the one that Richard was negiogating to marry.   What I find interesting that a woman who
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 1, 2009
                    Thinking about Joana of Portugal. I hope I have the correct lady, the one that Richard was negiogating to marry.
                     
                    What I find interesting that a woman who was said to prefer not to marry and managed to stay single until her thirties, rejecting other "suitors" was, I believe, willing to accept Richard. I cannot help thinking that she would not have agreed unless she had heard good report of him.
                     
                    It is just conjecture but she seems to be a strong woman.
                     
                    Helen
                     
                    --- On Mon, 2/2/09, phaecilia <phaecilia@...> wrote:

                    From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
                    Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                    To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                    Received: Monday, 2 February, 2009, 11:38 AM

                    Hello Maria,

                    Thanks for your recommendations. My library has Townsend Miller's
                    biography of Henry IV. So I can start with that and find the others
                    through interlibrary loan.

                    You're fortunate to have a biography of Joana. Even if it doesn't
                    say much about Richard, you've got much deeper insight into the
                    person who might have been his second wife. And you can read it in
                    the original language instead of in translation.

                    Thanks again,

                    Marion

                    --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Maria <elena@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > As far as I can tell, these ladies are considered "supporting
                    players" for the most part, and offhand, I don't know of any books
                    (in English) that focus on them. I do have a lovely book on Joana
                    of Portugal in Portuguese. It was sent to me by a Portuguese member
                    of one of the Medieval Spanish groups I belong to. I mentioned
                    interest in her; he said he was planning a trek to the convent of
                    Aveiro, where Joana eventually had her way, became a nun, and died
                    in 1492; he said he had heard of a bio that the convent had
                    published and would look for it for me. About a year later, he made
                    the trip, and sent it over (I had forgotten all about his offer). A
                    lovely gesture.
                    >
                    > As for the others, they get nice full mentions in two books by
                    Townsend Miller (a contemporary of Paul Kendall): "Castles and the
                    Crown", which focuses on Isabel, Fernando, Juana la Loca and her
                    husband Philip the Handsome; and "Henry IV", a sympathetic bio of
                    this unlucky and rather inept king. I also have an English
                    translation of a fascinating dual chronicle of a 1465 European tour
                    taken by a Bohemian group, headed by a man name Rozmital. Two
                    members of the party kept a record. They (and in consequence, you)
                    become nodding acquaintances with such personages as Edward IV, Rene
                    of Anjou, and others. You get to hear about food and accomodations
                    (hardly ever satisfactory) . During the trek, the party headed to
                    Iberia, which they considered just barely civiilized and Christian.
                    They dropped in to meet Enrique IV and Juana, who is described as "a
                    handsome brown girl". The book is worth finding, believe me: it's
                    a hoot.
                    >
                    > (Totally off topic and period, but if you'd like to read another
                    terribly disgruntled and entertaining travel book, in the mid-1800s,
                    the great French actress Rachel toured the US and Cuba. One of her
                    co-actors kept a journal and published it. Oh, how everything,
                    everything, everything and everyone was just so inadequate! As for
                    New York, it was so trashed that officials demanded an apology for
                    this writer declaring that anyone would stab you in the back during
                    the night. The Frenchman duly aplologized, saying he was mistaken:
                    you could just as easily be stabbed during the day. I have hte book
                    at home and will look it up tonight).
                    >
                    > Maria
                    > elena@...
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > >From: phaecilia <phaecilia@. ..>
                    > >Sent: Jan 29, 2009 7:35 PM
                    > >To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
                    > >Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                    > >
                    > >Hello Maria, and everybody,
                    > >
                    > >Thanks again for your answers. Can anyone recommend good books
                    in
                    > >English about the Portuguese ladies?
                    > >
                    > >My local library is good in some subjects, but there's a big gap
                    > >where Spanish and Portuguese medival history books should be.
                    The
                    > >interlibrary loan service is good, so I can hopefully use it to
                    > >borrow anything you can recommend.
                    > >
                    > >TIA,
                    > >
                    > >Marion
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >--- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Maria <elena@> wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> I can't say much at the moment about the Portuguese fashions,
                    but
                    > >will play in my Hispanic Costume book and see if it helps.
                    > >Meanwhile, I can say that Joana was active regent of Portugal
                    while
                    > >her father and brother were on campaign in North Africa; she was
                    > >very effective at it. If she had been of a mind to marry, her
                    > >husband would have either benefitted or suffered, depending on
                    his
                    > >own attitude toward very stubborn partners -- her father Afonso
                    V,
                    > >no laidback soul, was beaten down by his daughter's
                    intransigence.
                    > >She was reported as beautiful; so was her niece (or cousin -- I
                    have
                    > >to check the family tree), Isabel, who married Juan II of
                    Castile,
                    > >and who became the mother of Isabel the Catholic; and so was
                    another
                    > >close relative, another Joana, who became the unfortunately high-
                    > >spirited Juana of Portugal, second wife Enrique IV (son of Juan
                    II),
                    > >and who became the mother of the very unlucky Juana "La
                    Beltraneja"
                    > >(so called because her actual father may or may not have been don
                    > >Beltran de la Cueva). Isabel of Portugal, like Joana, took an
                    > >active hand in government, bringing down the Castilian favortie,
                    don
                    > >Alvaro de Luna, a task that all the nobility of Castile failed to
                    > >accomplish over the space of about half a century (Castile didn't
                    > >profit from don Alvaro's downfall).
                    > >>
                    > >> Those female Portugese ladies were a caution....
                    > >>
                    > >> Maria
                    > >> elena@
                    > >>
                    > >> -----Original Message-----
                    > >> >From: marion davis <phaecilia@>
                    > >> >Sent: Jan 28, 2009 6:43 PM
                    > >> >To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
                    > >> >Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Gabled hood - Joana of Portugal
                    > >> >
                    > >> >Hello Maria, and everyone,
                    > >> >
                    > >> >I have a question about the cap and hair-do worn by Joanna of
                    > >Portugal in the Wikipedia portrait:
                    > >> >
                    > >> >http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Joana,_Princess_ of_Portugal
                    > >> >
                    > >> >Was this typical Portuguese fashion in 1485? Fashion really
                    > >changed since Isabel of Portugal, duchess of Burgundy was
                    portrayed
                    > >in the 1430s.
                    > >> >
                    > >> >I've read that Joana was very ascetic and turned down all of
                    her
                    > >marriage proposals before Richard III began negotiations in 1485.
                    > >> >
                    > >> >The richness of the embroidery and her loose hair surprised
                    me.
                    > >Her brother King John, was anxious to conclude a marriage
                    alliance
                    > >through Joana, and the rich clothing may have been part of his
                    self-
                    > >promotion effort. But Joana looks so different from what I'd
                    > >expected from the brief description I'd read about her.
                    > >> >
                    > >> >This portrait is reproduced opposite a portrait of Elizabeth
                    of
                    > >York in "Richard III; maligned king." I found the comparison
                    very
                    > >thought-provoking. It's worth a look for anyone who can find a
                    copy.
                    > >> >
                    > >> >Marion
                    > >> >
                    > >> >
                    > >> >
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    >



                    Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.