Richard III Research and Discussion Archive
Home Archive Images Groups

Richard

Richard

2012-09-12 20:29:27
[email protected]
Boy what a blunder, spelling Leicester ie instead of ei, no excuse for it, apologies to one and all.
Best wishes
Philip

Re: Richard III and Channel 4

2012-09-13 01:00:55
mcjohn\_wt\_net
No misery on either account, Mr. P., we knew which city you meant and the whole group (among other interested parties) has been e-bombin' Channel 4 for close to a month now: they've had a camera crew on the ground (and below, come to think of it) since the first day of the project.

Nice to see the list of camera crews at the presser today. Lots and lots and LOTS of curvy glass eyes trained at the team, as is only fitting. I understand the BBC and SkyTV both ran the presser live?

--- In , "p.photiou.123@..." <p.photiou.123@...> wrote:
>
> Boy what a blunder, spelling Leicester ie instead of ei, no excuse for it, apologies to one and all.
> Best wishes
> Philip

Re: Richard

2013-11-27 11:51:09
Durose David
Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David

Re: Richard

2013-11-27 13:29:05
Jonathan Evans

daviddurose2000@...
> So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences.
Not necessarily convinced by that, at least with regard to Stillington. Putting everything down to intense personal animus doesn't really explain the singular way in which he was treated. And it also indicates rather odd priorities in the aftermath of Bosworth. If Henry's dislike was so intense that it came before wider (and, I would have thought, much more pressing) considerations of how to govern a country without the aid of continuity from the previous regime, I'm amazed Stillington survived to be imprisoned, released and imprisoned again.
Jonathan
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 11:51
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: Richard

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David



Re: Richard

2013-11-28 01:44:46
mariewalsh2003

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."

Marie replies:

I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King.

It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market.

Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier.

Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything.

Marie

I

"



---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David

Re: Richard

2013-11-28 01:53:07
Pamela Bain
May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer, and can offer nothing. But, thank you all for so much.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."

Marie replies:

I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King.

It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market.

Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier.

Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything.

Marie

I

"



---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David

Re: Richard

2013-11-28 10:21:08
JF Madore
I join with you, Pamela. I am here to learn.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:53:11 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer, and can offer nothing. But, thank you all for so much.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."
Marie replies: I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:- July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King. It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market. Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier. Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything. Marie I "

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David



Re: Richard

2013-11-28 10:35:54
Hilary Jones
David, W would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), then who emboddied 'Lancaster' after Tewskesbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somewhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before. H

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:21, JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
I join with you, Pamela. I am here to learn.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:53:11 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer, and can offer nothing. But, thank you all for so much.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."
Marie replies: I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:- July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King. It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market. Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier. Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything. Marie I "

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David





Re: Richard

2013-11-28 11:04:25
Hilary Jones
Sorry if I've jumped in. Everything seems to be coming in out of order. When you write anything on the forum (and not via home email) it seems to be sending it for approval and delaying it.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:35, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
David, W would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), then who emboddied 'Lancaster' after Tewskesbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somewhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before. H

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:21, JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
I join with you, Pamela. I am here to learn.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:53:11 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer, and can offer nothing. But, thank you all for so much.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."
Marie replies: I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:- July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King. It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market. Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier. Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything. Marie I "

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David







Re: Richard

2013-11-28 11:11:56
Hilary Jones
Jonathan, Could it simply be that it took a lot to execute a cleric at this point - I can only think of Langstrother after Tewkesbury?As for the reasons, well Catesby was one of the few left who had supposedly been close to Richard and rather than the Edward-style forgive your enemies, it could have been a knee-jerk reaction the day after the battle.Marie, like you I never found any proof of this oft-quoted Britanny trip H

On , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sorry if I've jumped in. Everything seems to be coming in out of order. When you write anything on the forum (and not via home email) it seems to be sending it for approval and delaying it.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:35, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
David, W would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), then who emboddied 'Lancaster' after Tewskesbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somewhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before. H

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:21, JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
I join with you, Pamela. I am here to learn.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:53:11 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer, and can offer nothing. But, thank you all for so much.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."
Marie replies: I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:- July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King. It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market. Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier. Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything. Marie I "

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David









Re: Richard

2013-11-28 13:23:06
Jonathan Evans
Oh, yes, I agree. It's more that if the Stillington case is explained *exclusively* by personal animosity as David suggests, I'm surprised by the pattern of imprisonment/release/imprisonment. I would have expected at least permanent incarceration if Henry's loathing of the man was such that he became a priority in the immediate aftermath of Bosworth when he would surely have had more important issues/people to deal with. Unless, of course, Stillington had some other significance beyond this possible but disputed embassy to Brittany.

Re Catesby, the essence of the argument is rather more plausible. The mention of the Stanleys in the will is interesting and opens up plenty of avenues of thought. It's a while since I've read it, so I may be cherry-picking phrases leading to a false conclusion, but the references could be seen as a bitterly ironic comment on the battle itself rather than - as some have suggested - an implication that Catesby had, via some deal, expected the Stanleys to save him.

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2013, 11:08
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Richard

Jonathan, Could it simply be that it took a lot to execute a cleric at this point - I can only think of Langstrother after Tewkesbury?As for the reasons, well Catesby was one of the few left who had supposedly been close to Richard and rather than the Edward-style forgive your enemies, it could have been a knee-jerk reaction the day after the battle.Marie, like you I never found any proof of this oft-quoted Britanny trip H

On , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sorry if I've jumped in. Everything seems to be coming in out of order. When you write anything on the forum (and not via home email) it seems to be sending it for approval and delaying it.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:35, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
David, W would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), then who emboddied 'Lancaster' after Tewskesbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somewhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before. H

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:21, JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
I join with you, Pamela. I am here to learn.

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:53:11 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer, and can offer nothing. But, thank you all for so much.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."
Marie replies: I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:- July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King. It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market. Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier. Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything. Marie I "

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Carol responds:

In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.

Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)

Carol

If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.

In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.

After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.

So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.

I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.

Kind regards
David











Richard

2013-11-28 14:22:45
Douglas Eugene Stamate
Hilary wrote: "Would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), the who embodies 'Lancaster' after Tewksbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somwhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know that there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before." Doug here: First off, after Tewksbury what plots to eject Edward do we know of? Offhand I can't recall any, but that doesn't mean much! I do know that one thesis on why HT managed to retain the throne was simply because he had it and there just wasn't enough opposition, organized and united, to get rid of him. Could that be the main reason for the lack of Lancastrian opposition after the Re-Adeption? After Edward's death, with the Yorkists squabbling (to put it politely) over *who* was to be king, Lancastrian opposition to Richard united behind HT *because* HT was the only "Lancastrian" to show any interest? I've probably not put it clearly, but hopefully it's understandable... Doug

Re: Richard

2013-11-28 16:57:05
Hilary Jones
Very reasonable points as always Doug. So we're saying that the Yorkist dynasty self-destructed? And that HT's followers were really people who'd sat it out and thought that anything was better than a child king; or no tangible alternative at all once Richard was gone. I've always had this feeling that people were not altruistic Lancastrians or Yorkists, unless they stood to gain (and few did). So like most of us with politics they sat it out and went with the wind. Sad, but probably true. Not many idealistic Richards around. H

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 14:22, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote: "Would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), the who embodies 'Lancaster' after Tewksbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somwhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know that there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before." Doug here: First off, after Tewksbury what plots to eject Edward do we know of? Offhand I can't recall any, but that doesn't mean much! I do know that one thesis on why HT managed to retain the throne was simply because he had it and there just wasn't enough opposition, organized and united, to get rid of him. Could that be the main reason for the lack of Lancastrian opposition after the Re-Adeption? After Edward's death, with the Yorkists squabbling (to put it politely) over *who* was to be king, Lancastrian opposition to Richard united behind HT *because* HT was the only "Lancastrian" to show any interest? I've probably not put it clearly, but hopefully it's understandable... Doug

Re: Richard

2013-11-28 20:35:33
mariewalsh2003

Hi Doug,

I agree that Henry Tudor simply capitalised on the Yorkist split. After Tewkesbury the best Lancastrian claimant was Exeter, but he was a prisoner in the Tower until his odd death in 1475; it is interesting that it was shortly after Exeter's death that Edward attempted to get Henry Tudor repatriated, so he may well have seen him as the next Lancastrian in line. There were plots against Edward in the 1470s - viz Archbishop Neville and the de Veres - but whether these were in favour of a Lancastrian claimant or Clarence isn't clear. Just as in 1483 the surviving records don't name the person who was to replace Edward IV after they had had 'the king put down'.

