murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Signs of the Times (4)

1.William Hastings

First of all you can see that this is quite a flowing signature with a lot of nice curves, not many ‘angry’ sharp top angles to the letters. This shows he was generally an affable, non-violent person, at least while he was writing this. His middle zone seems the most dominant – as many of these signatures have been – showing his concern with material things, prestige, self-importance and living in the moment.

Hastings sigLooking at the lower zone, he has quite an elaborate curl on the ‘g’, with the curl turning back to the left, in contrast to the ‘y’ which curls to the right. This suggests he might have ‘swung both ways’ when it came to sexual partners, which is possible considering his reputation for debauchery at the time. Note the phallic symbol in the ‘h’, indicating inability to keep within the sexual norms of his society.

In general the signature is legible with a slant to the right, indicating sociability.

His upper zone is pretty small, showing he wasn’t concerned with intellectual matters , nor was he a dreamer.

The end downward stroke, which doesn’t seem to represent any particular letter, suggests a dagger to me, perhaps the cause of his downfall.

  1. Anne Neville

I was quite surprised that Anne’s signature is not particularly legible (although not as illegible as Margaret Beaufort’s for instance), but perhaps it’s not surprising that she might feel the need to hide herself away, after some of the experiences she had (married young, widowed, hidden away by George, etc). She would not have revealed her true feelings easily. It seems to me her first name is easier to read than the surname (which I think is Warwick rather than Neville, though I could be wrong) and I take this to mean that she reveals more to those who know her better and more familiarly, as many people do.

She has a normal lower zone, showing a balanced and healthy sex life.

Anne and Richard sigHowever can you see the similarities between hers and Richard’s signature, that suggest to me they were compatible and on the same wavelength?. They both have balanced zones – pretty equal in size – showing well-balanced personalities.

They also both have upright letters, which show a need for control and particularly self-control. They are of similar size, his slightly larger, which would not be surprising considering that men were dominant in those times. It shows that he considered her to be more or less his equal and reveals his respect for her. Compare the signatures of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York where his dwarfs hers. Who do you think was the dominant personality here?

Henry and Eliz sigs3. Anthony Woodville

Well, this is a mess! As most of it is in upper case letters, it is hard to judge the zones so well, but can you see he has extended the vertical stroke of the ‘l’s so they are higher than the rest. He was meant to be an intellectual and well-read man, but his writing suggests to me that he wanted to be perceived as such more than actually being so, because the ‘l’s should not be taller and are therefore forced. But I could be judging him a bit harshly. His signature is not as clear as Richard’s or Clarence’s or Hastings’, but is decipherable more than Margaret Beaufort’s. There are no lower zone letters, but the upper and middle zones are more or less equal in his signature, so I think he was more intelligent than his sister, Elizabeth.

Rivers sig Rivers sig 2

There are no communication letters here but the ‘v’ and ‘s’ on the end are closed (when they needn’t be) suggesting a secretive nature.

The first example, with motto, looks very controlled to me and as I believe it was written when he was awaiting execution, it is understandable that he would be desperately trying to hold onto his emotions. The upper case letters support this conclusion.

The right hand signature is all over the place as regards slant, showing an unpredictable and mercurial personality.

He underlines the left hand one in a flamboyant way which suggests he wants attention – perhaps he doesn’t like to think of himself being forgotten after his death. The ‘x’s in the underline show his preoccupation with his demise.

  1. Thomas Grey

This is the signature of the son of Elizabeth. The zones are quite well balanced and the letters are upright, showing strong control over his emotions. The communication letter ‘o’ is open at the top, suggesting he was a big talker and couldn’t keep a confidence.

Thoams Grey sig

The letter ‘s’ (or ‘f’ as it appears) spans all three zones, but the upper zone is broken – perhaps he had a headache or an injury, but the signature as a whole is messy, suggesting he was also untidy. The ‘t’s are crossed very firmly and the cross stroke extends far to the right, showing ambition.

5. Edward V

This is the signature of Edward which appears alongside those of Richard and Buckingham. It is spidery and childlike, although legible. There is no curl in his lower zone which is perfectly to be expected as he was only 12 at the time.

The writing looks a bit shaky, suggesting he was nervous (understandable given the circumstances) or possibly unwell. The downward-pointing  cross stroke of the ‘t’ in quintus could show a control freak, but I think it also suggests a depressed or pessimistic nature, but that could be because his father had just died.

