Why the delay?
Why the delay?
2012-01-03 16:01:34
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 16:17:29
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 17:04:36
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 17:55:23
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other (primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 18:29:40
Your memory regarding these things still runs rings 'round mine!
Judy
[The laugh on New Year's Day came when someone spotted my sticky-note which read "Check your notes!" It was generally agreed to be a new low, especially when I was asked "Which 'notes'?" and I wasn't entirely sure for a minute...] : )
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Judy
[The laugh on New Year's Day came when someone spotted my sticky-note which read "Check your notes!" It was generally agreed to be a new low, especially when I was asked "Which 'notes'?" and I wasn't entirely sure for a minute...] : )
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 18:52:52
But that's exactly what I do - write myself a note saying "Check this"!!! Five years ago I'd have remembered what I meant. Nowadays I have to write precisely what I need to check (and often why I need to check it!).
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Your memory regarding these things still runs rings 'round mine!
Judy
[The laugh on New Year's Day came when someone spotted my sticky-note which read "Check your notes!" It was generally agreed to be a new low, especially when I was asked "Which 'notes'?" and I wasn't entirely sure for a minute...] : )
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Your memory regarding these things still runs rings 'round mine!
Judy
[The laugh on New Year's Day came when someone spotted my sticky-note which read "Check your notes!" It was generally agreed to be a new low, especially when I was asked "Which 'notes'?" and I wasn't entirely sure for a minute...] : )
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 20:36:04
here's a fun excerise the hubby swears by. it's supposed to perk up your mind.
cross your arms and grab your ear lobes. gently squeeze them. while you are doing that, do 4 or 5 deep knee bends. he says his teacher in grade school used to make the kids do it. he still does it if he's feeling laggy.
my back and legs won't let me test this theory. i'm happy with the fact i can just walk. i too suffer from "senior moments", but mine were brought on by a minor car accident about 2 years ago..it rattled my wee brain a bit. at least i have recovered my colour vision and migraines are gone.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 1:52 PM
But that's exactly what I do - write myself a note saying "Check this"!!! Five years ago I'd have remembered what I meant. Nowadays I have to write precisely what I need to check (and often why I need to check it!).
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Your memory regarding these things still runs rings 'round mine!
Judy
[The laugh on New Year's Day came when someone spotted my sticky-note which read "Check your notes!" It was generally agreed to be a new low, especially when I was asked "Which 'notes'?" and I wasn't entirely sure for a minute...] : )
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
cross your arms and grab your ear lobes. gently squeeze them. while you are doing that, do 4 or 5 deep knee bends. he says his teacher in grade school used to make the kids do it. he still does it if he's feeling laggy.
my back and legs won't let me test this theory. i'm happy with the fact i can just walk. i too suffer from "senior moments", but mine were brought on by a minor car accident about 2 years ago..it rattled my wee brain a bit. at least i have recovered my colour vision and migraines are gone.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 1:52 PM
But that's exactly what I do - write myself a note saying "Check this"!!! Five years ago I'd have remembered what I meant. Nowadays I have to write precisely what I need to check (and often why I need to check it!).
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Your memory regarding these things still runs rings 'round mine!
Judy
[The laugh on New Year's Day came when someone spotted my sticky-note which read "Check your notes!" It was generally agreed to be a new low, especially when I was asked "Which 'notes'?" and I wasn't entirely sure for a minute...] : )
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-03 20:59:44
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-04 10:00:55
I don't think a coronation would be a one-day event; more likely a week of feast and ceremonies. So determining "the" date of a coronation (or an intended coronation) might be difficult.
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-04 15:14:28
Certainly the celebration would last longer, but I believe there is always an intended date for the actual crowning and...is the word investiture? There is a precise time when the king is fully king, and all the ceremony connected to it is complete, even if the surrounding hoopla isn't done.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: boyd.nina <ninaboyd@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 5:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>I don't think a coronation would be a one-day event; more likely a week of feast and ceremonies. So determining "the" date of a coronation (or an intended coronation) might be difficult.
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: boyd.nina <ninaboyd@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 5:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>I don't think a coronation would be a one-day event; more likely a week of feast and ceremonies. So determining "the" date of a coronation (or an intended coronation) might be difficult.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-06 10:36:47
Yes, great, I'm sure this is the volume of grants of Edward V, the only edition I know is by Nichols. However, page xxxi is not helpful, so I will have to go through it at some length this weekend to identify the writs and/or summonses for knighthoods. By the way, can you explain a little about openlibrary.org - ? Is it a free online collection like GoogleBooks or is it a service you subscribe to?
Thanks again, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Thanks again, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-06 17:53:50
it's free, so are the archive.org books.
being that i live way out in the boonies, accessing libraries, public or university is often significantly difficult, including inter-library loans. i do the majority of my research on line.
it is actually, quite amazing the amount of "olde" books that are on line. several months ago i posted a list of titles i had found on line that pertained to this era.
there is hours and hours of fun via google, archive and open library.
if i find a book that i would like to own, i check with bookfinder.com to see if there is a bookseller who may have an affordable copy.
some of these booksellers also have a very ecclectic collection of rare olde books too.
i own the coronation of r3, if you need a look up.
roslyn
--- On Fri, 1/6/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Friday, January 6, 2012, 5:36 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, great, I'm sure this is the volume of
> grants of Edward V, the only edition I know is by Nichols.
> However, page xxxi is not helpful, so I will have to go
> through it at some length this weekend to identify the writs
> and/or summonses for knighthoods. By the way, can you
> explain a little about openlibrary.org - ? Is it a free
> online collection like GoogleBooks or is it a service you
> subscribe to?
>
> Thanks again, Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: fayre rose
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
> is this possibly the book
>
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry
> to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the
> date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather
> than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The
> date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks
> to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was
> 'the date finally intended' from the general writs
> of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June,
> all of which he says give this date, although no specific
> references for them provided. These were the sources I made
> a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the
> source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi')
> must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have
> access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary
> sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland
> appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the
> Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
>
> (primary) sources known?
