This board is really quiet...

Anyone out there?

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

Hi Joan....

I'm here but it has certainly been quiet on this list. I'm such a
novice that I usually lurk and learn. With that in mind, I hope I can
pose what isn't too a ridiculous a question:

I've never understood why Edward IV didn't simply cause the good
Bishop Stillington to meet with an unfortunate accident. It would have
solved many of his problems. Did Edward have religious qualms against
taking such as action?

Flo



On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:20 PM, u2nohoo wrote:

> Anyone out there?
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
>
>

That's a really good question, Flo. There were prohibitions against
executing clergy. Still if Edward wanted Stillington dead, he probably
could have found a way to have had it done. To protect himself,
Stillington may have hidden the evidence--to be made public upon his
death--as a kind of insurance policy preventing Edward from "arranging"
the bishop's demise. At least that's one way I can think that would have
stopped Edward from arranging a fatal accident.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

--- In , Florence Dove
<mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joan....
>
> I'm here but it has certainly been quiet on this list. I'm such a
> novice that I usually lurk and learn. With that in mind, I hope I can
> pose what isn't too a ridiculous a question:
>
> I've never understood why Edward IV didn't simply cause the good
> Bishop Stillington to meet with an unfortunate accident. It would have
> solved many of his problems. Did Edward have religious qualms against
> taking such as action?
>
> Flo
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:20 PM, u2nohoo wrote:
>
> > Anyone out there?
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I would think all he would have to say was "Will no one rid me of this
troublesome priest?" or something to that effect. :-)



L.M.L.,

Janet

What exactly were the prohibitions against executing clergy?

--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> That's a really good question, Flo. There were prohibitions against
> executing clergy. Still if Edward wanted Stillington dead, he probably
> could have found a way to have had it done. To protect himself,
> Stillington may have hidden the evidence--to be made public upon his
> death--as a kind of insurance policy preventing Edward from "arranging"
> the bishop's demise. At least that's one way I can think that would have
> stopped Edward from arranging a fatal accident.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
> --- In , Florence Dove
> <mdove9@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joan....
> >
> > I'm here but it has certainly been quiet on this list. I'm such a
> > novice that I usually lurk and learn. With that in mind, I hope I can
> > pose what isn't too a ridiculous a question:
> >
> > I've never understood why Edward IV didn't simply cause the good
> > Bishop Stillington to meet with an unfortunate accident. It would have
> > solved many of his problems. Did Edward have religious qualms against
> > taking such as action?
> >
> > Flo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:20 PM, u2nohoo wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone out there?
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Wasn't Stillington briefly imprisoned by Edward IV?

--- On Tue, 13/10/09, yorkistjoe <joe.schweninger@...> wrote:


From: yorkistjoe <joe.schweninger@...>
Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
To:
Date: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, 1:40 PM


 



What exactly were the prohibitions against executing clergy?

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@. ..> wrote:
>
> That's a really good question, Flo. There were prohibitions against
> executing clergy. Still if Edward wanted Stillington dead, he probably
> could have found a way to have had it done. To protect himself,
> Stillington may have hidden the evidence--to be made public upon his
> death--as a kind of insurance policy preventing Edward from "arranging"
> the bishop's demise. At least that's one way I can think that would have
> stopped Edward from arranging a fatal accident.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Florence Dove
> <mdove9@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joan....
> >
> > I'm here but it has certainly been quiet on this list. I'm such a
> > novice that I usually lurk and learn. With that in mind, I hope I can
> > pose what isn't too a ridiculous a question:
> >
> > I've never understood why Edward IV didn't simply cause the good
> > Bishop Stillington to meet with an unfortunate accident. It would have
> > solved many of his problems. Did Edward have religious qualms against
> > taking such as action?
> >
> > Flo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:20 PM, u2nohoo wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone out there?
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
> > > website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
> > > blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I seem to recall that a legal execution required a trial and papal
approval since Stillington was a bishop of the church. Obviously a
publictrial wouldn't have been at all in Edward's interest, as the
details of the pre-contract might have come out. It's been suggested
that Clarence's execution could potentially have been to keep him
silent about the pre-contract. Yes, it's possible that Stillington
protected himself with hidden evidence, but if that evidence were a
written account, would it be believed after the fact of his death,
with the only 'supposed' eyewitness dead? Who would gainsay the king
directly? Seems a curious lapse by Edward...