Ed V sigIt is interesting that the tops of the letters are more rounded than the lower edges. I don’t know what this means for sure but my intuition suggests he would have appeared softer and more easygoing on the surface than he was underneath – a hidden ruthless side. This is reinforced by the open bottomed ‘a’, which shows he could verbally argue his case – eat you up and spit you out – and wasn’t above using deception to achieve this. And see the dot of the ‘i’ which is more of a dash or a slashing stroke. This shows frustration and irritability.

  1. Henry VI

Henry VI was a weak king, as we know. We can see in his signature that there is a softness to his nature and that the very large upper zone shows he was intelligent but can also mean a dreamer or someone who has his head in the clouds. He had his head in heaven!

Henry VI sigThe upper and lower zones are roughly equal, showing he had a normal attitude to sex, perhaps surprisingly. However, his middle zone is the smallest which indicates he wasn’t concerned with everyday life, material possessions or his appearance.

It is upright, showing that he had strong control over his emotions and he was not at all deceptive.

Unfortunately it is the only sample I could find, and there isn’t really much else to glean from it.

  1. John Howard, Duke of Norfolk

‘Jocky’ of Norfolk, well, it looks first of all as if it is sloping slightly upwards, suggesting optimism and an upbeat nature. The slant varies, showing a changeable character.

The middle zone is most prominent, indicating the need for outward trappings of success, material possessions, as in many of the other hands I have looked at.

Norfolk sigLook at the wide open ‘o’s, especially the first! I wouldn’t trust him with a secret, I would think he could be indiscreet and a big talker.

There are a combination of rounded and sharp strokes showing he could be kind and thoughtful, but also hard and stern when needed.

I wouldn’t think he was particularly intellectual, nor was he very sensual, but that could have been his age – I don’t know how old he was when this was written.

There are a few resentment strokes on the beginning of the ‘n’ and ‘r’, which might refer to his resentment at having to wait for his rightful title of the Dukedom of Norfolk under Edward. Obviously he has it here as that’s the name he signs. His signature is neither very obscure nor very clear, suggesting he could dissemble if required.

I get the impression of a person who was quite modest in himself, shown by the small initial ‘j’ and ‘n’ of Norfolk.

  1. John de Vere, Earl of Oxford

Here is a signature from the Earl of Oxford, the nemesis of the Yorks, out to get revenge for the death of his father.

It is absolutely clear and easy to read, and seems to have been done with control and care. And look at the sweet little flower – but what is that loopy thing below it? Could it be a phallic symbol? This shows the willingness or need to break social taboos. Possibly gay? It would have been a big taboo in those days.

The zones are even, showing a well-balanced personality, which is quite surprising considering his reputation. However it could be seen as too perfect, which can show deception – a person disguising their natural way of writing and wanting to appear perfect.

Oxford sig

It is quite rounded and flowing and quite upright. This means he was sociable and unwarlike for the times – I think he was pushed into the whole war thing and he would have preferred a peaceful life. But the heavy line of the ‘f’ look like a dagger, so he could have been violent when needed. The lines through the ‘O’ , obliterating the clarity of the ‘O’ could show a forked-tongued liar – notice the extra little line in the second ‘o’ too.

9.Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey

Well this is a flamboyant signature! This is Jocky Howard’s son, Surrey.

Surrey sigIt is large and suggests the writer wants to be noticed, likes attention. The middle zone is huge, showing a preoccupation with himself and his immediate needs, outward show and possessions. The signature as a whole is huge, compared to the writing above. In fact when you look at the writing, the upper zone is more emphasised, showing he was quite intelligent, but didn’t show it to everyone, perhaps wanting to fit in with the court life where show and prestige was everything. I think this shows the writer felt inferior and is putting on a show of confidence – the whole thing screams over-compensation.

There are resentment strokes and angularity suggesting frustration and a temper.

Look at the lower zone – either this is another sign that the Earl of Surrey is overcompensating or he is gay – the tail of the ‘y’ goes way over to the left, suggesting the latter, as does the little flower sign.

Not sure what those unnecessary two dots are between the ‘T’ and ‘h’ but it could be another cry for attention.

  1. James Tyrell

I really like this signature. Tyrell was one of Richard’s men who was rewarded by him for unknown services and who was tortured and executed by Henry VII. Here the signature suggests a very optimistic and positive person – very sociable. See how the writing slants to the right and slopes up? Also there is not much space between the two names, suggesting he liked to be in the company of others.

.Tyrell sig

The signature is well balanced and has equal sized zones. It is also fairly clear and easy to read, showing a lack of dissimulation. However, the ‘a’ shows he could keep a secret when needed and the line through the two ‘l’s at the end look like eyes to me. Was he one of Richard’s spies?