>
> Regards, Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: fayre rose
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited
> by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
>
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several
> days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as
> Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday,
> June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after
> the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that
> all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and
> Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It
> was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned
> for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
>
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84.
> Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist
> [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date
> within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and
> Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are
> accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the
> events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for
> Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the
> date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources
> seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet,
> so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
>
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: fayreroze
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
>
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
>
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the
> coronation of e5?
>
>
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event
> was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford.
> richard offically became the lord protector days after
> arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
>
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation
> plans well underway. i understand that there would be
> protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3,
> that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that
> had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
>
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was
> eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the
> coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
>
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought
> has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
>
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are
> the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
>
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
being that i live way out in the boonies, accessing libraries, public or university is often significantly difficult, including inter-library loans. i do the majority of my research on line.
it is actually, quite amazing the amount of "olde" books that are on line. several months ago i posted a list of titles i had found on line that pertained to this era.
there is hours and hours of fun via google, archive and open library.
if i find a book that i would like to own, i check with bookfinder.com to see if there is a bookseller who may have an affordable copy.
some of these booksellers also have a very ecclectic collection of rare olde books too.
i own the coronation of r3, if you need a look up.
roslyn
--- On Fri, 1/6/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Friday, January 6, 2012, 5:36 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, great, I'm sure this is the volume of
> grants of Edward V, the only edition I know is by Nichols.
> However, page xxxi is not helpful, so I will have to go
> through it at some length this weekend to identify the writs
> and/or summonses for knighthoods. By the way, can you
> explain a little about openlibrary.org - ? Is it a free
> online collection like GoogleBooks or is it a service you
> subscribe to?
>
> Thanks again, Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: fayre rose
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
> is this possibly the book
>
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry
> to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the
> date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather
> than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The
> date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks
> to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was
> 'the date finally intended' from the general writs
> of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June,
> all of which he says give this date, although no specific
> references for them provided. These were the sources I made
> a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the
> source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi')
> must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have
> access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary
> sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland
> appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the
> Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
>
> (primary) sources known?
>
> Regards, Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: fayre rose
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited
> by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
>
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several
> days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as
> Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday,
> June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after
> the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that
> all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and
> Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It
> was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned
> for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
>
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84.
> Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist
> [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date
> within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and
> Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are
> accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the
> events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> To:
>
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for
> Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the
> date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources
> seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet,
> so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
>
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: fayreroze
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
>
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
>
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the
> coronation of e5?
>
>
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event
> was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford.
> richard offically became the lord protector days after
> arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
>
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation
> plans well underway. i understand that there would be
> protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3,
> that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that
> had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
>
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was
> eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the
> coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
>
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought
> has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
>
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are
> the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
>
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-06 21:21:00
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> if i find a book that i would like to own, i check with bookfinder.com to see if there is a bookseller who may have an affordable copy.
ADDAll.com also finds books and lists prices.
Kay
>
> if i find a book that i would like to own, i check with bookfinder.com to see if there is a bookseller who may have an affordable copy.
ADDAll.com also finds books and lists prices.
Kay
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-07 00:23:05
what i like about bookfinder.com is you can click on the price of the book and find a write up about the book.
i did not see that with ADDAll.com. now, i did not click on the buy now option. addall.com may offer this service and i just did not see it. but i do know with bookfinder.com i can also contact the seller to gain further info on a book of interest.
i used annette carson as search term for both of these urls.
roslyn
--- On Fri, 1/6/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:20 PM
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> if i find a book that i would like to own, i check with bookfinder.com to see if there is a bookseller who may have an affordable copy.
ADDAll.com also finds books and lists prices.
Kay
i did not see that with ADDAll.com. now, i did not click on the buy now option. addall.com may offer this service and i just did not see it. but i do know with bookfinder.com i can also contact the seller to gain further info on a book of interest.
i used annette carson as search term for both of these urls.
roslyn
--- On Fri, 1/6/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:20 PM
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> if i find a book that i would like to own, i check with bookfinder.com to see if there is a bookseller who may have an affordable copy.
ADDAll.com also finds books and lists prices.
Kay
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-07 18:47:57
--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written, and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and given roles in the ceremony.
I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a change of coronation plans.
Kay
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written, and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and given roles in the ceremony.
I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a change of coronation plans.
Kay
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-07 19:45:26
Hi, Katy,
The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible. I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters, cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue. But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex. Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted. Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
(With luck, these patterns could then be stored and reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free, to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to fill in spaces.
I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery. Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold" were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a garment for a week or more.
Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written, and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and given roles in the ceremony.
I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a change of coronation plans.
Kay
The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible. I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters, cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue. But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex. Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted. Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
(With luck, these patterns could then be stored and reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free, to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to fill in spaces.
I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery. Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold" were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a garment for a week or more.
Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written, and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and given roles in the ceremony.
I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a change of coronation plans.
Kay
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-07 21:46:08
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-07 22:44:04
Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced, nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their skills and talents.
We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
(Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle, Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places, houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say, Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C. garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration to
extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
(Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle, Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places, houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say, Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C. garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration to
extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-07 23:35:30
Dear Judy,
I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent background
situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in more ways
than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll give
proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced,
nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries
from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The
pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort
of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to
buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their
skills and talents.
We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the
15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all
"readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many
of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
(Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write
semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be
aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of
book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places,
houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say,
Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation
exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a
great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum
of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm
not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration
to
extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent background
situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in more ways
than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll give
proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced,
nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries
from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The
pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort
of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to
buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their
skills and talents.
We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the
15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all
"readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many
of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
(Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write
semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be
aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of
book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places,
houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say,
Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation
exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a
great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum
of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm
not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration
to
extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-08 00:31:38
Welcome, Barbara! I look forward to the book!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: barbara <barbaragd@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Why the delay?
Dear Judy,
I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent background
situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in more ways
than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll give
proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced,
nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries
from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The
pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort
of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to
buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their
skills and talents.