Florence Dove
mdove9@...




On Oct 13, 2009, at 8:40 AM, yorkistjoe wrote:

> What exactly were the prohibitions against executing clergy?
>
> --- In , "u2nohoo"
> <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
> >
> > That's a really good question, Flo. There were prohibitions against
> > executing clergy. Still if Edward wanted Stillington dead, he
> probably
> > could have found a way to have had it done. To protect himself,
> > Stillington may have hidden the evidence--to be made public upon his
> > death--as a kind of insurance policy preventing Edward from
> "arranging"
> > the bishop's demise. At least that's one way I can think that
> would have
> > stopped Edward from arranging a fatal accident.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> >
> > --- In , Florence Dove
> > <mdove9@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Joan....
> > >
> > > I'm here but it has certainly been quiet on this list. I'm such a
> > > novice that I usually lurk and learn. With that in mind, I hope
> I can
> > > pose what isn't too a ridiculous a question:
> > >
> > > I've never understood why Edward IV didn't simply cause the good
> > > Bishop Stillington to meet with an unfortunate accident. It
> would have
> > > solved many of his problems. Did Edward have religious qualms
> against
> > > taking such as action?
> > >
> > > Flo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:20 PM, u2nohoo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyone out there?
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> > > > website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> > > > blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

There's a lot about the precontract that nobody knows. We certainly cannot be sure that Stillington was the only witness other than Edward and Eleanor. I always try to picture the scene. If Eleanor had insisted on a proper contract of marriage before she succumbed to Edward's advances, I doubt she would have considered it sufficient to have a hasty hole-in-corner affair with merely Canon Stillington as witness (he wasn't a bishop then). Hence I suspect Stillington wasn't the only person who knew about it. Most likely she would have wanted some close member(s) of her family present. We may also surmise that she and Edward enjoyed a number of private assignations thereafter, to put it delicately, which again could not have been kept entirely secret. Edward may have had his fingers crossed behind his back when he gave his vow of marriage, but it doesn't seem likely that Eleanor did. I imagine he probably claimed there were reasons of state that required him to wait for the right moment to make their marriage public, which was probably the line he fed to Elizabeth Woodville and her family for four months in 1464. Thus although I don't find it difficult to believe that the marriage with Eleanor was kept secret, I do find it difficult to believe there weren't any other witnesses at all to their private relationship.

When Edward decided she wasn't going to be his queen, she and her family would have had to be told. I imagine it would have been quite easy to buy off the Talbot family with material offerings and advancement, and to assure them that Eleanor would be looked after materially - especially if Eleanor herself had decided that on closer acquaintanceship she didn't fancy the role of Edward's queen and would prefer a contemplative life. So a mutually favourable arrangement could have been reached all round. Stillington was the only one whose conscience was involved and had to be accommodated, but there was no compulsion on Stillington to mention anything before Edward married again. Meanwhile he had probably promised Stillington that before he considered another marriage he would get the first one annulled, which I don't suppose would have been much more complicated than getting a dispensation. And perhaps he even meant to. But then along came Elizabeth Woodville and the rest is history.