Now, I have been thinking about the proliferation of phallic symbols in many of these signatures and the conclusion I have come to is that they were probably not overly perverted or sex mad (with a few notable exceptions!), but that they may have felt guilty about their sexual feelings because of the strict doctrines of the church in regard to these matters. So crossing the boundaries of the sexual norm of the times, might only have been ogling women, visiting prostitutes or an affair or two. I’ll leave that to you to decide.

  1. Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick

Finally, let us look at Richard Neville’s signature. The first thing I notice is that it is hard to read and slopes uphill more than any of the others. I think he was the eternal optimist and supremely confident in himself that things would work out for him.

Warwick sigIt is a firm and confident signature and this mirrors the man himself. He was certainly capable of deception as he pretended to be supporting Edward and was actually plotting against him – we can tell this because his writing is also deceptive with it being difficult to decipher. And his closed ‘a’ shows he can keep his mouth closed.

The varied slant of the letters shows another volatile, changeable character and the hard down strokes reveal he had a bad temper at times.

See the definite resentment stroke on the ‘R’ – he was certainly experiencing resentment here.

There is the ubiquitous phallic symbol, and we know he did have an illegitimate daughter. However do you see the break in the loop of the ‘y’ and also in the loop in the little logo thingy at the end? This shows there was a trauma of some kind, either physical or emotional regarding his sexual organs, sex life or lower body. We do not know if this was the case, but we do know that Warwick had no sons, so he may have felt subconsciously that he was inadequate in some way because of this. Both sexes can have this – for example a woman can show this sign if she has had a hysterectomy or has lost a lover. (In fact Henry VII has breaks in his lower loops as well).

I think, like Edward, he was also a ‘boob’ man – the rounded part of the underline and the shape of the letters above it suggest that.

What about the little end doodle? Well, it might be a device or coat f arms badge, or perhaps it is the crown that wasn’t his but that he bestowed on two kings, as Kingmaker. 😉

  1. Francis Lovell

Richard’s best friend – I found this after I had posted the draft so I had to include him!

Well, the zones are of equal height, which shows he was a well-balanced guy emotionally. He has a legible, clear signature – no deception there, and his communication letters, ‘a’ and ‘o’ are also clear, well-formed and closed normally, meaning he was a good communicator and could be trusted to keep a confidence.

Lovell sigYou can see there is a mixture of angular letters and rounded ones, showing he could have a tough side as well as a softer one. There are some heavy downward strokes on the first letters ‘ff’ which shows he could have a temper at times.

The slant is just slightly to the right, which indicates he was fairly sociable, and likewise the two names are close together, suggesting he enjoyed the company of others.

I’m not sure what the final letter/squiggle is nor the extra thing in the middle joining the ‘s’. These extra unnecessary bits might mean he was a bit obsessive compulsive. I would think that both he and Richard were tidy and neat, so this might have spilled over into OCD.

These analyses are, as I said before, just for fun and of course I am a little biased, I have to confess. Also, most of my subjects here are confined to just one signature, which is limiting and cannot be relied upon to be as accurate as if there were more samples.

However, on the whole, do you notice how much more well-balanced, rounded and ‘normal’ Richard’s and his friends’ signatures were, in comparison to most of the others?

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

33 thoughts on “Signs of the Times (4)

  1. Kalina on said:

    Is it possible that the signatures of Anne and Richard were written by two different persons? I would be sure that Richard wrote himself both of them. Is it only existed signature of Anne? If some other one exists it would be worthy to compare them:))

    Like

  2. AFAIK it is the only one, but I haven’t searched extensively. It is difficult to tell for sure if they are both by Richard as there isn’t really enough to go on! If they are the observation about him seeing her an an equal still applies. Personally I think they are not the same person

    Like

  3. Kalina on said:

    The signatures of Elizabeth of York and Henry VII are interesting. I am not a specialist of course but I consider them to be written by the weak and uncertain themselves people. Henry is more arranged inwardly and quiet (?) Elizabeth is more vanished. Interesting that King Henry needed to stress his position by the great signature under his handwriting.:))) Some complex of minority? Richard never did so.

    Like

  4. halfwit36 on said:

    How can we be sure that any of these signatures were written by the persons in question? I sometimes sign my husband’s name, as on checks to be deposited. Or fill out a form & he signs it.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Kalina on said:

    Letter of Henry to Elizabeth as I suppose:

    “Madame, I pray you remembre me/your lovyng maritee
    Henry [?]