We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the
15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all
"readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many
of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
(Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write
semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be
aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of
book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places,
houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say,
Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation
exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a
great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum
of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm
not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration
to
extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: barbara <barbaragd@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Why the delay?
Dear Judy,
I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent background
situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in more ways
than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll give
proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced,
nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries
from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The
pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort
of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to
buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their
skills and talents.
We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the
15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all
"readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many
of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
(Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write
semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be
aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of
book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places,
houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say,
Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation
exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a
great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum
of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm
not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration
to
extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Judy,
The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> Hi, Katy,
>
> The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
>
> (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
>
> And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> fill in spaces.
>
> I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> garment for a week or more.
>
> Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>
>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> repeatedly postponed.
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-08 00:52:26
Hi Barbara,
I just finished Satin Cinnabar, and I loved it! The opening scenes
were especially well written.... gave me chills, and the battle scenes
made me feel as if I were there. Marvelously colorful and, happily,
comfortably long enough to allow for a nicely complex plot and well
developed characters. Kudos on a job well done! I wish you all success
and especially sales.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:35 PM, barbara wrote:
> Dear Judy,
>
> I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent
> background
> situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in
> more ways
> than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
> suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll
> give
> proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
>
> Barbara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy
> Thomson
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-
> produced,
> nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little
> embroideries
> from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and
> attention. The
> pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive
> this sort
> of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could
> afford to
> buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with
> their
> skills and talents.
>
> We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed
> in the
> 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits
> all
> "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
> degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people
> (many
> of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short
> notice!
>
> (Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to
> write
> semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
> Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It
> could be
> aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this
> sort of
> book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other
> places,
> houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making
> of, say,
> Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough
> documentation
> exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
> embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would
> be a
> great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The
> Metropolitan Museum
> of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept.,
> but I'm
> not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
> garments would help one understand enough about construction and
> decoration
> to
> extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any
> takers?)
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
> a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
> of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
> it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
>
> Flo
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Katy,
> >
> > The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> > I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> > can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> > cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> > full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> > would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> > the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> > rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> > But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> > Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> > patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> > segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> > inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> > Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> > the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> > diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> > would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
> >
> > (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> > reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
> >
> > And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> > speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> > likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> > jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> > carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> > to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> > hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> > couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> > fill in spaces.
> >
> > I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> > Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> > of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> > buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> > lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> > through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> > like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> > the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> > days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> > were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> > garment for a week or more.
> >
> > Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> > <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> > of e5?
> > >
> > > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> > cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> > offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> > with his regal ward on may 4th.
> > >
> > > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> > well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> > necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> > delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> > >
> > > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> > rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> > repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> > important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> > embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> > proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> > and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> > officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> > given roles in the ceremony.
> >
> > I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> > delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> > change of coronation plans.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
I just finished Satin Cinnabar, and I loved it! The opening scenes
were especially well written.... gave me chills, and the battle scenes
made me feel as if I were there. Marvelously colorful and, happily,
comfortably long enough to allow for a nicely complex plot and well
developed characters. Kudos on a job well done! I wish you all success
and especially sales.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:35 PM, barbara wrote:
> Dear Judy,
>
> I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent
> background
> situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in
> more ways
> than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
> suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll
> give
> proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
>
> Barbara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy
> Thomson
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-
> produced,
> nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little
> embroideries
> from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and
> attention. The
> pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive
> this sort
> of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could
> afford to
> buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with
> their
> skills and talents.
>
> We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed
> in the
> 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits
> all
> "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
> degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people
> (many
> of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short
> notice!
>
> (Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to
> write
> semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
> Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It
> could be
> aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this
> sort of
> book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other
> places,
> houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making
> of, say,
> Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough
> documentation
> exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
> embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would
> be a
> great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The
> Metropolitan Museum
> of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept.,
> but I'm
> not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
> garments would help one understand enough about construction and
> decoration
> to
> extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any
> takers?)
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
> a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
> of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
> it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
>
> Flo
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Katy,
> >
> > The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> > I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> > can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> > cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> > full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> > would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> > the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> > rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> > But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> > Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> > patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> > segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> > inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> > Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> > the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> > diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> > would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
> >
> > (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> > reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
> >
> > And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> > speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> > likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> > jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> > carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> > to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> > hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> > couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> > fill in spaces.
> >
> > I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> > Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> > of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> > buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> > lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> > through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> > like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> > the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> > days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> > were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> > garment for a week or more.
> >
> > Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> > <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> > of e5?
> > >
> > > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> > cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> > offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> > with his regal ward on may 4th.
> > >
> > > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> > well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> > necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> > delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> > >
> > > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> > rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> > repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> > important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> > embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> > proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> > and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> > officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> > given roles in the ceremony.
> >
> > I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> > delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> > change of coronation plans.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-08 01:23:11
Oh, this made me think of a childrens' story I grew up with, "The
Little Dressmaker", by Eleanor Farjeon, which I found for the reading
in GoogleBooks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4FlLZmXM3XcC&pg=PA125&dq=%22the+little+dressmaker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1uwIT7iaO4Xw0gG30_G1CA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20little%20dressmaker%22&f=false
There's a lot of hard work and tired eyes in this story.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced, nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their skills and talents.
>
> We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
>
> (Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle, Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places, houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say, Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C. garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration to
> extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
>
>
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
> a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
> of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
> it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
>
> Flo
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Katy,
> >
> > The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> > I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> > can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> > cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> > full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> > would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> > the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> > rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> > But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> > Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> > patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> > segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> > inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> > Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> > the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> > diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> > would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
> >
> > (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> > reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
> >
> > And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> > speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> > likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> > jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> > carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> > to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> > hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> > couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> > fill in spaces.
> >
> > I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> > Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> > of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> > buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> > lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> > through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> > like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> > the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> > days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> > were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> > garment for a week or more.
> >
> > Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "fayreroze"
> > <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> > of e5?