It is certainly possible that MB began to see possibilities for wee Henry after Exeter's death. It was certainly claimed by witnesses to the papal legate in January 1486 that such a marriage had been discussed with King Edward, but before Picquigny Henry Tudor did not have the political importance to enable MB to get a hearing, so to my way of thinking it must have occurred right in the last few months of Edward's life.

Marie



---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Hilary wrote: "Would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), the who embodies 'Lancaster' after Tewksbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somwhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know that there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before." Doug here: First off, after Tewksbury what plots to eject Edward do we know of? Offhand I can't recall any, but that doesn't mean much! I do know that one thesis on why HT managed to retain the throne was simply because he had it and there just wasn't enough opposition, organized and united, to get rid of him. Could that be the main reason for the lack of Lancastrian opposition after the Re-Adeption? After Edward's death, with the Yorkists squabbling (to put it politely) over *who* was to be king, Lancastrian opposition to Richard united behind HT *because* HT was the only "Lancastrian" to show any interest? I've probably not put it clearly, but hopefully it's understandable... Doug

Re: Richard

2013-11-29 10:01:47
Hilary Jones
All this tells me that Shakespeare attributed the wrong play to Richard's story. This was high tragedy. King's torrid marriage, fratricide not patricide with brother torn between loyalty and revulsion, dying wife people say he doesn't love, foreign invaders waiting to take advantage of the situation, even the courtier who meets an untimely end whether by accident or design. And the final heroic attempt to save it all which results in the death of our hero. Sound familiar? And of course it also shows how clever HT's spin doctors were to capitalize on the Lancastrian connection, however vague in reality, and concoct a story which claims he's brought the Wars to an end. H.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 20:35, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Doug, I agree that Henry Tudor simply capitalised on the Yorkist split. After Tewkesbury the best Lancastrian claimant was Exeter, but he was a prisoner in the Tower until his odd death in 1475; it is interesting that it was shortly after Exeter's death that Edward attempted to get Henry Tudor repatriated, so he may well have seen him as the next Lancastrian in line. There were plots against Edward in the 1470s - viz Archbishop Neville and the de Veres - but whether these were in favour of a Lancastrian claimant or Clarence isn't clear. Just as in 1483 the surviving records don't name the person who was to replace Edward IV after they had had 'the king put down'.It is certainly possible that MB began to see possibilities for wee Henry after Exeter's death. It was certainly claimed by witnesses to the papal legate in January 1486 that such a marriage had been discussed with King Edward, but before Picquigny Henry Tudor did not have the political importance to enable MB to get a hearing, so to my way of thinking it must have occurred right in the last few months of Edward's life. Marie

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Hilary wrote: "Would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently. One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), the who embodies 'Lancaster' after Tewksbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somwhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know that there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before." Doug here: First off, after Tewksbury what plots to eject Edward do we know of? Offhand I can't recall any, but that doesn't mean much! I do know that one thesis on why HT managed to retain the throne was simply because he had it and there just wasn't enough opposition, organized and united, to get rid of him. Could that be the main reason for the lack of Lancastrian opposition after the Re-Adeption? After Edward's death, with the Yorkists squabbling (to put it politely) over *who* was to be king, Lancastrian opposition to Richard united behind HT *because* HT was the only "Lancastrian" to show any interest? I've probably not put it clearly, but hopefully it's understandable... Doug

Richard

2013-11-29 17:03:18
Douglas Eugene Stamate
Hilary wrote: "Very reasonable points as always Doug. So we're saying that the Yorkist dynasty selfpdestructed? And that HT's followers were really people who'd sat it out and thought that anyhting was better than a child king; or no tangible alternative once Richard was gone. I've always had this felling that people were not altruistic Lancastrian or Yorkists, unless they stood to gain (and few did). So like most of us wiith politics they sat it out and went with the wind. Sad, but probably true. Not many idealistic Richards around." Doug here: I'm not so certain about "self-destructed" but rather more a case of the victors squabbling over the spoils - and even that doesn't exactly fit! Basically it was, to me anyway, an instance where the Lancastrians were so reduced in power as to no longer be a serious threat *so long as the Yorkists remained united*. Which was the situation until Edward IV died. Then the groups that had been more than willing to unite *under Edward* starting squabbling. There were, as best I can determine, on EIV's death two groups: Woodville Yorkists supporting EV because he was half Woodville and Yorkists supporting EV because he was *Edward's* son (which is where I place Richard) and on the whole both groups agreed in their ultimate aim: raising EV to the throne. However, immediate attempts by EV's Woodville supporters to apparently cut everyone else out of the pie cracked that support within days of EIV's death. Once Stillington presented his evidence to the Council the split amongst Yorklsts was complete; there were (still) supporters of EV but, seemingly, the majority supported Richard's claim to the throne and thus Titulus Regius. I look at Buckingham's Rebellion essentially as an attempt by the Woodville Yorkists to regain the throne for their candidate; although the rebellion may very well have also concealed machianations by Buckingham in an attempt to grab the throne himself. In any case, what happened with Buckingham's Rebellion was to not only *divide* the Yorkists, but also to embitter one group, losing Woodville supporters mostly, to the extent that even a quasi-Lancastrian such as HT was acceptable - especially if he was married to EoY. So, adding together die-hard Lancastrians (such as Morton) to disaffected Woodville Yorkists (supporters of HT marrying EoY) and one gets a group large enough to challenge Richard. Whether that group would, by itself, hav been enough to overthrow Richard with the treachery displayed at Bosworht (I'd love to know the "why" behind Sir William's and Northumberland's actions) will remain unknown. As you may have noticed, all the above-named are either titled or high clergy, representatives of groups deeply involved at the center of "government" and thus with a greater stake in *who* sat on the throne and handed out appointments. The gentry, again as best I can determine and regardless of whether Lancastrian or Yorkist, were responsible for whatever "local" governing there was. Under *any* Yorkist self-proclaimed, die-hard Lancastrians simply wouldn't be appointed, whether by London or the local noble, to positions in local government. Which is why Richard gave out various manors in certain districts to *his* supporters; they could discover and employ those members of the gentry who were willing to get along with whoever sat on the throne. It may be me, but I doubt there were amongst the gentry, outside of those directly involved with those nobles who represented the competing York and Lancaster claims, very many who really cared one way or the other who sat on the throne. Considering what could be lost by the gentry if they *did* become rabidly pro-Yorkist or -Lancastrian, and lacking the rewards available to noble supporters, I don't find their lack of "altruism" surprising at all. That some did ally themselves with one or the other is probably more remarkable! Doug (who left the first line of Hlary's post in out of sheer vanity...)

Re: Richard

2013-11-30 10:28:10
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, yes again to all that. You vain never:) Standing back from it all, I think Ross made a good point when he said that the Yorks never really stopped behaving like the nobility rather than like kings. He was talking about Edward and land of course, but if you compare him with Bolingbroke, the grandson of a King and the son of an accustomed ruler, Bolingbroke was able to step relatively easily into the kingly mold; he married a foreign princess, he didn't confuse crown ownership of land with personal ownership (though someone will no doubt pop up on here and claim he did), mainly because Lancaster lands became Crown lands. Edward always seems to have kept his noble cronies - Warwick, Hastings, and you could say continued to act with and like them. And of course there was his acquisitiveness (the French pension) and that marriage. Richard BTW probably observed all this, as an 'heir' would, and would not act in the same way, hence the proposed foreign marriage. As for the gentry, just a small point but that had not always been the case. Richard II liked to reward his personal servants by making them sheriffs, escheators etc, and a lot of these families seem to have intermarried and were sitting it out. In fact some crossed horns with the nobility quite a bit, as the nobility got weaker and the gentry got stronger so I don't think they always did what they were told. It's quite surprising how many of Richard II's favoured families re-emerge to serve H7 (who incidentally was another ruler not trained to rule and had to make it up as he went along) Incidentally does anyone know a good book on Richard II? H.