    [hmmmm….charyly but sincerely:)))]

    Elizabeth to whom? Margaret Beaufort?

    Madam I pray you forget me […] to you that I may […]
    Elysabet quene

    [I cannot decifere it, please, help!]

    Like

    • viscountessw on said:

      I understand that these messages/signatures were given to one of Elizabeth’s departing ladies-in-waiting. According to the translation I have seen, Henry has written: “Madame, I pray you remember me / your loving master / Henry R.” I cannot recall what Elizabeth wrote, or decipher it now, except to say it is in the same vein as Henry’s message. Royal souvenirs for a departing lady in waiting.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Iris on said:

    Excellent work Joanne. Without the original document to hand the pc resolution does lead one to think Anne’ and Richard’s signatures belong to the same hand, which I think is Richard’s. In that case, wouldn’t it be sweet? Richard writing their names together…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kalina on said:

      Do not hate me, but I consider it not quite sweet:))) I suspect that Anne was like a doll for her husband. He dressed her beautifully, gave expensive gifts, named “most beloved consort”…It seems like he would like to say it not to her but to other people. He showed her everywhere he appeared. She was his property and publicity. Even he signed books in her place. I only feel so.

      Like

      • Well, she gave him expensive gifts too, like the clothes for the coronation. Why would you say that “he showed her”, instead of that she appeared together with him? What’s there to suggest she was a thing rather than a person? And how would you know he wasn’t telling her all tender and affectionate words in private? So if she is always with him in public, they give each other gifts, he writes of her as “most beloved consort”, that’s a bad thing and a sign she was just an object? What would make you think she was a respected person – if she never appeared with him in public? If he wasn’t known to refer to her affectionately or give her gifts? Would those be better signs of a good marriage? And she certainly was running things in the North while he was off on war campaigns. I’m not sure where exactly the idea of a fragile, weak little Anne comes from.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kalina on said:

        Oh…of course it was much better that Richard cared around his wife then he would “punish her physically”. He treated her much better than Harry Buckingham his one. In every case it was a medieval reality. But my idols are the other medieval women: Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabel of France (wife of Edward II), Margaret d,Anjou, even Elizabeth Woodville however I do not like her:)) I can imagine that Richard,s care had it,s source in Anne,s weakness. We do not know if she was running things when he was absent. As well some trusted servant could do it. If she really suffered from tuberculosis she had to be weak for a few years before her death. I came to this conclusion after the likely fact that Richard gave by himself her signature. If not – all my suppositions are coming down:))

        Like

      • @Kalina: So, what’s wrong with Anne is that that her husband wasn’t crazy, or gay and more interested in his lovers, and didn’t happen to die before her? Or that she did not murder her husband/murder anyone else/wasn’t rumored to have done things like caused executions of people who had insulted he? Would that be needed so you would consider her a “strong woman” worthy of being idolized?

        What evidence is there of Anne’s “weakness”? She got ill in the last few months of her life, it’s not like she was ill her entire life. That’s what happened then and what happens now, as well. People are perfectly fine, and then they are diagnosed with a mortal illness; it doesn’t mean they had to be carried and protected all their lives because they were just so weak. Andy Whitfield who played Spartacus on the Starz show was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 39 and died a year and a half later despite treatments, that doesn’t mean he had been a weak little thing. And many people died of tuberculosis. Including Henry VII, for that matter. Funny how no one thinks he must have been a weak thing who had to be taken care of all his life. Cardinal Richelieu, Simon Bolivar…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kalina on said:

        Our problem is that there are no evidence not only of her “weakness” but of her “energy” too. No evidences connecting with her at all: no letters, no relations. In two chronicles (Polydore Vergil, John Rous) she is described as “aimable” or ill and feared of the perspective of the death. She is running early morning to her husband even not dressed and without her hair done because she just got heard some rumours that he got died! Her question is if she has to die! Is it possible that she did not understand that a death was very near?

        Like

  7. In an age where husbands were still legally permitted to physically punish their wives being treated like a doll might have been considered as hitting the jackpot, actually. And I would think that Richard did respect Anne’s abilities enough to rely on her to keep the dukedom running smoothly while he was off fighting his brother’s wars in France and Scotland. Btw even the Cairo residents take it as a given that Richard had been seeking Anne’s hand in marriage because of the standing that would give him in the former Warwick estates in the North. Not giving a public show of a good marriage would not fit in with that.
    As for the double signature, I, too, had noticed the similarity between the two handwritings. Might also be due to them having been taught by the same tutor (who knows…). What I find interesting is that Anne is signed or signing here as “Anne Warrewyk”, stressing her descent rather than any affinity to Richard. If she still signed herself thusly after marrying Richard it would be quite a declaration of independence, putting her in the same league actually as a certain Margaret Beaufort who also kept using her own titles even when married.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Iris on said:

    Anne was indeed regarded highly as Richard’s companion and political partner, so much so that e.g. the York City Council entrusted her with their wishes when she came down to London during the Protectorate, which Richard addressed by letter on 6 June after her arrival.