> > >
> > > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> > cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> > offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> > with his regal ward on may 4th.
> > >
> > > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> > well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> > necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> > delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> > >
> > > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> > rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> > repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> > important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> > embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> > proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> > and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> > officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> > given roles in the ceremony.
> >
> > I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> > delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> > change of coronation plans.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Little Dressmaker", by Eleanor Farjeon, which I found for the reading
in GoogleBooks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4FlLZmXM3XcC&pg=PA125&dq=%22the+little+dressmaker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1uwIT7iaO4Xw0gG30_G1CA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20little%20dressmaker%22&f=false
There's a lot of hard work and tired eyes in this story.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-produced, nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little embroideries from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and attention. The pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive this sort of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could afford to buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with their skills and talents.
>
> We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed in the 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits all "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people (many of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short notice!
>
> (Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to write semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle, Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It could be aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this sort of book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other places, houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making of, say, Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough documentation exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would be a great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept., but I'm not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C. garments would help one understand enough about construction and decoration to
> extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any takers?)
>
>
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
> a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
> of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
> it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
>
> Flo
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Katy,
> >
> > The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> > I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> > can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> > cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> > full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> > would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> > the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> > rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> > But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> > Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> > patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> > segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> > inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> > Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> > the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> > diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> > would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
> >
> > (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> > reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
> >
> > And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> > speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> > likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> > jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> > carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> > to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> > hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> > couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> > fill in spaces.
> >
> > I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> > Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> > of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> > buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> > lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> > through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> > like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> > the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> > days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> > were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> > garment for a week or more.
> >
> > Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "fayreroze"
> > <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> > of e5?
> > >
> > > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> > cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> > offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> > with his regal ward on may 4th.
> > >
> > > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> > well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> > necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> > delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> > >
> > > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> > rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> > repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> > important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> > embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> > proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> > and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> > officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> > given roles in the ceremony.
> >
> > I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> > delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> > change of coronation plans.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-08 01:24:04
What an incredibly kind thing to say - and I'm absolutely delighted that you
enjoyed it. Thanks very much indeed.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Florence Dove
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Barbara,
I just finished Satin Cinnabar, and I loved it! The opening scenes
were especially well written.... gave me chills, and the battle scenes
made me feel as if I were there. Marvelously colorful and, happily,
comfortably long enough to allow for a nicely complex plot and well
developed characters. Kudos on a job well done! I wish you all success
and especially sales.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:35 PM, barbara wrote:
> Dear Judy,
>
> I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent
> background
> situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in
> more ways
> than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
> suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll
> give
> proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
>
> Barbara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy
> Thomson
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-
> produced,
> nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little
> embroideries
> from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and
> attention. The
> pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive
> this sort
> of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could
> afford to
> buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with
> their
> skills and talents.
>
> We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed
> in the
> 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits
> all
> "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
> degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people
> (many
> of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short
> notice!
>
> (Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to
> write
> semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
> Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It
> could be
> aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this
> sort of
> book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other
> places,
> houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making
> of, say,
> Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough
> documentation
> exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
> embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would
> be a
> great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The
> Metropolitan Museum
> of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept.,
> but I'm
> not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
> garments would help one understand enough about construction and
> decoration
> to
> extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any
> takers?)
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
> a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
> of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
> it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
>
> Flo
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Katy,
> >
> > The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> > I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> > can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> > cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> > full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> > would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> > the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> > rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> > But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> > Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> > patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> > segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> > inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> > Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> > the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> > diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> > would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
> >
> > (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> > reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
> >
> > And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> > speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> > likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> > jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> > carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> > to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> > hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> > couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> > fill in spaces.
> >
> > I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> > Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> > of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> > buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> > lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> > through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> > like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> > the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> > days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> > were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> > garment for a week or more.
> >
> > Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> > <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> > of e5?
> > >
> > > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> > cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> > offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> > with his regal ward on may 4th.
> > >
> > > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> > well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> > necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> > delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> > >
> > > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> > rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> > repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> > important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> > embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> > proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> > and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> > officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> > given roles in the ceremony.
> >
> > I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> > delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> > change of coronation plans.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
enjoyed it. Thanks very much indeed.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Florence Dove
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
Hi Barbara,
I just finished Satin Cinnabar, and I loved it! The opening scenes
were especially well written.... gave me chills, and the battle scenes
made me feel as if I were there. Marvelously colorful and, happily,
comfortably long enough to allow for a nicely complex plot and well
developed characters. Kudos on a job well done! I wish you all success
and especially sales.
Flo
On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:35 PM, barbara wrote:
> Dear Judy,
>
> I've copied and pasted yours and Flo's posts - it's an excellent
> background
> situation for a future book and would supply wonderful colour in
> more ways
> than one. And since my own eyesight is fading fast I think I have some
> suitable empathy. Thanks very much. If I ever get around to it, I'll
> give
> proper thanks where thanks are certainly due.
>
> Barbara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy
> Thomson
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 9:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Ah, Flo... You understand completely! With so much being mass-
> produced,
> nowadays, a lot of folks just don't get it. Even the little
> embroideries
> from China, produced at "slave wages," require much time and
> attention. The
> pre-Raphaelites, most notably William Morris, attempted to revive
> this sort
> of work, but the painful truth was that only the very rich could
> afford to
> buy the results, if the workers were to be paid commensurately with
> their
> skills and talents.
>
> We're lucky we still have our eyesight! Although eyeglasses existed
> in the
> 15th C., they were pretty rudimentary. A bit like the one-size-fits
> all
> "readers" one buys at a pharmacy or sundry store. Adequate for varying
> degrees of magnification, but that's about all. Pity the poor people
> (many
> of them women) who laboured to clothe the court on relatively short
> notice!