By the time the second marriage was announced, Stillington was tacitly complicit in knowing of the precontract AND was in a stranglehold as far as his prospects were concerned. He wasn't a shepherd of his Christian flock, he was a political animal who was headed for the chancellorship (which he gained in 1467) if he played his cards right and kept silent - and headed for something far less attractive if he didn't. Moreover, the onus in terms of revealing a previous marriage was to speak up when the banns were called, which Edward had neatly avoided, so the sins were Edward's, not Stillington's. It was up to Edward to seek the apropriate absolution, not up to Stillington to tell the world about it and earn himself a passage to the Tower.
Regards, Annette

Annette,

Your logic is persuasive, but Stillington remains the stumbling block
even if Eleanor and her family had been bought off with money or
threats. Possibly Eleanor was truly in love with Edward, the marriage
was witnessed only by Stillington, and Eleanor was told eventually
(when Edward tired of her) that dire trouble would befall her family
if she spoke out. This way, the family wouldn't have been involved,
and any leaks would have been minimized. Edward was glib and lecherous
but not stupid. Minor witnesses to the relationship between Eleanor
and Edward- servants, comrades, etc.- would likely have assumed it
was an affair. I haven't read anywhere that Edward's family had
suspicions of a pre-contract, and Richard seems to have been shocked
when the news eventually came out.

That being the case, Stillington still posed a huge problem for
Edward. No matter what Stillington might have promised or offered for
silence nor how much he was compromised personally by his silence, he
likely remained the one man alive who could have brought down the
king. While we can't know what Edward was thinking, but being a
pragmatic man- and a man with a potential dynasty to preserve- it
seems very curious that he wouldn't have eliminated the threat once
and for all that Stillington represented.

Flo





On Oct 13, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Annette wrote:

> There's a lot about the precontract that nobody knows. We certainly
> cannot be sure that Stillington was the only witness other than
> Edward and Eleanor. I always try to picture the scene. If Eleanor
> had insisted on a proper contract of marriage before she succumbed
> to Edward's advances, I doubt she would have considered it
> sufficient to have a hasty hole-in-corner affair with merely Canon
> Stillington as witness (he wasn't a bishop then). Hence I suspect
> Stillington wasn't the only person who knew about it. Most likely
> she would have wanted some close member(s) of her family present. We
> may also surmise that she and Edward enjoyed a number of private
> assignations thereafter, to put it delicately, which again could not
> have been kept entirely secret. Edward may have had his fingers
> crossed behind his back when he gave his vow of marriage, but it
> doesn't seem likely that Eleanor did. I imagine he probably claimed
> there were reasons of state that required him to wait for the right
> moment to make their marriage public, which was probably the line he
> fed to Elizabeth Woodville and her family for four months in 1464.
> Thus although I don't find it difficult to believe that the marriage
> with Eleanor was kept secret, I do find it difficult to believe
> there weren't any other witnesses at all to their private
> relationship.
>
> When Edward decided she wasn't going to be his queen, she and her
> family would have had to be told. I imagine it would have been quite
> easy to buy off the Talbot family with material offerings and
> advancement, and to assure them that Eleanor would be looked after
> materially - especially if Eleanor herself had decided that on
> closer acquaintanceship she didn't fancy the role of Edward's queen
> and would prefer a contemplative life. So a mutually favourable
> arrangement could have been reached all round. Stillington was the
> only one whose conscience was involved and had to be accommodated,
> but there was no compulsion on Stillington to mention anything
> before Edward married again. Meanwhile he had probably promised
> Stillington that before he considered another marriage he would get
> the first one annulled, which I don't suppose would have been much
> more complicated than getting a dispensation. And perhaps he even
> meant to. But then along came Elizabeth Woodville and the rest is
> history.
>
> By the time the second marriage was announced, Stillington was
> tacitly complicit in knowing of the precontract AND was in a
> stranglehold as far as his prospects were concerned. He wasn't a
> shepherd of his Christian flock, he was a political animal who was
> headed for the chancellorship (which he gained in 1467) if he played
> his cards right and kept silent - and headed for something far less
> attractive if he didn't. Moreover, the onus in terms of revealing a
> previous marriage was to speak up when the banns were called, which
> Edward had neatly avoided, so the sins were Edward's, not
> Stillington's. It was up to Edward to seek the apropriate
> absolution, not up to Stillington to tell the world about it and
> earn himself a passage to the Tower.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
>

--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Annette,
> Your logic is persuasive, but Stillington remains the stumbling block.

Well, this is all surmise and supposition so either of us could be correct! But I still think it should be remembered that Stillington's knowledge was not a threat to Edward personally all those years - unless you believe Edward had some reason to suspect him of wanting to undermine the stabiity of the crown of England? It was not Stillington's place, or to his advantage, as a member of the council, to expose the king and the government to danger - unless you are suggesting that he might have wanted to overthrow Edward, which is a very big stretch of the imagination! Only if he actually tried to blackmail Edward for gain would it have been necessary to think of liquidating him. Failing such nefarious designs, Stillington would have reasoned quite properly that Edward's sins were between him and his God (and his confessor), and that he was perfectly capable of negotiating his way out of it with the pope, which Stillington may well have believed him to be doing all along.
Regards, Annette

A very interesting discussion!  It seems to me that the pre-contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he died.  Edward might have felt that it was likely he would live longer than Stillington (wasn't Stillington quite a bit older than Edward and with some health problems?) so it would never come to light. 
 
Elaine 

--- On Tue, 13/10/09, Annette <ajcarson@...> wrote:


From: Annette <ajcarson@...>
Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
To:
Date: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, 5:20 PM


 





--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Annette,
> Your logic is persuasive, but Stillington remains the stumbling block.

Well, this is all surmise and supposition so either of us could be correct! But I still think it should be remembered that Stillington' s knowledge was not a threat to Edward personally all those years - unless you believe Edward had some reason to suspect him of wanting to undermine the stabiity of the crown of England? It was not Stillington' s place, or to his advantage, as a member of the council, to expose the king and the government to danger - unless you are suggesting that he might have wanted to overthrow Edward, which is a very big stretch of the imagination! Only if he actually tried to blackmail Edward for gain would it have been necessary to think of liquidating him. Failing such nefarious designs, Stillington would have reasoned quite properly that Edward's sins were between him and his God (and his confessor), and that he was perfectly capable of negotiating his way out of it with the pope, which Stillington may well have believed him to
be doing all along.
Regards, Annette
















Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yes, Elaine, I believe you are exactly right.
Regards, Annette

--- In , Elaine Hunt <mistyandspice@...> wrote:
>
> A very interesting discussion!  It seems to me that the pre-contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he died.  Edward might have felt that it was likely he would live longer than Stillington (wasn't Stillington quite a bit older than Edward and with some health problems?) so it would never come to light. 
>  
> Elaine 
>
> --- On Tue, 13/10/09, Annette <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette <ajcarson@...>
> Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, 5:20 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Florence Dove <mdove9@> wrote:
> >
> > Annette,
> > Your logic is persuasive, but Stillington remains the stumbling block.
>
> Well, this is all surmise and supposition so either of us could be correct! But I still think it should be remembered that Stillington' s knowledge was not a threat to Edward personally all those years - unless you believe Edward had some reason to suspect him of wanting to undermine the stabiity of the crown of England? It was not Stillington' s place, or to his advantage, as a member of the council, to expose the king and the government to danger - unless you are suggesting that he might have wanted to overthrow Edward, which is a very big stretch of the imagination! Only if he actually tried to blackmail Edward for gain would it have been necessary to think of liquidating him. Failing such nefarious designs, Stillington would have reasoned quite properly that Edward's sins were between him and his God (and his confessor), and that he was perfectly capable of negotiating his way out of it with the pope, which Stillington may well have believed him to
> be doing all along.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>

On the other hand, Edward was a fairly astute judge of character from
everything that I've read. He had no illusions about his brother
George certainly, and he was quite ruthless regarding Henry VI when
he again became threat to the York crown after Lancaster was killed.

Surely Edward realized that as long as Stillington lived, his wife EW
and family (and future dynasty) were in danger. It's hard to imagine
that he hadn't considered these implications should he die in battle
or from sickness. The possibility of the pre-contract rearing up
after his death (which it did) and the potential for his children
being declared bastards (which they were) must have occurred to him.
Edward simply doesn't seem like a man who wouldn't have minimized the
risk of exposure by eliminating Stillington, unless of course he had
an excellent reason that hasn't yet come to light. Certainly makes
for an interesting historical question. And then, of course, there's
Elizabeth Woodville..... did she or didn't she know about the pre-
contract? And if she had known, would Stillington have been a dead
man? Hummm... Could Edward have attempted in some way to control
Woodville power by allowing Stillington to remain alive?

Cheers, Flo

On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Annette wrote:

> Yes, Elaine, I believe you are exactly right.
> Regards, Annette
>
> --- In , Elaine Hunt
> <mistyandspice@...> wrote:
> >
> > A very interesting discussion! It seems to me that the pre-
> contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he
> died. Edward might have felt that it was likely he would live
> longer than Stillington (wasn't Stillington quite a bit older than
> Edward and with some health problems?) so it would never come to
> light.
> >
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- On Tue, 13/10/09, Annette <ajcarson@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Annette <ajcarson@...>
> > Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of
> Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
> > To:
> > Date: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, 5:20 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Florence Dove
> <mdove9@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Annette,
> > > Your logic is persuasive, but Stillington remains the stumbling
> block.
> >
> > Well, this is all surmise and supposition so either of us could be
> correct! But I still think it should be remembered that Stillington'
> s knowledge was not a threat to Edward personally all those years -
> unless you believe Edward had some reason to suspect him of wanting
> to undermine the stabiity of the crown of England? It was not
> Stillington' s place, or to his advantage, as a member of the
> council, to expose the king and the government to danger - unless
> you are suggesting that he might have wanted to overthrow Edward,
> which is a very big stretch of the imagination! Only if he actually
> tried to blackmail Edward for gain would it have been necessary to
> think of liquidating him. Failing such nefarious designs,
> Stillington would have reasoned quite properly that Edward's sins
> were between him and his God (and his confessor), and that he was
> perfectly capable of negotiating his way out of it with the pope,
> which Stillington may well have believed him to
> > be doing all along.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, Edward was a fairly astute judge of character from
> everything that I've read. He had no illusions about his brother
> George certainly, and he was quite ruthless regarding Henry VI when
> he again became threat to the York crown after Lancaster was killed.
>
> Surely Edward realized that as long as Stillington lived, his wife EW
> and family (and future dynasty) were in danger.

OK, let's examine the alternative universe scenario that Edward IV arranges for Stillington to be liquidated by means of a so-called accident. When would he have done this, and how? And how would he have prevented whoever committed the murder from becoming at least as much a thorn in his side as he thought Stillington was going to be?

By the way, I never suggested the Talbot family would be bought off by threats. Inducements worked much better because they promised more rewards to come, and yet more, and yet more. As long as Eleanor was satisfied and well cared for, and oaths were sworn, and they (like Stillington) believed Edward was seeking an annulment, it paid them to keep his secret.

Hello Annette,

Eliminating Stillington would have been easy I should think. For
example, a fall down the stairs with a fatal head injury. Whoever did
the deed would not know why it had been ordered, simply that the king
had ordered the deed. Surely a form of 'murder for hire' existed then
as now. Given the suspicious death of Henry VI. the death of
Stillington might not have caused much of a ripple in the larger
scheme of things.

I didn't mean to imply that the Talbots couldn't have seen the
advantages in being agreeable to Edward's wishes regarding the pre-
contract. Certainly they might have been complicit, but over time it
had to be apparent to them that no annulment was being sought by
Edward. Once Edward married EW, an annulment would have made public
the illegality of his marriage to her, and I caused serious
complication for Edward.

Cheers, Flo





On Oct 13, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Annette wrote:

> --- In , Florence Dove
> <mdove9@...> wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, Edward was a fairly astute judge of character
> from
> > everything that I've read. He had no illusions about his brother
> > George certainly, and he was quite ruthless regarding Henry VI when
> > he again became threat to the York crown after Lancaster was killed.
> >
> > Surely Edward realized that as long as Stillington lived, his wife
> EW
> > and family (and future dynasty) were in danger.
>
> OK, let's examine the alternative universe scenario that Edward IV
> arranges for Stillington to be liquidated by means of a so-called
> accident. When would he have done this, and how? And how would he
> have prevented whoever committed the murder from becoming at least
> as much a thorn in his side as he thought Stillington was going to be?
>
> By the way, I never suggested the Talbot family would be bought off
> by threats. Inducements worked much better because they promised
> more rewards to come, and yet more, and yet more. As long as Eleanor
> was satisfied and well cared for, and oaths were sworn, and they
> (like Stillington) believed Edward was seeking an annulment, it paid
> them to keep his secret.
>
>
>

--- In , Elaine Hunt <mistyandspice@...> wrote:
>
> A very interesting discussion!� It seems to me that the pre-contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he died.


Is it possible that Edward, for some reason, did not think that he had a legal contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler? As you said, the subject never came up during Edward's lifetime. That would explain why he never took any steps to guarantee Stillington's silence.

I don't have any suggestion as to why Edward may have thought there was no legally-enforceable marriage to her, though. Could he have believed that her husband was still alive, and she was not an available widow, and that therefore he could easily walk out of the situation?

And, by the way, do we even know that it was Stillington who performed the marriage? The only source who names him is de Commines.

Katy

Sorry I haven't had a chance to catch up on this thread. Disposing of a clergyman is very difficult - I suppose Edward could have promised him promotion.

There is a Sexton Blake novel in which someone is murdered and the witness, instead of being murdered as well to create more witnesses, is placed in an asylum.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)




--- In , Elaine Hunt <mistyandspice@...> wrote:
>
> A very interesting discussion!� It seems to me that the pre-contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he died.

Is it possible that Edward, for some reason, did not think that he had a legal contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler? As you said, the subject never came up during Edward's lifetime. That would explain why he never took any steps to guarantee Stillington's silence.

I don't have any suggestion as to why Edward may have thought there was no legally-enforceable marriage to her, though. Could he have believed that her husband was still alive, and she was not an available widow, and that therefore he could easily walk out of the situation?

And, by the way, do we even know that it was Stillington who performed the marriage? The only source who names him is de Commines.

Katy

what exactly does commynes say, regarding the marriage? does he name stillington directly or does he say bishop of bath and wells? stillington didn't take that post until 1465.
 
where was stillington between 1460 and 1464 marriage of e4 to woodville? what positions did he hold before rising in prestige during e4's reign?
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 10/13/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
To:
Received: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9:38 PM


 





--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Elaine Hunt <mistyandspice@ ...> wrote:
>
> A very interesting discussion!� It seems to me that the pre-contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he died.

Is it possible that Edward, for some reason, did not think that he had a legal contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler? As you said, the subject never came up during Edward's lifetime. That would explain why he never took any steps to guarantee Stillington' s silence.

I don't have any suggestion as to why Edward may have thought there was no legally-enforceable marriage to her, though. Could he have believed that her husband was still alive, and she was not an available widow, and that therefore he could easily walk out of the situation?

And, by the way, do we even know that it was Stillington who performed the marriage? The only source who names him is de Commines.

Katy

A bit of information on Stilllington :

He was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal
from 1460 to 1467.

He was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465, and
was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on
20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was
restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it
until 18 June 1473.