    Tuberculosis can be fatal within weeks after contracting the disease, IF Anne died of that it would not be a sign of a lifelong “weakness”, but I do think whatever the disease that eventually brought to her death it can have developed after little Edward’s death as a consequence of the so called “Sindrome of a broken heart”, an internationally accepted medical term describing how a dramatic, stressful event in the life of an individual causes the release of toxins in the human body that negatively affect general health and anticorpses and ultimately lead to death within 2 years from the initial event – it took less than that in Anne’s case. Personally I find it incredible how she survived the turmoils and emotional rollercoaster of March 1470- February 1472 when she was 13-15. Under the circumstances she had to endure even suicidal thoughts would not have been unlikely and if they ever crossed her mind she managed to overcome them, unlike Margaret Beaufort’s father for example. Her son’s death coupled with the sense of guilt that she was unable to provide her husband and king with another heir must have been too much to take in, quite understandably, but I cannot see the circumstances of her death in the context of a general lifelong “weakness”.

    The suggestion that the similar handwriting may stem from having the same tutor for a period makes sense. I once saw another version of the 2 signatures online, the signatures were more apart and of different size unlike in this rendition which is probably not a faithful copy of the original document and has been adapted for space reasons, so our speculations that they belong to the same hand may be entirely wrong.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Kalina on said:

      All our speculation are only speculations. The sources connecting with Anne are scant, no her letters or other handwritings telling us about her. John Rous says about her only: aimable:)) To be frank – a lack of sources is not any proof but if the person is active on a vital stage and full of energy – some relics of his/her existence are presens after years.

      Like

      • Actually, he wrote: “In person she was seemly, amiable and beauteous…And according to the interpretation of her name Anne full gracious”.

        How exactly are the lack of letters and other things sign of her lacking energy? You don’t think she never wrote any letters? Or that chroniclers wrote about everything noble people did? Lots of letters and documents from that time have been lost. Only a handful of 15th century letters of notable people survive. I don’t think there are any surviving letters by Warwick the Kingmaker – someone correct me if I’m wrong – so he must have also been a weak person lacking in energy. Are there any surviving letters by Elizabeth Woodville?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Correction of my previous post – the full quote seems to be: “She was seemly, amiable and beauteous, and in conditions full commendable and right virtuous and, according to the interpretation of her name, Anne, full gracious. “

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kalina on said:

        Yes, of course. I repeat: a lack of sources is not any proof. But it would be a special luck: no evidence of any Anne,s activity. It is strange.
        I have found a text of Vergil about Anne. She feared after Vergil-liar that her husband was going to kill her:
        “But whan the quene herd of suche terrible rumors dispersyd already of hir wone death, supposing that hir days wer at an end, she went unto her husband very pesyffe and sadde, and with many teares demandyd of him what cause ther was why he should determyne hyr death. Hereunto the king, least that he might seme hard hartyd yf he showld shew unto his wyfe no signe of loove, kissing hir, made awnswer loovingly, and comfortyng hir, bad hir be of good chere.”
        Vergil was the notorious liar so he could exaggerate facts. But if she seems in every case to be a weak histeric a little?

        Like

      • Vergil (Tudor court historian who wasn’t even in England when Richard was alive, writing at least 27-28 years after the deaths of Richard and Anne, during the reign of Henry VIII, and trying to portray Richard in worst light possible) was clearly writing fiction there. He comes up with entire detailed scene as if he was actually present, and never even bothers to explain who, if anyone, he got that information from. It seems really unlikely that he would know what passed privately between Richard and Anne. It’s really amusing that this is what passed as history in these days – what’s harder to understand is why anyone takes it seriously nowadays?