On Friday, 29 November 2013, 17:03, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote: "Very reasonable points as always Doug. So we're saying that the Yorkist dynasty selfpdestructed? And that HT's followers were really people who'd sat it out and thought that anyhting was better than a child king; or no tangible alternative once Richard was gone. I've always had this felling that people were not altruistic Lancastrian or Yorkists, unless they stood to gain (and few did). So like most of us wiith politics they sat it out and went with the wind. Sad, but probably true. Not many idealistic Richards around." Doug here: I'm not so certain about "self-destructed" but rather more a case of the victors squabbling over the spoils - and even that doesn't exactly fit! Basically it was, to me anyway, an instance where the Lancastrians were so reduced in power as to no longer be a serious threat *so long as the Yorkists remained united*. Which was the situation until Edward IV died. Then the groups that had been more than willing to unite *under Edward* starting squabbling. There were, as best I can determine, on EIV's death two groups: Woodville Yorkists supporting EV because he was half Woodville and Yorkists supporting EV because he was *Edward's* son (which is where I place Richard) and on the whole both groups agreed in their ultimate aim: raising EV to the throne. However, immediate attempts by EV's Woodville supporters to apparently cut everyone else out of the pie cracked that support within days of EIV's death. Once Stillington presented his evidence to the Council the split amongst Yorklsts was complete; there were (still) supporters of EV but, seemingly, the majority supported Richard's claim to the throne and thus Titulus Regius. I look at Buckingham's Rebellion essentially as an attempt by the Woodville Yorkists to regain the throne for their candidate; although the rebellion may very well have also concealed machianations by Buckingham in an attempt to grab the throne himself. In any case, what happened with Buckingham's Rebellion was to not only *divide* the Yorkists, but also to embitter one group, losing Woodville supporters mostly, to the extent that even a quasi-Lancastrian such as HT was acceptable - especially if he was married to EoY. So, adding together die-hard Lancastrians (such as Morton) to disaffected Woodville Yorkists (supporters of HT marrying EoY) and one gets a group large enough to challenge Richard. Whether that group would, by itself, hav been enough to overthrow Richard with the treachery displayed at Bosworht (I'd love to know the "why" behind Sir William's and Northumberland's actions) will remain unknown. As you may have noticed, all the above-named are either titled or high clergy, representatives of groups deeply involved at the center of "government" and thus with a greater stake in *who* sat on the throne and handed out appointments. The gentry, again as best I can determine and regardless of whether Lancastrian or Yorkist, were responsible for whatever "local" governing there was. Under *any* Yorkist self-proclaimed, die-hard Lancastrians simply wouldn't be appointed, whether by London or the local noble, to positions in local government. Which is why Richard gave out various manors in certain districts to *his* supporters; they could discover and employ those members of the gentry who were willing to get along with whoever sat on the throne. It may be me, but I doubt there were amongst the gentry, outside of those directly involved with those nobles who represented the competing York and Lancaster claims, very many who really cared one way or the other who sat on the throne. Considering what could be lost by the gentry if they *did* become rabidly pro-Yorkist or -Lancastrian, and lacking the rewards available to noble supporters, I don't find their lack of "altruism" surprising at all. That some did ally themselves with one or the other is probably more remarkable! Doug (who left the first line of Hlary's post in out of sheer vanity...)

Richard

2013-11-30 14:50:53
Douglas Eugene Stamate
Hilary wrote: //snip// "As fo the gentry, just a small point but that had not always been the case. Richard II liked to reward his personal servants by making them sherriffs, escheators etc, and a lot of these families seem to have intermarried and were sitting it out. In fact some crossed horns with the nobility quite a bit, as the nobility got weaker and the gentry got stronger so I don't think they always did what they were told. It's quite surprising how many of Richard II's favoured families re-emerge to serve H7 (who incidentally was another ruler not trained to rule and had to make it up as he went along). Incidentally, does anyone know a good book on Richard II?" Doug here: My knowledge of the earlier Plantagenets is a bit shaky, but didn't most of them employ as many non-nobles as possible? Originally that would have members of the clergy, but with the spread of literacy (at least among the gentry) that would also have embraced lay people; ie, members of the gentry as the staff for what passed for governmental bureaucracies. Then it's just a step to moving Royal nominees, as opposed to noble ones, into the local governmental positions. I'm likely putting it badly, but basically what was going on was that the King was replacing the nobles as the font of power on *all* levels. Under H6 that was reversed as the nobility fought for control of the King's government (and person), started up again under E4, which would add another reason for Edward to object to Warwick's actions prior to the latter's alliance with MoA and might help explain Edward's attitude toward Clarence. If Edward thought George was attempting to establish an independent power-base a la Warwick, well... It would seem to me that the attitude of the "gentry", and that's probably a massive over-generalization, was one of not getting involved in "politics" because they simply didn't have the power, at any level, to have an effect on the outcome that made putting themselves in such jeopardy worthwhile; ie, they would happily *serve* the King (any King), but they weren't about to lead. I tend to agree with those historians who believe part (much?) of the rise of Parliament, especially the House of Commons, as a factor in day-to-day government was due to it acquiring a sense of "self"; ie, it represented a portion of the nation with as much right to be heard at the center of government as the King or nobility. But until that point had been reached, discretion was definitely the better part of valor! Sorry, I can't help with any suggestions re Richard II. Doug

Re: Richard

2013-11-30 15:44:45
justcarol67

daviddurose wrote:

> So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences.
Jonathan responded:
Not necessarily convinced by that, at least with regard to Stillington. Putting everything down to intense personal animus doesn't really explain the singular way in which he was treated. And it also indicates rather odd priorities in the aftermath of Bosworth. If Henry's dislike was so intense that it came before wider (and, I would have thought, much more pressing) considerations of how to govern a country without the aid of continuity from the previous regime, I'm amazed Stillington survived to be imprisoned, released and imprisoned again.
Jonathan

Carol adds:

Nor am I, Jonathan. It can't be a coincidence that Titulus Regius was suppressed and that Stillington, widely believed to be its author, was arrested and prevented from testifying about it. Also, he was apparently treated reasonably well and released after Titulus Regius had been repealed (only to involve himself in the Simnel rebellion, about which we need to know more from a Yorkist perspective). Catesby's execution is more mysterious, and I suspect that it also relates to Titulus Regius. People tend to forget that it didn't just delegitimize Richard's nieces and nephews. Much more important, it made Richard the rightful king--and Tudor a usurper and regicide.

Carol

Carol

Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

2013-11-30 22:59:50
Durose David
Hello All,
I am very impressed with the research of the forum members. I realize that there is no point in quoting secondary sources.

However, I think I have finally bottomed the Stillington question. I found a source quoting the Registers of Stillington and Fox. I am sure that Marie will be able to enlighten us to what these are.

The Register of Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells, states that in 1476 he was absent in Brittany on an unsuccessful embassy that had as its purpose obtaining Henry Tudor. As I think these registers are probably compiled by the bishops themselves or their scribes, I think this source finally answers this question without any doubt whatsoever.

Oliver King's Register makes no mention of Brittany at any stage.

Interestingly, the register of Fox specifically mentions that Henry had Stillington arrested at York in 1485 because he was a long-standing enemy of Henry and specifically mentions Henry's close shave in Saint Malo.

So that is Stillington out of the way - it definitely was him in Brittany and it was thought by Fox that this was the reason for his arrest.

I have not yet succeeded entirely with the question of Catesby. However, whoever the English ecuyer was in the cathedral in Brittany - I am pretty sure it was NOT Tyrrell.

A history of the city of York has him in that city at the same time with 7 of the King's Henchmen.

Shortly afterwards, of course, he was on a special mission to Burgundy, which is of vital importance to the alternative story of the fate of the princes - and then in Calais.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Richard
Sent: Sat, Nov 30, 2013 3:44:45 PM

 



daviddurose wrote:

> So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences.
Jonathan responded:
Not necessarily convinced by that, at least with regard to Stillington.  Putting everything down to intense personal animus doesn't really explain the singular way in which he was treated.  And it also indicates rather odd priorities in the aftermath of Bosworth.  If Henry's dislike was so intense that it came before wider (and, I would have thought, much more pressing) considerations of how to govern a country without the aid of continuity from the previous regime, I'm amazed Stillington survived to be imprisoned, released and imprisoned again.
Jonathan

Carol adds:

Nor am I, Jonathan. It can't be a coincidence that Titulus Regius was suppressed and that Stillington, widely believed to be its author, was arrested and prevented from testifying about it. Also, he was apparently treated reasonably well and released after Titulus Regius had been repealed (only to involve himself in the Simnel rebellion, about which we need to know more from a Yorkist perspective). Catesby's execution is more mysterious, and I suspect that it also relates to Titulus Regius. People tend to forget that it didn't just delegitimize Richard's nieces and nephews. Much more important, it made Richard the rightful king--and Tudor a usurper and regicide.

Carol

Carol

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

2013-11-30 23:03:34
Jessie Skinner

That is very impressive research, David.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android


From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Richard
Sent: Sat, Nov 30, 2013 10:56:56 PM

 

Hello All,
I am very impressed with the research of the forum members. I realize that there is no point in quoting secondary sources.

However, I think I have finally bottomed the Stillington question. I found a source quoting the Registers of Stillington and Fox. I am sure that Marie will be able to enlighten us to what these are.

The Register of Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells, states that in 1476 he was absent in Brittany on an unsuccessful embassy that had as its purpose obtaining Henry Tudor. As I think these registers are probably compiled by the bishops themselves or their scribes, I think this source finally answers this question without any doubt whatsoever.

Oliver King's Register makes no mention of Brittany at any stage.

Interestingly, the register of Fox specifically mentions that Henry had Stillington arrested at York in 1485 because he was a long-standing enemy of Henry and specifically mentions Henry's close shave in Saint Malo.

So that is Stillington out of the way - it definitely was him in Brittany and it was thought by Fox that this was the reason for his arrest.

I have not yet succeeded entirely with the question of Catesby. However, whoever the English ecuyer was in the cathedral in Brittany - I am pretty sure it was NOT Tyrrell.

A history of the city of York has him in that city at the same time with 7 of the King's Henchmen.

Shortly afterwards, of course, he was on a special mission to Burgundy, which is of vital importance to the alternative story of the fate of the princes - and then in Calais.

Kind regards
David


From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Richard
Sent: Sat, Nov 30, 2013 3:44:45 PM

 



daviddurose wrote:

> So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences.
Jonathan responded:
Not necessarily convinced by that, at least with regard to Stillington.  Putting everything down to intense personal animus doesn't really explain the singular way in which he was treated.  And it also indicates rather odd priorities in the aftermath of Bosworth.  If Henry's dislike was so intense that it came before wider (and, I would have thought, much more pressing) considerations of how to govern a country without the aid of continuity from the previous regime, I'm amazed Stillington survived to be imprisoned, released and imprisoned again.
Jonathan

Carol adds:

Nor am I, Jonathan. It can't be a coincidence that Titulus Regius was suppressed and that Stillington, widely believed to be its author, was arrested and prevented from testifying about it. Also, he was apparently treated reasonably well and released after Titulus Regius had been repealed (only to involve himself in the Simnel rebellion, about which we need to know more from a Yorkist perspective). Catesby's execution is more mysterious, and I suspect that it also relates to Titulus Regius. People tend to forget that it didn't just delegitimize Richard's nieces and nephews. Much more important, it made Richard the rightful king--and Tudor a usurper and regicide.

Carol

Carol

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

2013-12-01 01:26:10
mariewalsh2003

Hi David,

All bishops kept registers where they recorded diocesan business, and many of these have been published in some form, mainly just précis of the entries. I haven't before seen Stillington's for myself, but from what I have read it notes that he visited his diocese in 1476 - which he rarely did - spending 3 weeks in Wells and carrying out a visitation (ie inspection) of the diocese. I've now found the printed version on Google Books (Stillington's and Fox's in one volume, which is what you appear to be referring to rather than the original registers themselves), and searched on "Brittany" and I'm afraid to have to tell you that, although a single entry did come up, and it did describe Stillington's mission to Brittany to get hold of Henry Tudor, it was not a quotation from the actual register but was from the Introduction. In other words, it is an editorial assertion and not something noted by Stillington or his scribe.

There is no doubt that Oliver King was commissioned to go on embassy to Brittany in 1476 - the instructions are extant - but there is no earthly reason why it should be in his register as Bishop of Bath and Wells since he was not Bishop of Bath when it occurred and embassies were not diocesan business.

So I'm afraid we still have no primary source describing this supposed mission of Stillington's.

Marie



---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Hello All,
I am very impressed with the research of the forum members. I realize that there is no point in quoting secondary sources.

However, I think I have finally bottomed the Stillington question. I found a source quoting the Registers of Stillington and Fox. I am sure that Marie will be able to enlighten us to what these are.

The Register of Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells, states that in 1476 he was absent in Brittany on an unsuccessful embassy that had as its purpose obtaining Henry Tudor. As I think these registers are probably compiled by the bishops themselves or their scribes, I think this source finally answers this question without any doubt whatsoever.

Oliver King's Register makes no mention of Brittany at any stage.

Interestingly, the register of Fox specifically mentions that Henry had Stillington arrested at York in 1485 because he was a long-standing enemy of Henry and specifically mentions Henry's close shave in Saint Malo.

So that is Stillington out of the way - it definitely was him in Brittany and it was thought by Fox that this was the reason for his arrest.

I have not yet succeeded entirely with the question of Catesby. However, whoever the English ecuyer was in the cathedral in Brittany - I am pretty sure it was NOT Tyrrell.

A history of the city of York has him in that city at the same time with 7 of the King's Henchmen.

Shortly afterwards, of course, he was on a special mission to Burgundy, which is of vital importance to the alternative story of the fate of the princes - and then in Calais.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Richard
Sent: Sat, Nov 30, 2013 3:44:45 PM



daviddurose wrote:

> So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences.
Jonathan responded:
Not necessarily convinced by that, at least with regard to Stillington. Putting everything down to intense personal animus doesn't really explain the singular way in which he was treated. And it also indicates rather odd priorities in the aftermath of Bosworth. If Henry's dislike was so intense that it came before wider (and, I would have thought, much more pressing) considerations of how to govern a country without the aid of continuity from the previous regime, I'm amazed Stillington survived to be imprisoned, released and imprisoned again.
Jonathan

Carol adds:

Nor am I, Jonathan. It can't be a coincidence that Titulus Regius was suppressed and that Stillington, widely believed to be its author, was arrested and prevented from testifying about it. Also, he was apparently treated reasonably well and released after Titulus Regius had been repealed (only to involve himself in the Simnel rebellion, about which we need to know more from a Yorkist perspective). Catesby's execution is more mysterious, and I suspect that it also relates to Titulus Regius. People tend to forget that it didn't just delegitimize Richard's nieces and nephews. Much more important, it made Richard the rightful king--and Tudor a usurper and regicide.

Carol

Carol

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

2013-12-01 13:25:52
mariewalsh2003

Small correction - Dr. Oliver King was sent to Brittany in 1475. I'm making further progress - have now traced the story to Hall, who interestingly refers to him as "Dr. Stillington" although of course he had been Bishop of Bath for a long time by 1476. Will report again when I have got the story back as far as poss.

Marie

(Marie had written:

All bishops kept registers where they recorded diocesan business, and many of these have been published in some form, mainly just précis of the entries. I haven't before seen Stillington's for myself, but from what I have read it notes that he visited his diocese in 1476 - which he rarely did - spending 3 weeks in Wells and carrying out a visitation (ie inspection) of the diocese. I've now found the printed version on Google Books (Stillington's and Fox's in one volume, which is what you appear to be referring to rather than the original registers themselves), and searched on "Brittany" and I'm afraid to have to tell you that, although a single entry did come up, and it did describe Stillington's mission to Brittany to get hold of Henry Tudor, it was not a quotation from the actual register but was from the Introduction. In other words, it is an editorial assertion and not something noted by Stillington or his scribe.

There is no doubt that Oliver King was commissioned to go on embassy to Brittany in 1476 - the instructions are extant - but there is no earthly reason why it should be in his register as Bishop of Bath and Wells since he was not Bishop of Bath when it occurred and embassies were not diocesan business.

So I'm afraid we still have no primary source describing this supposed mission of Stillington's.)



---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi David,

All bishops kept registers where they recorded diocesan business, and many of these have been published in some form, mainly just précis of the entries. I haven't before seen Stillington's for myself, but from what I have read it notes that he visited his diocese in 1476 - which he rarely did - spending 3 weeks in Wells and carrying out a visitation (ie inspection) of the diocese. I've now found the printed version on Google Books (Stillington's and Fox's in one volume, which is what you appear to be referring to rather than the original registers themselves), and searched on "Brittany" and I'm afraid to have to tell you that, although a single entry did come up, and it did describe Stillington's mission to Brittany to get hold of Henry Tudor, it was not a quotation from the actual register but was from the Introduction. In other words, it is an editorial assertion and not something noted by Stillington or his scribe.

There is no doubt that Oliver King was commissioned to go on embassy to Brittany in 1476 - the instructions are extant - but there is no earthly reason why it should be in his register as Bishop of Bath and Wells since he was not Bishop of Bath when it occurred and embassies were not diocesan business.

So I'm afraid we still have no primary source describing this supposed mission of Stillington's.

Marie



---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Hello All,
I am very impressed with the research of the forum members. I realize that there is no point in quoting secondary sources.

However, I think I have finally bottomed the Stillington question. I found a source quoting the Registers of Stillington and Fox. I am sure that Marie will be able to enlighten us to what these are.

The Register of Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells, states that in 1476 he was absent in Brittany on an unsuccessful embassy that had as its purpose obtaining Henry Tudor. As I think these registers are probably compiled by the bishops themselves or their scribes, I think this source finally answers this question without any doubt whatsoever.

Oliver King's Register makes no mention of Brittany at any stage.

Interestingly, the register of Fox specifically mentions that Henry had Stillington arrested at York in 1485 because he was a long-standing enemy of Henry and specifically mentions Henry's close shave in Saint Malo.

So that is Stillington out of the way - it definitely was him in Brittany and it was thought by Fox that this was the reason for his arrest.

I have not yet succeeded entirely with the question of Catesby. However, whoever the English ecuyer was in the cathedral in Brittany - I am pretty sure it was NOT Tyrrell.

A history of the city of York has him in that city at the same time with 7 of the King's Henchmen.

Shortly afterwards, of course, he was on a special mission to Burgundy, which is of vital importance to the alternative story of the fate of the princes - and then in Calais.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Richard
Sent: Sat, Nov 30, 2013 3:44:45 PM



daviddurose wrote:

> So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences.
Jonathan responded:
Not necessarily convinced by that, at least with regard to Stillington. Putting everything down to intense personal animus doesn't really explain the singular way in which he was treated. And it also indicates rather odd priorities in the aftermath of Bosworth. If Henry's dislike was so intense that it came before wider (and, I would have thought, much more pressing) considerations of how to govern a country without the aid of continuity from the previous regime, I'm amazed Stillington survived to be imprisoned, released and imprisoned again.
Jonathan

Carol adds:

Nor am I, Jonathan. It can't be a coincidence that Titulus Regius was suppressed and that Stillington, widely believed to be its author, was arrested and prevented from testifying about it. Also, he was apparently treated reasonably well and released after Titulus Regius had been repealed (only to involve himself in the Simnel rebellion, about which we need to know more from a Yorkist perspective). Catesby's execution is more mysterious, and I suspect that it also relates to Titulus Regius. People tend to forget that it didn't just delegitimize Richard's nieces and nephews. Much more important, it made Richard the rightful king--and Tudor a usurper and regicide.

Carol

Carol

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

2013-12-01 16:50:11
justcarol67
David Durose wrote:

"I think I have finally bottomed the Stillington question. I found a source quoting the Registers of Stillington and Fox. I am sure that Marie will be able to enlighten us to what these are.

"The Register of Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells, states that in 1476 he was absent in Brittany on an unsuccessful embassy that had as its purpose obtaining Henry Tudor. As I think these registers are probably compiled by the bishops themselves or their scribes, I think this source finally answers this question without any doubt whatsoever."

Carol responds:

As Marie pointed out, you're mistaking a secondary source (the introduction) for a primary source, proving your own point that "there is no point quoting secondary sources" and by no means resolving the question "without any doubt whatsoever." What this source shows is how deeply entrenched the Tudor view of events (and people) has become. I strongly recommend balancing your Tudor-influenced source with some Ricardian ones. Unfortunately, no extant biography of either Richard or Henry is either sufficiently up to date or sufficiently complete, not to mention sufficiently free of preconceptions and influence by Tudor sources (or Mancini and Croyland) to get us as near to the truth as we need to be. I don't think we can say of *any* question relating to the Yorkist kings or Henry Tudor that we have found the answer "without any doubt whatsoever."

Does anyone know where we can find primary sources related directly to the arrest of Stillington and the repeal of Titulus Regius, preferably online for the benefit of those of us who have no other access to primary sources?

Carol



Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

2013-12-02 01:23:13
mariewalsh2003

Thanks, Carol, for the support. I've actually succumbed and ordered a copy of the Stillington & Fox Registers, so when it comes I'll be able to check properly.

Mheanwile, I've compared Vergil's account (written by 1512) with Hall's (1st published 1542), and they are pretty much identical. Hall seems to have drawn on an early English translation of Vergil since he even picks up on that translation's description of a particular individual as being in the 'dumps' - I never knew that term went back so far! There are just three major differences between the two accounts:-

1) Vergil acknowledges that HT was a prisoner in Brittany, whereas Hall writes as though he was pretty much let go where he liked

2) Vergil has HT take sick at Saint-Malo, and his champion Jean Chenlet return to Francis to plead with him not to send him to King Edward because EIV's intentions are not what he says. Hall, on the other hand, has HT take himself to Francis as soon as he hears what is planned, and plead on his own behalf.

3) Vergil does not name the English ambassadors or even state how many there were, whereas Hall tells us there were three, of whom the chief was Dr. Stillington. I wonder, had somebody told Hall that he had seen the commission for an embassy to Brittany at that time and that it consisted of three ambassadors including What's-his-name who later became Bishop of Bath - and then Hall assumed it was Stillington who was meant?

Ay any rate, it seems clear that Stillington was brought into the story by Edward Hall, unless anyone can think of an intermediate Tudor source I ought to check. Since Hall's source, Vergil, was so vague about the date of this embassy - sometime between Picquigny and Clarence's arrest - I don't see how Hall can been so sure which set of ambassadors were responsible because no one ever seems to have found a diplomatic commission that makes any mention of retrieving Henry Tudor, so the instructions were probably verbal.

Anyway, I'm now looking at the Foedera and Scofield to try to get a fuller picture of the diplomatic comings and goings between England and Brittany in 1475 and 1476.

Marie



---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:

David Durose wrote:

"I think I have finally bottomed the Stillington question. I found a source quoting the Registers of Stillington and Fox. I am sure that Marie will be able to enlighten us to what these are.

"The Register of Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells, states that in 1476 he was absent in Brittany on an unsuccessful embassy that had as its purpose obtaining Henry Tudor. As I think these registers are probably compiled by the bishops themselves or their scribes, I think this source finally answers this question without any doubt whatsoever."

Carol responds:

As Marie pointed out, you're mistaking a secondary source (the introduction) for a primary source, proving your own point that "there is no point quoting secondary sources" and by no means resolving the question "without any doubt whatsoever." What this source shows is how deeply entrenched the Tudor view of events (and people) has become. I strongly recommend balancing your Tudor-influenced source with some Ricardian ones. Unfortunately, no extant biography of either Richard or Henry is either sufficiently up to date or sufficiently complete, not to mention sufficiently free of preconceptions and influence by Tudor sources (or Mancini and Croyland) to get us as near to the truth as we need to be. I don't think we can say of *any* question relating to the Yorkist kings or Henry Tudor that we have found the answer "without any doubt whatsoever."

Does anyone know where we can find primary sources related directly to the arrest of Stillington and the repeal of Titulus Regius, preferably online for the benefit of those of us who have no other access to primary sources?

Carol



Richard

2013-12-02 16:39:05
Douglas Eugene Stamate
Marie wrote: //snip// 1) Vergil acknowledges that HT was a prisoner in Brittany, whereas Hall writes as though he was pretty much let go where he liked. 2) Vergil has HT take sick at Saint-Malo, and his champion JeanChenlet return to Francis to plead with him not to send him to King Edward because EIV's intentions are not what he says. Hall, on the other hand, has HT take himself to Francis as soon as he hears what is planned and plead on his own behalf. 3) Vergil does not name the English ambassadors or even state how many there were, whereas Hall tells us there were three, of whom the chief was D. Stillington. I wonder, had somebody told Hall that he had seen the commssion for an embassy to Brittany at that time and that it consisted of three ambassadors including What's-his-name who later became Bishop of Bath - and then Hall assumed it was Stillington who was meant? At any rate, it seems clear that Stillington was brought into the story by Edward Hall, unless anyone can think of an intermediate Tudor source I ought check. Since Hall's source, Vergil, was so vague about the date of the embassy - sometime between Picquigny and Clarence's arrest - I don't see how Hall can be so sure which set of ambassadors were responsible because no on ever seems to have found a diplomatic commission that makes any mention of retrieving Henry Tudor, so the instructions were probalby verbal." //snip// Doug here: Two thoughts: 1. As Hall was published in 1542, then he was describing events that occurred nearly seventy years previously so it seem unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that whatever Hall wrote about the embassy was gathered verbally, or in writing, from someone with direct knowledge of the participants; ie, they had either seen or heard the instructions for the embassy themselves. As to "how" Hall managed to conflate Stillington and Price, I must admit I'm stumped. The best I can come up with is that Hall heard from someone that "the Bishop of Bath and Wells" had been in an embassy to Brittany to retrieve HT and immediately assumed *that* Bishop (Price) to have been *his* Bishop (Stillington). If so, it doesn't say much for Hall even trying to verify his sources. and 2. Is it me or did Hall work at "punching up" HT's role? The two instances you cited show Hall moving HT from a passive to an active role in whatever was happening. Are there more that anyone knows of? Because it looks suspiciously to me as if Hall was not adverse to re-writing events to tell his "story". Then again, maybe it *is* just me... And in case I haven't before thanked you for your research, I now do so! Doug

Re: Richard

2013-12-02 17:19:56
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote

"

Two thoughts:1. As Hall was published in 1542, then he was describing events that occurred nearly seventy years previously so it seem unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that whatever Hall wrote about the embassy was gathered verbally, or in writing, from someone with direct knowledge of the participants; ie, they had either seen or heard the instructions for the embassy themselves. As to "how" Hall managed to conflate Stillington and Price, I must admit I'm stumped. The best I can come up with is that Hall heard from someone that "the Bishop of Bath and Wells" had been in an embassy to Brittany to retrieve HT and immediately assumed *that* Bishop (Price) to have been *his* Bishop (Stillington). If so, it doesn't say much for Hall even trying to verify his sources.and2. Is it me or did Hall work at "punching up" HT's role? The two instances you cited show Hall moving HT from a passive to an active role in whatever was happening. Are there more that anyone knows of? Because it looks suspiciously to me as if Hall was not adverse to re-writing events to tell his "story".Then again, maybe it *is* just me..." Marie replies:1. I agree that Hall is far too late to be considered as a source. Vergil would have had the opportunity to talk to Henry VII, but not Hall, so anything Hall has added to Vergil's account should be treated with suspicion. (Just one thing, though, the future bishop of Bath who was sent on an embassy to Brittany in 1475 was Oliver King, not Price.) If Hall did substitute Stillington for King because he had been told the ambassador was a future bishop of Bath, then it suggests he didn't know his bishops' dates very well either.2. Yep, my feelings entirely - Hall seems to have been deliberately beefing up Henry Tudor's role.

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Marie wrote: //snip// 1) Vergil acknowledges that HT was a prisoner in Brittany, whereas Hall writes as though he was pretty much let go where he liked. 2) Vergil has HT take sick at Saint-Malo, and his champion JeanChenlet return to Francis to plead with him not to send him to King Edward because EIV's intentions are not what he says. Hall, on the other hand, has HT take himself to Francis as soon as he hears what is planned and plead on his own behalf. 3) Vergil does not name the English ambassadors or even state how many there were, whereas Hall tells us there were three, of whom the chief was D. Stillington. I wonder, had somebody told Hall that he had seen the commssion for an embassy to Brittany at that time and that it consisted of three ambassadors including What's-his-name who later became Bishop of Bath - and then Hall assumed it was Stillington who was meant? At any rate, it seems clear that Stillington was brought into the story by Edward Hall, unless anyone can think of an intermediate Tudor source I ought check. Since Hall's source, Vergil, was so vague about the date of the embassy - sometime between Picquigny and Clarence's arrest - I don't see how Hall can be so sure which set of ambassadors were responsible because no on ever seems to have found a diplomatic commission that makes any mention of retrieving Henry Tudor, so the instructions were probalby verbal." //snip// Doug here: Two thoughts: 1. As Hall was published in 1542, then he was describing events that occurred nearly seventy years previously so it seem unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that whatever Hall wrote about the embassy was gathered verbally, or in writing, from someone with direct knowledge of the participants; ie, they had either seen or heard the instructions for the embassy themselves. As to "how" Hall managed to conflate Stillington and Price, I must admit I'm stumped. The best I can come up with is that Hall heard from someone that "the Bishop of Bath and Wells" had been in an embassy to Brittany to retrieve HT and immediately assumed *that* Bishop (Price) to have been *his* Bishop (Stillington). If so, it doesn't say much for Hall even trying to verify his sources. and 2. Is it me or did Hall work at "punching up" HT's role? The two instances you cited show Hall moving HT from a passive to an active role in whatever was happening. Are there more that anyone knows of? Because it looks suspiciously to me as if Hall was not adverse to re-writing events to tell his "story". Then again, maybe it *is* just me... And in case I haven't before thanked you for your research, I now do so! Doug

Stillington's supposed embassy to Brittany (Was: Richard)

2013-12-03 17:33:02
justcarol67
Marie wrote:

"Thanks, Carol, for the support. I've actually succumbed and ordered a copy of the Stillington & Fox Registers, so when it comes I'll be able to check properly.

"Mheanwile, I've compared Vergil's account (written by 1512) with Hall's (1st published 1542), and they are pretty much identical. Hall seems to have drawn on an early English translation of Vergil <snip> 3) Vergil does not name the English ambassadors or even state how many there were, whereas Hall tells us there were three, of whom the chief was Dr. Stillington. <snip> Ay any rate, it seems clear that Stillington was brought into the story by Edward Hall, unless anyone can think of an intermediate Tudor source I ought to check. <snip> Anyway, I'm now looking at the Foedera and Scofield to try to get a fuller picture of the diplomatic comings and goings between England and Brittany in 1475 and 1476."


Carol responds:


Just lost my post and am having to recreate it from scratch. (I hate Yahoo.)


Thanks very much, Marie. You're a gem. Meanwhile, I checked the Stillington and Fox register for references to Bretagne (alternate spelling of Brittany), Francis (of Brittany), and Tudor and came up empty.


The story of this apparently imaginary embassy is, however, widespread, and in some versions, Stillington is very much Commynes' "bad, wicked bishop" or "malicious prelate" (depending on the translation).


A search for Stillington (and) Bretagne will give you the Victorian Agnes Strickland's highly colored version ("Lives of the Kings and Queens of England"):


"But the existence of young Henry Tudor disquieted Edward IV, though in the very height of victorious prosperity, and he sent Stillington, bishop of Bath (the ready tool for any iniquity), on a deceitful mission to the court of Bretagne, offering Henry the hand of his eldest daughter, with a princely dower, and to Jasper restoration of his earldom, if they would return to England and be his friends." The poor pawns readily agree to this arrangement, but Francis, "seized by a sudden qualm of conscience," sends "Peter" Landois to "inform young Henry privately that he would be murdered if he trusted himself aboard Edward's ships." Her sources, BTW, are Hall and Speed.


http://books.google.com/books?id=cjgmAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA30&dq=Stillington+Strickland&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vwueUvfsDcvUoASf4IGYCQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Stillington%20Strickland&f=false


Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/mhhduhx


Interesting how anyone connected with Richard (in this case, Edward and Stillington) is depicted as evil. (Stillington is very much Commynes' "bad, wicked bishop" or "malicious prelate," depending on the translation.) Henry, in contrast, is always young and, by extension, innocent or virtuous. (At twenty, he was no helpless child.) Richard, in contrast, is described as young only once, when he serves as chief mourner at his father's reburial at the age of fourteen. Pro-Tudor sources never seem to notice how young he was.


Carol







Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard

2013-12-03 18:54:07
Durose David
Doug,
Although Hall's book was written at that date, it is entirely possible as you say that the information was passed orally by people who were actually present or heard the story second hand.

Certainly, Richard Fox's life overlaps Hall's quite substantially, Fox was in Paris when HT fled into France and joined his cause there.

Now Fox was prominent in Henry's court and signed Stillington's arrest warrant on the day after Bosworth.

Presumably, Henry knew who his abductors were - after all they took him from Vannes to Saint Malo, which is the north to south length of Brittany.

Kind regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 5:40:15 PM

 

Marie wrote: //snip// 1) Vergil acknowledges that HT was a prisoner in Brittany, whereas Hall writes as though he was pretty much let go where he liked. 2) Vergil has HT take sick at Saint-Malo, and his champion JeanChenlet return to Francis to plead with him not to send him to King Edward because EIV's intentions are not what he says. Hall, on the other hand, has HT take himself to Francis as soon as he hears what is planned and plead on his own behalf. 3) Vergil does not name the English ambassadors or even state how many there were, whereas Hall tells us there were three, of whom the chief was D. Stillington. I wonder, had somebody told Hall that he had seen the commssion for an embassy to Brittany at that time and that it consisted of three ambassadors including What's-his-name who later became Bishop of Bath - and then Hall assumed it was Stillington who was meant? At any rate, it seems clear that Stillington was brought into the story by Edward Hall, unless anyone can think of an intermediate Tudor source I ought check. Since Hall's source, Vergil, was so vague about the date of the embassy - sometime between Picquigny and Clarence's arrest - I don't see how Hall can be so sure which set of ambassadors were responsible because no on ever seems to have found a diplomatic commission that makes any mention of retrieving Henry Tudor, so the instructions were probalby verbal." //snip//   Doug here: Two thoughts: 1. As Hall was published in 1542, then he was describing events that occurred nearly seventy years previously so it seem unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that whatever Hall wrote about the embassy was gathered verbally, or in writing, from someone with direct knowledge of the participants; ie, they had either seen or heard the instructions for the embassy themselves. As to "how" Hall managed to conflate Stillington and Price, I must admit I'm stumped. The best I can come up with is that Hall heard from someone that "the Bishop of Bath and Wells" had been in an embassy to Brittany to retrieve HT and immediately assumed *that* Bishop (Price) to have been *his* Bishop (Stillington). If so, it doesn't say much for Hall even trying to verify his sources. and 2. Is it me or did Hall work at "punching up" HT's role? The two instances you cited show Hall moving HT from a passive to an active role in whatever was happening. Are there more that anyone knows of?  Because it looks suspiciously to me as if Hall was not adverse to re-writing events to tell his "story". Then again, maybe it *is* just me... And in case I haven't before thanked you for your research, I now do so! Doug

Re: Richard

2013-12-03 18:56:53
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"<snip> Is it me or did Hall work at "punching up" HT's role? The two instances you cited show Hall moving HT from a passive to an active role in whatever was happening. Are there more that anyone knows of? Because it looks suspiciously to me as if Hall was not adverse to re-writing events to tell his "story"."

Carol responds:

Since Edward Hall is responsible for the story that Edmund of Rutland was murdered by Lord Clifford at the age of *twelve* and for Clifford's memorable line (repeated in Shakespeare), "By God's blood, thy father slew mine and so I will do thee and all thy kin," I doubt that he (Hall) was averse to altering or expanding upon his sources whenever it suited his purpose. Much of the Tudor myth as immortalized Shakespeare's plays has its origins in Hall, either directly or as adapted by Raphael Holinshed.

Carol

Richard

2013-12-04 16:05:22
Douglas Eugene Stamate
David, Having re-read my post, I believe the cause for your misconception was the following sentence: "As Hall was published in 1542, then he was describing events that occurred nearly seventy years previously so it seem unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that whatever Hall wrote about the embassy was gathered verbally, or in writing, from someone with direct knowledge of the participants; ie, they had either seen or heard the instructions for the embassy themselves." What I was tring to say was that it was most unlikely that Hall had any primary sources for what he wrote about the events in question and therefore the accuracy of Hall's statements are in question on that basis alone. It's one thing to read the document/s setting out who and what an embassy was for, or speaking with someone who was a member of the embassy; quite another to hear at second- or thirf-hand about said embassy. Any information sourced to Fox, while it shouldn't be summarily dismissed, does (in my opinion anyway) would need to treated gingerly as Fox, a supporter of HT from *before* HT's becoming king, might very easily be biased in his reporting, verbally or in writing, of what had occurred. While it's only my opinion, I tend to think that the efforts made by HT immediately after Bosworth to gather in Stillington were because HT didn't know whether Titulus Regius was based on evidence or had merely been a ploy by Richard to validate the setting aside of his nephew/s. Also, "abductors"? I've understood that HT was in custody (for want of a better term) with the full agreement of the ruler of Brittany, or at least his representative, and that Francis (I believe it was) was fully within his rights to do so if he thought it best. At any rate, whatever it was, it wasn't an "abduction". Doug

Richard

2013-12-04 16:28:36
Douglas Eugene Stamate
Maries wrote: //snip// ")Just one thing though, the future bishop of Bath who was sent on an embassy to Brittany in 1475 was Oliver King, not Price.)" //snip// I guess your correction is the "cost" of my not re-reading my post before hitting send... Doug (who desperately hopes the British love of bad puns still exists)

Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard

2013-12-05 15:48:29
Durose David
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your clarification. I used the word abduction purely as a translation of the word used in the title of the French article. I thought it might raise an eyebrow or two, so I checked and I was also offered the word kidnap.

You are right the involvement of Stillington in 1476 (or not) may have been passed orally. I have thought of another angle, which is that in 1483 Henry would have little knowledge of Stillington - other than the embassy - but the 500 exiles that joined him, being loyal Edwardians and Woodville adherents, would have further impressed on HT during the next 2 years that the Bishop was a dangerous plotter. Couple this with the view of him that was current at the French court...

Regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Richard
Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 5:06:36 PM

 

David,   Having re-read my post, I believe the cause for your misconception was the following sentence:   "As Hall was published in 1542, then he was describing events that occurred nearly seventy years previously so it seem unlikely, although certainly not impossible, that whatever Hall wrote about the embassy was gathered verbally, or in writing, from someone with direct knowledge of the participants; ie, they had either seen or heard the instructions for the embassy themselves."   What I was tring to say was that it was most unlikely that Hall had any primary sources for what he wrote about the events in question and therefore the accuracy of Hall's statements are in question on that basis alone. It's one thing to read the document/s setting out who and what an embassy was for, or speaking with someone who was a member of the embassy; quite another to hear at second- or thirf-hand about said embassy. Any information sourced to Fox, while it shouldn't be summarily dismissed, does (in my opinion anyway) would need to treated gingerly as Fox, a supporter of HT from *before* HT's becoming king, might very easily be biased in his reporting, verbally or in writing, of what had occurred. While it's only my opinion, I tend to think that the efforts made by HT immediately after Bosworth to gather in Stillington were because HT didn't know whether Titulus Regius was based on evidence or had merely been a ploy by Richard to validate the setting aside of his nephew/s. Also, "abductors"? I've understood that HT was in custody (for want of a better term) with the full agreement of the ruler of Brittany, or at least his representative, and that Francis (I believe it was) was fully within his rights to do so if he thought it best. At any rate, whatever it was, it wasn't an "abduction". Doug

Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Richard

2013-12-05 16:41:45
justcarol67

David wrote:

"You are right the involvement of Stillington in 1476 (or not) may have been passed orally. I have thought of another angle, which is that in 1483 Henry would have little knowledge of Stillington - other than the embassy - but the 500 exiles that joined him, being loyal Edwardians and Woodville adherents, would have further impressed on HT during the next 2 years that the Bishop was a dangerous plotter. Couple this with the view of him that was current at the French court..."