>
> (Now that topic might make a wonderful tale for anyone inclined to
> write
> semi-fiction - something a bit like the Macauley books: Castle,
> Cathedral...but with a lot more colour and lavish illustrations. It
> could be
> aimed at the children/young adult market, but many grownups buy this
> sort of
> book for themselves. I recall the Victoria and Albert, among other
> places,
> houses some phenomenal samples of clothes and textiles; the making
> of, say,
> Richard's coronation robe could be quite a story, and enough
> documentation
> exists to credibly research the project.... There's still a "guild" of
> embroiderers in England, and going through their old treasures would
> be a
> great treat for anyone who loves fabric and fashion. The
> Metropolitan Museum
> of Art in New York also has an excellent clothing/textiles dept.,
> but I'm
> not sure how far back their collection extends...but even 16th-17th C.
> garments would help one understand enough about construction and
> decoration
> to
> extrapolate certain facts about earlier, pre-industrial work. Any
> takers?)
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the delay?
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> The mind boggles at the amount of effort. Several years ago I created
> a heavily embellished Victorian quilt (3X5) from velvet and silk. All
> of the stitching and embroidery was completed by machine, and even so
> it took almost 140 hours of sewing to finish it.
>
> Flo
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > Hi, Katy,
> >
> > The "new clothes" and accessories theory is really very plausible.
> > I've worked with theatres, films, etc., for going on 40 years, and I
> > can tell you, even working around the clock, pattern draughters,
> > cutters, stitchers, and embellishers would have had their hands
> > full...literally. And unlike theatrical garments, the real clothes
> > would have been as carefully finished and beautiful on the inside as
> > the outside. Earlier medieval clothes were cut in a series of
> > rectangles, then pieced together; good fit was not a great issue.
> > But by the mid to late 15th century, clothing became more complex.
> > Full of curves, which needed to be "eased" together. All new
> > patterns would have needed careful draughting; the individual
> > segments, based upon measurements, would have first been cut in
> > inexpensive linen for purposes of proper fitting, then adjusted.
> > Sometimes the cloth was draped on the wearer's body (especially when
> > the fabric needed to be cut on the bias, i.e., the
> > diagonal line). When all adjustments were made, the linen sections
> > would be disassembled and used as the final patterns.
> >
> > (With luck, these patterns could then be stored and
> > reused...provided the wearers did not lose or gain weight.)
> >
> > And there would have been no shortcuts, like gold stencil work, to
> > speed things along. Every seam was hand stitched and more than
> > likely done as a "French" or "flat-fell" seam (like modern blue
> > jeans, so there'd be no raw seams. Each garment would have been
> > carefully lined, and unlike today, the linings would have hung free,
> > to avoid pulling and bunching. Each pearl or gem would have been
> > hand placed and secured, and miles of gold cord would have been
> > couched, and every satin stitch would have been done, one by one, to
> > fill in spaces.
> >
> > I once did a "miniature" art quilt, covered by hand embroidery.
> > Roughly 12 inches in diameter, that single piece took nearly a month
> > of pains-taking work. Fortunately, it was a commission, and the
> > buyers paid well. I've also assisted in the making of a couple of
> > lavish wedding gowns; none of the running stitches could show
> > through the sheer fabric, meaning every cluster of beads, etc. was
> > like a little island of handwork. I doubt the average sewing help in
> > the 15th century received quite the same compensation. And in those
> > days, the really exquisite fabrics, like damasks and "cloth of gold"
> > were imported; even a minor storm could have delayed work on a
> > garment for a week or more.
> >
> > Just an opinion, mind you...but based upon personal experience.
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "fayreroze"
> > <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation
> > of e5?
> > >
> > > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was
> > cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard
> > offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london
> > with his regal ward on may 4th.
> > >
> > > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans
> > well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were
> > necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a
> > delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> > >
> > > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually
> > rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was
> > repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his
> > important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or
> > embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New
> > proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written,
> > and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to
> > officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and
> > given roles in the ceremony.
> >
> > I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a
> > delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a
> > change of coronation plans.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-08 10:18:09
The Woodvilles were trying to have Edward crowned in a rush so that the late king's will could be legally nullified and his wish for a protectorate ignored. Once crowned power lay with the monarch so the Woodvilles would have total control through the boy's mother. This was Richard's main motif in taking the person of his nephew at Stony Stratford.
As Kay rightly says putting on a coronation properly takes a lot of preparation, and the delay at first was for the situation to calm down as well as for preparations for costumes, food and drink supplies, decorations and such to go ahead at a normal pace. There was also the problem of the aristocracy being spread all over the country and wanting/needing to be in attendance. Richard's coronation was the best attended in history, chiefly because the magnates had been summoned for a coronation back in May, and some had needed that time to prepare themselves and get to London.
Paul
On 7 Jan 2012, at 18:47, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>>
>> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>>
>> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>>
>> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written, and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
As Kay rightly says putting on a coronation properly takes a lot of preparation, and the delay at first was for the situation to calm down as well as for preparations for costumes, food and drink supplies, decorations and such to go ahead at a normal pace. There was also the problem of the aristocracy being spread all over the country and wanting/needing to be in attendance. Richard's coronation was the best attended in history, chiefly because the magnates had been summoned for a coronation back in May, and some had needed that time to prepare themselves and get to London.
Paul
On 7 Jan 2012, at 18:47, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>>
>> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>>
>> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>>
>> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
>
> Maybe new clothes were needed, for Richard, Anne, their son, and his important retainers. New badges would have to be fabricated or embroidered for people, horses, banners and drapes. New proclamations and legal papers would have to be composed, written, and distributed. Probably different clergy would be selected to officiate. Different peers and gentry no doubt would be invited and given roles in the ceremony.
>
> I think anyone putting on a wedding these days would not find a delay of six or seven weeks unusual, when you are talking about a change of coronation plans.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-11 16:50:32
Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-01-12 17:41:51
considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
--- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
--- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
is this possibly the book
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
(primary) sources known?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Why the delay?
has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
roslyn
Re: Why the delay?