        Liked by 1 person

    • hoodedman1 on said:

      Good point, Iris. I am fairly sure I saw another depiction of the signatures where Anne’s looked less similar to Richard’s

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Kalina on said:

    From time to time Vergil said something with sens. Historians quote him. Indeed “my” story is strange however I suspect that he did not create it from A to Z but someone told him something like this. I am sure that story about Anne,s suspects her husband of the plans of killing her is false. But I suppose too that the atmosphere of last days of Anne could be right.
    By the way I found that Vergil presented the famous story about James Tyrrel who murdered children on order of Richard. Vergil wrote his history in 1513 as well as Thomas More. What the mysterious “Quelle” became the source of this knowledge for the both “historians”?

    Like

    • Like who? Did Richard and Anne regularly have private moments in front of others, who remembered to tell those stories decades later? Seems they didn’t have a habit of mentioning sources back then… or explaining how the heck they supposedly knew something that they were very unlikely to know.

      It’s fiction, pure and simple. “Historians quote him” is a pretty terrible argument why he’s supposed to be reliable. If they quote him as a reliable source for things like this, that only means that they’re bad historians.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kalina on said:

        Annette Carson in “Richard III. Maligned King”:

        “Thus, while we cannot dismiss Vergil out of hand, we have to acknowledge he is a tainted source. Where he becomes very useful is in his detailed, almost blow-by blow knowledge of the movements of Henry Tudor and his supporters during 1483-1485. Even so, facts and dates are sometimes skewed to show tchem in the best light. By contrast with this intimate knowledge obviously obtained from the horse,s mouth, Vergil,s observations on Richard and his claim to understand the innermost working of his mind, must be taken with the large pint of salt. Nevertheless he manages one or two comments favourable to Richard”

        :))))))

        Like

  10. If anyone can find the two signatures of Richard and Anne, which are further apart and differ more, I’d love to see them!

    Like

    • Iris on said:

      Me too, especially because I’m positive I saw them and that makes at least 2 of us on this blog… and I also remember seeing the 2 signatures of EW and EoY one next to the other on another webpage, they were practically identical, which made me wonder how on earth George Buck could ever identify the author of the alleged EoY’s letter to John Howard after over a century…

      Isn’t it frustrating when you see something interesting and lose track of it? I have started a Word document where I keep track of the links to almost all articles related to RIII and his times, unfortunately it seems I started after seeing those signatures or did not include the link to those specific webpages because I cannot find them 😦

      As for the possible similarities in Richard’s and Anne’s handwriting, as a foreigner I saw a lot of similarities in e.g. different English native people writing to me in comparison to people from other countries including my own, when correspondence was still hand written and with modern pens, so I do think that some common features in handwriting can be well instilled by the same tutor, especially when the means of writing may partially limit individual adaptation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kalina on said:

        “how…George Buck could ever identify the author of the alleged EoY’s letter to John Howard after over a century… ”

        I suspect that this letter was undersigned:)))

        Like

      • Iris on said:

        And of course, Buck being a famous graphologist and paleographist, he could tell the signature of “Elizabeth” as belonging Elizabeth Jr and not Elizabeth Sr over a century later without the shadow of a doubt could he not, if this alleged letter ever existed in the first place

        Like

      • Well, I imagine the content of the letter should have made it clear who was writing, rather than analysis of the signature. For starters, Elizabeth Woodville certainly wouldn’t have written about the love King her father bore for John Howard! Other things in the letter may have been misconstrued (such as, which marriage plans it was referring to), but I don’t think the identity of the author is one of them.

        Why would Buck have lied about the letter? When historians and chroniclers back in the day made things up or reported pure gossip (and many of them sure did), they never named the sources. I don’t see why someone writing a history would come up with such a specific lie that could be easily checked, a letter that he said was still in the possession of his patron, the Earl of Arundel. And Buck didn’t even manage to publish his history in his lifetime, his great-nephew did, so it’s not like he was immediately about to impress people with a fake discovery.

        Like

      • Iris on said:

        Good points Timetravellingbunny, even though neither Buck nor we have a proof the letter was not a forgery (again, if it ever existed), if not that it was not dictated rather than written out of the girl’s own accord, what the real contents referred to, etc. The first hand sound and unbiased evidence we have, and Buck did not have, is that Richard’s marriage plans did not include marrying EoY himself and that his speech of 30 March 1485 could be taken at face value.

        Like

      • Kalina on said:

        Why we suspect Sir Buck to be liar?:))) He was an archivist, saw many important documents, quoted Croyland Chronicle and Titulus Regius…We belive him in one point, were not going to believe that he saw Elizabeth,s letter…Why? Fact that it was not found (yet!!!) does not means that it did (does) not exist.

        Like

  11. viscountessw on said:

    Another terrific post, jrlarner. I do hope you do some more.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: