The Council at Sheen

I wondered if anyone might be able to help with some thoughts about Henry's motives before the 1487 rebellion?

Most authors question Henry's treatment of Elizabeth Woodville at the time of the council at Sheen as being evidence for her involvement in the rebellion. But if Henry knew or suspected she was involved then who was she involving or communicating with?... and if she was communicating with the Earl of Lincoln before Sheen then why did Henry apparently not know about his involvement until later when he escaped to Burgundy?

I hope this makes sense?

Also one more thing...assuming the Princes were still alive after Bosworth but had been hidden somewhere, then to what extent would Henry have gone to find their location when he became King? There is no evidence that Lincoln was ever questioned about the missing princes, or Tyrell between 1485-1487?
Perhaps Henry felt secure enough in his position not to worry about any potential threat from the two princes???

So sorry, it's really late so most of this probably doesn't make any sense! lol! Hopefully the answers will come to me in my sleep. I'm writing my 3rd and final film script called 1487 (great title eh)which is why I need to work out what was going on Henry's mind at that time and show this in his character. Thanks for your help.

--- In , mrm_bell <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I wondered if anyone might be able to help with some thoughts about Henry's motives before the 1487 rebellion?
>
> Most authors question Henry's treatment of Elizabeth Woodville at the time of the council at Sheen as being evidence for her involvement in the rebellion. But if Henry knew or suspected she was involved then who was she involving or communicating with?... and if she was communicating with the Earl of Lincoln before Sheen then why did Henry apparently not know about his involvement until later when he escaped to Burgundy?

Hi,

The Devil is always in the detail with these sort of things, but problem in this case is the sources are all very vague. We do not have any records of proceedings of the Great Council, which seems to have sat all February, so we can't know for sure that her lands were taken away by its authority (that comes from Vergil); they were not granted to her daughter the Queen until 30 April. Lincoln fled England in March (the records disagree as to whether it was the 9th or the 19th of the month). In the middle of February, whilst the council was sitting, Henry showed off his version of the Earl of Warwick, probably to the council but certainly to the convocation of the clergy at St Paul's.
According to Vergil, Dorset was also singled out at this time, and placed into the Tower. Certainly I've not found any references to his activities between 22nd January 1487, when he attended Archbishop Morton's enthronization, and 1492! He is not mentioned in the herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation the following November, nor was he at court for the 1487-8 Christmas festivities.

We just don't have good dates, but there are of course several possible explanations:-
1) the rebel Edward in Ireland was really Edward V;
2) Henry's displayed Warwick was not Warwick at all. Between Clarence's death and Bosworth, Warwick had been in the custody of (in order) Elizabeth Woodville, Dorset, Anne Neville, and Lincoln.
3) Perhaps Richard Duke of York survived but not Edward V, and there was a Ricardian/Woodville coalition still arguing about whether to rally behind York or Warwick (or Lincoln).
4) Anything else you can think of.



>
> I hope this makes sense?
>
> Also one more thing...assuming the Princes were still alive after Bosworth but had been hidden somewhere, then to what extent would Henry have gone to find their location when he became King? There is no evidence that Lincoln was ever questioned about the missing princes, or Tyrell between 1485-1487?
> Perhaps Henry felt secure enough in his position not to worry about any potential threat from the two princes???

I don't think we should expect to find records of such interrogations, assuming they took place. And how much either man would have been able to tell Henry is, again, another issue.


>
> So sorry, it's really late so most of this probably doesn't make any sense! lol! Hopefully the answers will come to me in my sleep. I'm writing my 3rd and final film script called 1487 (great title eh)which is why I need to work out what was going on Henry's mind at that time and show this in his character. Thanks for your help.

To work out what was in Henry's mind in 1487 you probably need to be sure you've covered every little thing that happened between 1483 and the end of 1486, because what was in his mind would depend entirely on what was, and had been, really going on from the time the Princes disappeared. There are, I'm sure, a lot of hidden jigsaw pieces required to make a recognisable picture out of this particular puzzle.


I hope this helps rather than otherwise,

Marie

Thanks Marie,

I hadn't realised that the council was in session throughout February 1487 which makes more sense. I've read Gordon Smith's article about the real Lambert Simnel which is really interesting and I've realised that writing the 3rd film (based on events from Bosworth to Stoke) last was perhaps a mistake as I'm discovering that Stoke really gives us answers about what happened in 1483, as you have mentioned.

I suppose my theory is that Francis Lovell was the link between Elizabeth Woodville and the missing princes as he certainly had something to fear after Bosworth when he went into sanctuary. He subsequently joined the Stafford brothers in rebellion of 1486 then escaped to Flanders. It's possible that Lincoln himself didn't know the location of the princes in 1485. What do you think?

Mim

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mrm_bell <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I wondered if anyone might be able to help with some thoughts about Henry's motives before the 1487 rebellion?
> >
> > Most authors question Henry's treatment of Elizabeth Woodville at the time of the council at Sheen as being evidence for her involvement in the rebellion. But if Henry knew or suspected she was involved then who was she involving or communicating with?... and if she was communicating with the Earl of Lincoln before Sheen then why did Henry apparently not know about his involvement until later when he escaped to Burgundy?
>
> Hi,
>
> The Devil is always in the detail with these sort of things, but problem in this case is the sources are all very vague. We do not have any records of proceedings of the Great Council, which seems to have sat all February, so we can't know for sure that her lands were taken away by its authority (that comes from Vergil); they were not granted to her daughter the Queen until 30 April. Lincoln fled England in March (the records disagree as to whether it was the 9th or the 19th of the month). In the middle of February, whilst the council was sitting, Henry showed off his version of the Earl of Warwick, probably to the council but certainly to the convocation of the clergy at St Paul's.
> According to Vergil, Dorset was also singled out at this time, and placed into the Tower. Certainly I've not found any references to his activities between 22nd January 1487, when he attended Archbishop Morton's enthronization, and 1492! He is not mentioned in the herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation the following November, nor was he at court for the 1487-8 Christmas festivities.
>
> We just don't have good dates, but there are of course several possible explanations:-
> 1) the rebel Edward in Ireland was really Edward V;
> 2) Henry's displayed Warwick was not Warwick at all. Between Clarence's death and Bosworth, Warwick had been in the custody of (in order) Elizabeth Woodville, Dorset, Anne Neville, and Lincoln.
> 3) Perhaps Richard Duke of York survived but not Edward V, and there was a Ricardian/Woodville coalition still arguing about whether to rally behind York or Warwick (or Lincoln).
> 4) Anything else you can think of.
>
>
>
> >
> > I hope this makes sense?
> >
> > Also one more thing...assuming the Princes were still alive after Bosworth but had been hidden somewhere, then to what extent would Henry have gone to find their location when he became King? There is no evidence that Lincoln was ever questioned about the missing princes, or Tyrell between 1485-1487?
> > Perhaps Henry felt secure enough in his position not to worry about any potential threat from the two princes???
>
> I don't think we should expect to find records of such interrogations, assuming they took place. And how much either man would have been able to tell Henry is, again, another issue.
>
>
> >
> > So sorry, it's really late so most of this probably doesn't make any sense! lol! Hopefully the answers will come to me in my sleep. I'm writing my 3rd and final film script called 1487 (great title eh)which is why I need to work out what was going on Henry's mind at that time and show this in his character. Thanks for your help.
>
> To work out what was in Henry's mind in 1487 you probably need to be sure you've covered every little thing that happened between 1483 and the end of 1486, because what was in his mind would depend entirely on what was, and had been, really going on from the time the Princes disappeared. There are, I'm sure, a lot of hidden jigsaw pieces required to make a recognisable picture out of this particular puzzle.
>
>
> I hope this helps rather than otherwise,
>
> Marie
>

--- In , mrm_bell <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Marie,
>
> I hadn't realised that the council was in session throughout February 1487 which makes more sense. I've read Gordon Smith's article about the real Lambert Simnel which is really interesting and I've realised that writing the 3rd film (based on events from Bosworth to Stoke) last was perhaps a mistake as I'm discovering that Stoke really gives us answers about what happened in 1483, as you have mentioned.
>
> I suppose my theory is that Francis Lovell was the link between Elizabeth Woodville and the missing princes as he certainly had something to fear after Bosworth when he went into sanctuary. He subsequently joined the Stafford brothers in rebellion of 1486 then escaped to Flanders. It's possible that Lincoln himself didn't know the location of the princes in 1485. What do you think?
>
> Mim

Hi Mim,


I have to confess my interpretation of the length of the Shene council is my own. But I base it on this:-
1) According to the herald's report, the council began "after Candlemas".
2) a convocation of the southern clergy at St Paul's, which was probably running in tandem, seems to have gone on from mid Feb till about the 27th Feb (Morton's Register).
3) Documents were being dated from Shene right till at least 4th March.
4) I believe a letter in the Paston Collection which Gairdner has ascribed to 1489 actually belongs to 1487. It is in vol vi, pp. 120-22):-
It was written by William Paston, then a servant of the Earl of Oxford, to "Sir John Paston" from Shene. He starts: "As for my lord Treasurer, he was not with the King of all the Council time, the which was ended on the 3rd day of March." He goes on to talk about two men who have been taken and questioned, one "like to be hanged, and he confesseth more than his fellows." Another "apeached of treasom of many strange points; and his accuser and he were both afore the King, and they were taken apart. And he himself confessed it that his accuser accused him of, and many other things more than he was accused of. . . . And he is in the Tower and like to be dead."
No ordinary council, then. But then most importantly, WP goes on to talk about the King's proposed progress through East Anglia, which matches up perfectly with his movements - and the dates thereof - in 1487, even down to spending Easter at Norwich.

Gairdner's main reason for tentatively ascribing the letter to 1489 was probably that John Paston was not knighted until Stoke. But in 1489 Henry did not make a progress such as described - Gairdner assumes his plan to do so was scuppered by news of Northumberland's murder, but this explanation does not fit the dates of the proposed itinerary described in this letter. Also this letter relates that Northumberland had just arrived at Shene a few days earlier!
I think the clue lies in the fact that William addressed his brother only as "Sir John Paston," not "Sir John Paston, knight". I have only found one other such instance in the entire collection, and that letter too seems to me to have been written in the early spring of 1487. JP was being canvassed by both sides, and maybe this was no more than a hint of what he could expect if he stayed loyal to Henry.

I have to say my problem with Gordon Smith's theory is that he relies too much for his chronology on Vergil, and too little on contemporary documents. A lot of his conundrums disappear on close scrutiny.

As to whether Lincoln knew what had become of the princes, I am not convinced he would have done. I am not convinced that Richard himself entirely knew, otherwise why not provide an explanation? With all the time that Lincoln spent strapped to Henry's side before his escape in 1487, Henry would surely have tried to get information from him. Henry's silence suggests to me that he didn't learn anything, or at least nothing it would do him any good to publish.

Just playing Devil's advocate, there is the possibility that Elizabeth Woodville was not in league with Lincoln, but was dangerous on her own account.

So many possibilities.

Best, Marie