2012-06-07 13:01:59
Hi all,
Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> Â
> while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> Â
> i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> Â
> people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> Â
> while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
>
> the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> Â
> r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> Â
> so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> Â
> there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> Â
> were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> Â
>
> --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
>
> I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
>
> In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
>
> In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
>
> You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
>
> Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> is this possibly the book
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> (primary) sources known?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> Â
> while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> Â
> i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> Â
> people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> Â
> while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
>
> the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> Â
> r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> Â
> so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> Â
> there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> Â
> were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> Â
>
> --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
>
> I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
>
> In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
>
> In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
>
> You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
>
> Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> is this possibly the book
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> (primary) sources known?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-06-07 14:32:30
Welcome back Marie! I always enjoy reading you comments!
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Hi all,
Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> Â
> while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> Â
> i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> Â
> people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> Â
> while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
>
> the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> Â
> r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> Â
> so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> Â
> there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> Â
> were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> Â
>
> --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
>
> I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
>
> In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
>
> In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
>
> You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
>
> Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> is this possibly the book
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> (primary) sources known?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
Hi all,
Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> Â
> while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> Â
> i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> Â
> people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> Â
> while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
>
> the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> Â
> r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> Â
> so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> Â
> there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> Â
> were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> Â
>
> --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
>
> I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
>
> In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
>
> In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
>
> You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
>
> Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> is this possibly the book
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> (primary) sources known?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-06-07 16:06:31
Welcome back.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
> Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
> As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
> Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
> Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
>
> 22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
> Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
> There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
>
> However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> > Â
> > while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> > Â
> > i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> > Â
> > people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> > Â
> > while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
> >
> > the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> > Â
> > r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> > instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> > Â
> > so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> > Â
> > there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> > Â
> > were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> > Â
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
> >
> > I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
> >
> > In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
> >
> > In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
> >
> > You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
> >
> > Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > is this possibly the book
> > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
> >
> > Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> > (primary) sources known?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> > May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> > note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> > Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> > Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayreroze
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> > Subject: Why the delay?
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
> >
> > how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
> Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
> As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
> Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
> Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
>
> 22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
> Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
> There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
>
> However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> > Â
> > while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> > Â
> > i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> > Â
> > people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> > Â
> > while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
> >
> > the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> > Â
> > r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> > instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> > Â
> > so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> > Â
> > there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> > Â
> > were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> > Â
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
> >
> > I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
> >
> > In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
> >
> > In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
> >
> > You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
> >
> > Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > is this possibly the book
> > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
> >
> > Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> > (primary) sources known?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> > May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> > note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> > Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> > Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayreroze
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> > Subject: Why the delay?
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
> >
> > how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-06-08 16:11:21
all very valid points marie. the main gist of my post was...
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
-=-=-=-=-=-
consider that e4 died april 9. the original coronation was set for may 4. r3 took over at that time. ergo, it appears that coronation preparations take about a month. so, was there a date in late may, early june?
it has been so long since i posted this query, i will need to go back to my notes to see if i independently discovered some dates.
--- On Thu, 6/7/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 8:01 AM
Hi all,
Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> Â
> while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> Â
> i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> Â
> people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> Â
> while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
>
> the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> Â
> r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> Â
> so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> Â
> there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> Â
> were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> Â
>
> --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
>
> I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
>
> In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
>
> In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
>
> You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
>
> Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> is this possibly the book
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> (primary) sources known?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
-=-=-=-=-=-
consider that e4 died april 9. the original coronation was set for may 4. r3 took over at that time. ergo, it appears that coronation preparations take about a month. so, was there a date in late may, early june?
it has been so long since i posted this query, i will need to go back to my notes to see if i independently discovered some dates.
--- On Thu, 6/7/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Why the delay?
To:
Received: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 8:01 AM
Hi all,
Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> Â
> while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> Â
> i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> Â
> people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> Â
> while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
>
> the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> Â
> r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> Â
> so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> Â
> there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> Â
> were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> Â
>
> --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
>
> I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
>
> In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
>
> In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
>
> You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
>
> Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> is this possibly the book
> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
>
> Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> (primary) sources known?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
>
> The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
>
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> Subject: Why the delay?
>
> has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
>
> the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
>
> i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
>
> what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
>
> for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
>
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Why the delay?
2012-06-10 01:38:38
Sorry, Roslyn, I thought it was covered. Historical Notes of a London Citizen indicates that 4th May was still the set date at the time of Stony Stratford (this in itself indicates that the preparations were virtually complete) and that Gloucester had it postponed for the 22nd June soon after he arrived in London, viz:
"King Edward the Vth should have been crowned the 4 day of May, and the Duke of Gloucester and his lords at Northampton said he should be crowned another time with more honour at London. It was condescended that he should be crowned the 22 day of June and a parliament should be holden at Westminster the 3rd day after."
Crowland's account also indicates that this was the date set immediately Richard reached London:
"Moreover, Richard, duke of Gloucester, received that solemn office which had once fallen to Duke Humphrey of Gloucester who, during the minority of King Henry, was called protector of the kingdom. He exercised this authority with the consent and good-will of all the lords, commanding and forbidding in everything like another king, as occasion demanded. The feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist [sic] having been decided upon as the appointed day when the king's coronation would take place, without fail, everyone hoped for and awaited peace and prosperity in the kingdom."
Summonses to a parliament to be held on 25th June were issued on 13th May.
The reason for the long breathing space that the protector and his council gave themselves was surely as I indicated - nothing to do with the length to time needed to organise the pageantry, but because they felt they needed time to sort the rift with the King's mother and her family, otherwise the coronation would be an embarrassing political own goal.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> all very valid points marie. the main gist of my post was...
> Â
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> consider that e4 died april 9. the original coronation was set for may 4. r3 took over at that time. ergo, it appears that coronation preparations take about a month. so, was there a date in late may, early june?
> Â
> it has been so long since i posted this query, i will need to go back to my notes to see if i independently discovered some dates.
>
> --- On Thu, 6/7/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 8:01 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
> Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
> As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
> Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
> Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
>
> 22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
> Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
> There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
>
> However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> > ÂÂ
> > while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> > ÂÂ
> > i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> > ÂÂ
> > people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> > ÂÂ
> > while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
> >
> > the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> > ÂÂ
> > r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> > instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> > ÂÂ
> > so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> > ÂÂ
> > there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> > ÂÂ
> > were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
> >
> > I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
> >
> > In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
> >
> > In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
> >
> > You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
> >
> > Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > is this possibly the book
> > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
> >
> > Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> > (primary) sources known?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> > May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> > note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> > Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> > Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayreroze
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> > Subject: Why the delay?
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
> >
> > how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"King Edward the Vth should have been crowned the 4 day of May, and the Duke of Gloucester and his lords at Northampton said he should be crowned another time with more honour at London. It was condescended that he should be crowned the 22 day of June and a parliament should be holden at Westminster the 3rd day after."
Crowland's account also indicates that this was the date set immediately Richard reached London:
"Moreover, Richard, duke of Gloucester, received that solemn office which had once fallen to Duke Humphrey of Gloucester who, during the minority of King Henry, was called protector of the kingdom. He exercised this authority with the consent and good-will of all the lords, commanding and forbidding in everything like another king, as occasion demanded. The feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist [sic] having been decided upon as the appointed day when the king's coronation would take place, without fail, everyone hoped for and awaited peace and prosperity in the kingdom."
Summonses to a parliament to be held on 25th June were issued on 13th May.
The reason for the long breathing space that the protector and his council gave themselves was surely as I indicated - nothing to do with the length to time needed to organise the pageantry, but because they felt they needed time to sort the rift with the King's mother and her family, otherwise the coronation would be an embarrassing political own goal.
Marie
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> all very valid points marie. the main gist of my post was...
> Â
> how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> consider that e4 died april 9. the original coronation was set for may 4. r3 took over at that time. ergo, it appears that coronation preparations take about a month. so, was there a date in late may, early june?
> Â
> it has been so long since i posted this query, i will need to go back to my notes to see if i independently discovered some dates.
>
> --- On Thu, 6/7/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> To:
> Received: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 8:01 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Nice to be back again after another long break. I've come in on this thread rather late, but I have a couple of thoughts.
> Crowland must indeed be wrong. The 22nd June is given in College of Arms MS 2M6 (Historical Notes of a London Citizen), and Annette has shown that this was also the date set for the knighthoods. It was also a Sunday, and this was tne usual day for coronations. It may be that Crowland meant to say "the Sunday before the feast of St John the Baptist" (in Latin, of course).
> As regards the delay till the coronation, I've compared a couple of other examples of peaceful accessions (only from Wikipedia, I'm afraid):-
> Edward III died on 21st June and Richard II was crowned on 16 July.
> Henry IV died on 20 March and Henry V was crowned on 9 April.
>
> 22nd June therefore does look a little bit delayed, but not so much if you count from the date the Protector took over (4th May) rather than 9th April, and still less when you remember that the political situation was very fluid, the king's mother was in sanctuary at Westminster with all his siblings, Dorset was on the run, Sir Edward Woodville sailing about with a fleet and possibly all the royal treasure, etc. Perhaps the delay was partly intended to give Richard time to sort out these problems; apart from anything else, a definitive list of who was to be in the procession and who was not would have been hard to draw up until an accord had been reached with the Woodvilles - I would imagine that after Stony Stratford the original guest list, etc, would have had to be torn up.
> Perhaps a better analogy is with Henry VII, who became king on 22nd August, but took time to establish himself and was not crowned until the end of October.
> There was also more to be done for a coronation than the making of the clothes. As Annette has pointed out, a list of people to be knighted had to be agreed (difficult where there was political dissension), people who had an hereditary claim to perform a particular coronation office had to submit said claim to the heralds, all the the various writs had to be sent out, etc, etc.
>
> However ill Edward IV may have been in the year or so before his death, he was not expected to die, and if preparations for any ceremony were begun after the start of his final illness I should have thought that these would have been for his funeral.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > considering e4 had been dispondent since breaking of the troth of e of york to the dauphin, and that his courtiers etc, were worried about his health, it is likely that there were contingency plans in the making for a coronation of the next king.
> > ÂÂ
> > while the making of elaborate clothes were time consuming in the era, many of the potential attendees would have already had "fancy dress" at hand. these people "recycled" their clothes and used them for several occassions. fashion did not change as rapidly as it does in today's era.
> > ÂÂ
> > i am assuming that e5's wardrobe was being constantly managed and updated by royal seamstress/tailors and shipped to him. therefore, these people would have had measurements/patterns and a staff at hand, constantly working with the finest fabrics for not only e5 but for every member of the royal household. elborate embroidery and the expensive threads (gold and silver) plus gemstones would have been designated to trusted and expert members, not only of the "household" staff, but also to every available skilled individual within a a day or so's ride to the capital. no expense would have been spared for the grand fete of the coronation of a "woodville" king.
> > ÂÂ
> > people outside of the royal inner court would just have to make do with available "left-overs" of skilled trades people to either upgrade or create new wardrobes for the coronation events.
> > ÂÂ
> > while in the modern era it can take an individual weeks to recreate a medieval fashion. in 15thC it wasn't an indivdual, but an army of workers going at the task from dawn to dusk. there was the master designer and all of his/her apprentices with hands and fingers flying.
> >
> > the best of the best artisans would have been employed to make the king and his close court's coronations costumes. one only needs to think in the more modern terms of a quilting bee or a barn raising where the tedious and long term projects were completed within days...or as my grandmother frequently stated..many hands, make light work.
> > ÂÂ
> > r3's coronation was held on july 6th. e5th was supposed to have been on the 22nd.on the 17th writs were issued cancelling the coronation and the planned parliament of the 25th. the 21st was the date that cancellation of coronation of e5 were made public. and on the 22nd
> > instead of the coronation the public heard ralph shaa's speech about bastard slips shall not take root.
> > ÂÂ
> > so, we have from the 17th of june until the r3 coronation event on july 6th. a period of about 3 weeks for all preparations for r3 to be completed...which when you consider that e4 died on the 9th of april and the original coronation was planned for may 4th..this is comparable in the length of time to prepare for a coronation of a new king.