Source: Fryde, E. B.; Greenway, D. E.; Porter, S.; Roy, I. (1996).
Handbook of British Chronology (Third Edition, revised ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flo


On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:15 PM, fayre rose wrote:

> what exactly does commynes say, regarding the marriage? does he name
> stillington directly or does he say bishop of bath and wells?
> stillington didn't take that post until 1465.
>
> where was stillington between 1460 and 1464 marriage of e4 to
> woodville? what positions did he hold before rising in prestige
> during e4's reign?
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 10/13/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> From: oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of
> Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9:38 PM
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Elaine Hunt
> <mistyandspice@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > A very interesting discussion!� It seems to me that the pre-
> contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he
> died.
>
> Is it possible that Edward, for some reason, did not think that he
> had a legal contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler? As you said,
> the subject never came up during Edward's lifetime. That would
> explain why he never took any steps to guarantee Stillington' s
> silence.
>
> I don't have any suggestion as to why Edward may have thought there
> was no legally-enforceable marriage to her, though. Could he have
> believed that her husband was still alive, and she was not an
> available widow, and that therefore he could easily walk out of the
> situation?
>
> And, by the way, do we even know that it was Stillington who
> performed the marriage? The only source who names him is de Commines.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>

Another interesting bit on Stillington from Kendall: Croyland notes
that "[Stillington] did nothing except through his pupil, John
Alcock, Bishop of Worcester..." Since Alcock was friendly with the
Woodvilles, it's possible he helped to hold Stillington in check.
Kendall remarks that the scant bit of information available on
Stillington seems to point to a rather average man not noted for his
abilities or his strength of character. But, information available
is sketchy.

t I hadn't realized was that Stillington's diocese was in the heart of
Clarence's lands. Helps to explain that relationship...

Flo






On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:15 PM, fayre rose wrote:

> what exactly does commynes say, regarding the marriage? does he name
> stillington directly or does he say bishop of bath and wells?
> stillington didn't take that post until 1465.
>
> where was stillington between 1460 and 1464 marriage of e4 to
> woodville? what positions did he hold before rising in prestige
> during e4's reign?
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 10/13/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> From: oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of
> Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9:38 PM
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Elaine Hunt
> <mistyandspice@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > A very interesting discussion!� It seems to me that the pre-
> contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he
> died.
>
> Is it possible that Edward, for some reason, did not think that he
> had a legal contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler? As you said,
> the subject never came up during Edward's lifetime. That would
> explain why he never took any steps to guarantee Stillington' s
> silence.
>
> I don't have any suggestion as to why Edward may have thought there
> was no legally-enforceable marriage to her, though. Could he have
> believed that her husband was still alive, and she was not an
> available widow, and that therefore he could easily walk out of the
> situation?
>
> And, by the way, do we even know that it was Stillington who
> performed the marriage? The only source who names him is de Commines.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>

According to John Ashdown-Hill in his book Eleanor the Secret Queen, Stillington was 'essentially a man of the world, whose career was first and foremost that of a servant of the government.He had several illegitimate children...and visited his diocese very rarely." As keeper of E4's privy seal, he had to have been close to E4, and Hastings....maybe they went carousing together, who knows...and as an apparently not overtly devout churchman who placed a higher priority on his worldly duties to his King, who better than Stillington - close at hand and good to go with the necessary authority - to help E4 'seal the deal' with Eleanor Talbot?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> what exactly does commynes say, regarding the marriage? does he name stillington directly or does he say bishop of bath and wells? stillington didn't take that post until 1465.
>  
> where was stillington between 1460 and 1464 marriage of e4 to woodville? what positions did he hold before rising in prestige during e4's reign?
>  
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 10/13/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 9:38 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Elaine Hunt <mistyandspice@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > A very interesting discussion!� It seems to me that the pre-contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he died.
>
> Is it possible that Edward, for some reason, did not think that he had a legal contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler? As you said, the subject never came up during Edward's lifetime. That would explain why he never took any steps to guarantee Stillington' s silence.
>
> I don't have any suggestion as to why Edward may have thought there was no legally-enforceable marriage to her, though. Could he have believed that her husband was still alive, and she was not an available widow, and that therefore he could easily walk out of the situation?
>
> And, by the way, do we even know that it was Stillington who performed the marriage? The only source who names him is de Commines.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry to come in late on all this (and without having followed the whole thread). But worth bearing in mind that Edward's first instinct was not to kill Henry VI. He kept him alive throughout the 1460s, despite Lancastrian plots. Even after the Readeption Edward did not have Henry killed when he first entered London, nor when he returned to th city after winning Barnet. Nor did he send ahead to have the deed done after killing Prince Edward at Tewkesbury. It was only when Fauconberg - unperturbed by the deaths of Queen Margaret and Prince Edward - tried to storm London and threatened Edward's family - that he realised nothing but Henry's death would do the job. Perhaps at that point his queen, no doubt badly frightened, urged him to just get on and do it.
Someone evidently did that job for Edward. Did Edward feel the murderer had to be killed too? Then what about the murderer's murderer, and so on, ad infinitum? There are many ways to achieve a person's silence - carrots can be useful as well as redhot pokers.