> > ÂÂ
> > there were possibly 3 planned dates of coronation for e5 prior to june 22. i'm digging through my notes to deterime the potential dates. but, again, i ask..why the delay? why the changing of dates? what was going on behind the scenes? what challenges and information was being recieved by richard and/or the council that would keep causing a delay.
> > ÂÂ
> > were there ongoing challenges to richard's protectorship? or was it the credible rumours regarding e4's secret marriage that caused the delays?
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/11/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 11:50 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi again - Having signed on to the excellent Open Library (thanks again!), and checked the Nichols edition of Edward V's grants, I find that the summonses for knighthood that actually mention the date of the coronation are recorded on page 70 - they are dated 5 June and the coronation date is given as 22 June, with those presenting themselves for knighthood required to do so four days beforehand. This seems the only official reference to the coronation date itself, although the editor's remarks on page xxxii concerning the earlier summons (Latin text on page 23) state that the date of 22 June is supported by versions of the earlier summons on which a date of 18 June is noted as the date by which knights must present themselves, which is equal to four days before 22 June. Convoluted, but helpful!
> >
> > I must admit I never thought that a coronation date rescheduled to 22 June represented much of a delay, especially considering that the new date wouldn't have been fixed until agreed by a council meeting, so not until 10 May at the earliest.
> >
> > In fact on reflection it seems to have been rather over-optimistic in the first place to have expected everything to be ready by 4 May, which was scarcely more than three weeks after Edward IV's death. With Rivers lingering until 23 April at Ludlow, they can't have expected Edward V's party to arrive in London until about two days before the ceremony, so unless they sent his measurements on ahead there was scant time even to make up his coronation robes. (I guess they had the measurements of adult royals on file, but children can grow unpredictably, can't they?) As for the non-royals, Judy is quite right about the length of time it would take them to acquire materials for their robes and have them made up, so a mere three weeks' notice (minus the time it took for messengers to arrive with the news) would have been cutting things very fine.
> >
> > In terms of the June coronation date, there was also the matter of scheduling a parliament and a convocation, which I don't recall being scheduled in relation to the May date. These would have taken a lot of extra time - i.e. many more people needing notice, representatives needing to be appointed, speeches prepared, etc. IIRC the summonses for parliament went out on 13 May, and that for convocation on 16 May.
> >
> > You can get an idea of the pace of things by looking at a previous convocation writ dated 3 February, which didn't even involve preparations for a coronation. On receiving it, the Archbishop of Canterbury signed his own mandate on 10 February authorizing the Bishop of London to notify the bishops of the southern province that the convocation would be held on 18 April, i.e. nearly eleven weeks after the king's writ. The dioceses were required to reply with their lists of delegates by 6 April.
> >
> > Records of parliaments are easier to check than those for convocations, so I think probably you would get an idea of the amount of notice normally given if you look at summonses for previous parliaments, especially those attached to coronations, and compare them with the 5-6 weeks in this case.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > is this possibly the book
> > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL13503872M/Grants_etc._from_the_crown_during_the_reign_of_Edward_the_Fifth
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 12:55 PM
> >
> > Thanks, Roslyn. Apologies for misleading you - I am sorry to say that I confused even myself when I referred to the date of 24 June, I should have relied on my notes rather than my poor memory which simply gets worse and worse! The date I actually decided upon was 22 June, like you, thanks to Ross [p.74 note 36] who persuasively argues that this was 'the date finally intended' from the general writs of 20 May and the 50 personal summonses sent out on 5 June, all of which he says give this date, although no specific references for them provided. These were the sources I made a note to check, but haven't done yet. Presumably the source cited by Sutton and Hammond ('Grants xxxi') must relate to at least some of them - does anyone have access? Obviously I prefer primary rather than secondary sources, and Mancini doesn't suggest a date, so Crowland appears to be the only one to give 24 June, the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist. Any other
> > (primary) sources known?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayre rose
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> >
> > The Coronation of Richard III, the Extant Documents, Edited by Anne F. Sutton & P.W. Hammond, on page 17,
> > May 4-10 ' A council being now held for several days": (1) Richard Duke of Gloucester was confirmed as Protector. (2) The date of the coronation was to be Sunday, June 22 and that of parliament 25 June....A few days after the King's arrival the Duke of Gloucester arranged that all the lords spiritual and temporal and the Mayor and Aldermen of London took the oath of fealty to the King. It was thought, however, that he was not sufficiently concerned for the dignity of the Queen.. note 32
> > note 32.Croyland, 566, except for (4) Mancini. 84. Croyland actually gives the feast of St. John the Baptist [June 24] set for the coronation, but undoubtedly, a date within the week of the feast was meant. Grants xxxi and Hanham, RIII, 10. The date of coronation and parliament are accurately given Firth Green, 588. From this point until the events of 13 June Croyland has little to say.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Annette Carson <email@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > Subject: Re: Why the delay?
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> > Actually I have been thinking of checking out sources for Edward V's coronation, since realizing that I took the date 24 June from Ross, whereas most other secondary sources seem to give 22 June. Haven't got round to doing it yet, so I'd be interested to see input on this also.
> > Happy New Year to all Ricardian friends from Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: fayreroze
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:01 PM
> > Subject: Why the delay?
> >
> > has anyone explored why there were delays regarding the coronation of e5?
> >
> > the woodville clan set a coronation for may 4th. this event was cancelled/delayed by the events of stoney stratford. richard offically became the lord protector days after arriving in london with his regal ward on may 4th.
> >
> > i would imagine the woodvilles had the may 4th coronation plans well underway. i understand that there would be protocols that were necessary to transfer the power to r3, that in itself would cause a delay in the coronation that had been planned by the woodvilles.
> >
> > what i don't understand why the may 4th coronation was eventually rescheduled to june 22. wikipedia says that the coronation was repeatedly postponed.
> >
> > for some reason, this the first time this line of thought has hit me. "why the delay/s?"
> >
> > how many postponements were there? on what dates? what are the recorded reasons for each postponement?
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.