I doubt if any medieval government (or even modern ones) survived without a quite a lot of murky secrets shared amongst a small group of men whose own interests were bound up with the regime that paid them. Stillington wasn't a man of courage or great moral scruples, just a gifted careerist. And much older than Edward and in failing health since the early 1470s. Probably no one would have predicted he would go on as long as he did.

Marie



--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, Edward was a fairly astute judge of character from
> everything that I've read. He had no illusions about his brother
> George certainly, and he was quite ruthless regarding Henry VI when
> he again became threat to the York crown after Lancaster was killed.
>
> Surely Edward realized that as long as Stillington lived, his wife EW
> and family (and future dynasty) were in danger. It's hard to imagine
> that he hadn't considered these implications should he die in battle
> or from sickness. The possibility of the pre-contract rearing up
> after his death (which it did) and the potential for his children
> being declared bastards (which they were) must have occurred to him.
> Edward simply doesn't seem like a man who wouldn't have minimized the
> risk of exposure by eliminating Stillington, unless of course he had
> an excellent reason that hasn't yet come to light. Certainly makes
> for an interesting historical question. And then, of course, there's
> Elizabeth Woodville..... did she or didn't she know about the pre-
> contract? And if she had known, would Stillington have been a dead
> man? Hummm... Could Edward have attempted in some way to control
> Woodville power by allowing Stillington to remain alive?
>
> Cheers, Flo
>
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Annette wrote:
>
> > Yes, Elaine, I believe you are exactly right.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > --- In , Elaine Hunt
> > <mistyandspice@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A very interesting discussion! It seems to me that the pre-
> > contract was not an issue for Edward during his reign, only after he
> > died. Edward might have felt that it was likely he would live
> > longer than Stillington (wasn't Stillington quite a bit older than
> > Edward and with some health problems?) so it would never come to
> > light.
> > >
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 13/10/09, Annette <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Annette <ajcarson@>
> > > Subject: Re: EIV's treatment of
> > Stillington (wasThis board is really quiet...)
> > > To:
> > > Date: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009, 5:20 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, Florence Dove
> > <mdove9@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Annette,
> > > > Your logic is persuasive, but Stillington remains the stumbling
> > block.
> > >
> > > Well, this is all surmise and supposition so either of us could be
> > correct! But I still think it should be remembered that Stillington'
> > s knowledge was not a threat to Edward personally all those years -
> > unless you believe Edward had some reason to suspect him of wanting
> > to undermine the stabiity of the crown of England? It was not
> > Stillington' s place, or to his advantage, as a member of the
> > council, to expose the king and the government to danger - unless
> > you are suggesting that he might have wanted to overthrow Edward,
> > which is a very big stretch of the imagination! Only if he actually
> > tried to blackmail Edward for gain would it have been necessary to
> > think of liquidating him. Failing such nefarious designs,
> > Stillington would have reasoned quite properly that Edward's sins
> > were between him and his God (and his confessor), and that he was
> > perfectly capable of negotiating his way out of it with the pope,
> > which Stillington may well have believed him to
> > > be doing all along.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>