Carol responds:

"Dangerous plotter"? Maybe Henry's supporters (and Henry himself) held that view after Stillington's apparent involvement in the Simnel rebellion, but I know of no evidence of his plotting in or before 1485. He was no doubt closely associated in their minds with Richard III, having participated in Richard's coronation--unless you regard Titulus Regius as a "plot" to depose Edward V so that Richard could seize the throne, which takes us back to Titulus Regius as the reason for Stillington's arrest immediately after Bosworth.

What is your evidence for the view of Stillington current at the French court? I know of no source that mentions him in unfavorable terms other than Commynes, who is writing much later and evidently bases his view of Stillington as a "bad, wicked bishop" on his view of Richard as a tyrant and usurper who murdered his nephews (or executed Buckingham for killing them!).

Carol

Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / K

2013-12-11 11:00:31
Durose David
Hi Carol,
I always regard Commynes as a special kind of source. As you say, he wrote his great work after the events, but his particular value is in his CV or resumé. He was actually at the centre of events - holding important positions in the court of Burgundy and then France. He was in a way looking over Louis XI's shoulder. He was Louis councillor and confidential secretary.

Also, the date of publication of his work is deceptive - he started writing in 1489.

He is not writing as a 'historian' using other writers' primary or secondary sources, he was an eye witness to the events that he describes. He was actually part of the embassies that he describes.

So when someone on the forum regretted that we did not have access to Louis XI's spies' reports, Commynes is the closest you will get.

His writing is different in so many ways - he was not paid by anyone. He wrote as we would describe a modern memoire after his career was over and he had no axe to grind.

So when he says something he is never copying from the writings of another person.

For those interested in the history of England his writings give small snapshots when he actually meets the people about whom he writes - especially ones in exile: Edward IV, Henry when he was shipwrecked in Brittany and again shortly before he departed for Bosworth.

I think this gives him a unique value.

There have been a number of logical fallacies pointed out on the forum - 'begging the question' springs to mind as one. The snippet that you quote from Kendall is a classic logical error or fallacy called a false dichotomy. This is where we have a given fact but the writer only considers a single cause for that fact - or only considers a single implication from that fact. (When in truth there may be many)

So when Kendall says there can only be a single explanation for the sequence of events - he is entitled to his opinion, but what he is saying is logically not true. In my opinion, the writer is putting forward the least likely of the possible explanations.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : Richard
Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 4:41:22 PM

 


David wrote:

"You are right the involvement of Stillington in 1476 (or not) may have been passed orally. I have thought of another angle, which is that in 1483 Henry would have little knowledge of Stillington - other than the embassy - but the 500 exiles that joined him, being loyal Edwardians and Woodville adherents, would have further impressed on HT during the next 2 years that the Bishop was a dangerous plotter. Couple this with the view of him that was current at the French court..."

Carol responds:

"Dangerous plotter"? Maybe Henry's supporters (and Henry himself) held that view after Stillington's apparent involvement in the Simnel rebellion, but I know of no evidence of his plotting in or before 1485. He was no doubt closely associated in their minds with Richard III, having participated in Richard's coronation--unless you regard Titulus Regius as a "plot" to depose Edward V so that Richard could seize the throne, which takes us back to Titulus Regius as the reason for Stillington's arrest immediately after Bosworth.

What is your evidence for the view of Stillington current at the French court? I know of no source that mentions him in unfavorable terms other than Commynes, who is writing much later and evidently bases his view of Stillington as a "bad, wicked bishop" on his view of Richard as a tyrant and usurper who murdered his nephews (or executed Buckingham for killing them!).

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-11 23:14:38
ricard1an

You may well be right about some of the things that Commynes wrote. However,when you say" when we have a given a fact and the writer only considers a single cause for that fact-or only considers a single implication from that fact ( When in truth there may be many)", I think that applies to every traditionalist historian/writer who has ever written about Richard III. The Princes disappeared - Richard must have murdered them. Richard took the throne by right of an Act of Parliament- Richard usurped the throne. Richard executed Hastings probably for treason - Richard executed him without a trial. There is no evidence one way or the other but for centuries we have been told that Richard was an evil tyrannical usurper in my opinion the least likely of possible explanations. I am basing this opinion on primary evidence of Richard's actions during his life as Duke of Gloucester and King. I don't know if the Princes died, were murdered or just disappeared because I have no evidence but we do have evidence for Richard being an able administrator, who was known for his justice.


Mary

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-12 00:24:03
[email protected]
Well said Mary.He was defeated only by treason.

Kathryn

--- In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> You may well be right about some of the things that Commynes wrote. However,when you say" when we have a given a fact and the writer only considers a single cause for that fact-or only considers a single implication from that fact ( When in truth there may be many)", I think that applies to every traditionalist historian/writer who has ever written about Richard III. The Princes disappeared - Richard must have murdered them. Richard took the throne by right of an Act of Parliament- Richard usurped the throne. Richard executed Hastings probably for treason - Richard executed him without a trial. There is no evidence one way or the other but for centuries we have been told that Richard was an evil tyrannical usurper in my opinion the least likely of possible explanations. I am basing this opinion on primary evidence of Richard's actions during his life as Duke of Gloucester and King. I don't know if the Princes died, were murdered or just disappeared because I have no evidence but we do have evidence for Richard being an able administrator, who was known for his justice.
>
>
> Mary
>

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-12 14:05:43
EILEEN BATES
Yes I second that....

Eileen
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Mary.He was defeated only by treason.
>
> Kathryn
>
> --- In , <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > You may well be right about some of the things that Commynes wrote. However,when you say" when we have a given a fact and the writer only considers a single cause for that fact-or only considers a single implication from that fact ( When in truth there may be many)", I think that applies to every traditionalist historian/writer who has ever written about Richard III. The Princes disappeared - Richard must have murdered them. Richard took the throne by right of an Act of Parliament- Richard usurped the throne. Richard executed Hastings probably for treason - Richard executed him without a trial. There is no evidence one way or the other but for centuries we have been told that Richard was an evil tyrannical usurper in my opinion the least likely of possible explanations. I am basing this opinion on primary evidence of Richard's actions during his life as Duke of Gloucester and King. I don't know if the Princes died, were murdered or just disappeared because I have no evidence but we do have evidence for Richard being an able administrator, who was known for his justice.
> >
> >
> > Mary
> >
>

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-12 18:48:00
justcarol67
David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 10:52:52
Hilary Jones
Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 10:53:58
Hilary Jones
Sorry 'repeal' predictive text again agh!!

On Friday, 13 December 2013, 10:52, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol



Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 11:16:33
Jessie Skinner

Thank you for that Hilary. I am now more keen than ever to read that book.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall
Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 10:52:51 AM

 

Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged.  H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 12:06:39
Hilary Jones
On this broad topic she makes one other interesting point about the October rebellions. If Yorkist supporters believed Richard had murdered the princes, then, as Yorkists, their next blood heir would have been Edward Warwick, attainted or not, not Buckingham and certainly not HT. She comes down with the view that these so-called Yorkist prince supporters were in fact disgruntled gentry and nobles who saw an opportunity and had to succeed in their rebellion or get out and defect to HT in the event of failure. H

On Friday, 13 December 2013, 11:16, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Thank you for that Hilary. I am now more keen than ever to read that book. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall
Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 10:52:51 AM

Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol



Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 13:21:20
Jonathan Evans
I've said before, I think it's an excellent book. Strong on analysis of sources and not a hint of special pleading, which gives her positive view of Richard all the more weight.

Speaking of which, there's a decent Philippa Langley interview her, which treats her with more respect than some other journalists have done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/08/philippa-langley-richard-third-car-park

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall

On this broad topic she makes one other interesting point about the October rebellions. If Yorkist supporters believed Richard had murdered the princes, then, as Yorkists, their next blood heir would have been Edward Warwick, attainted or not, not Buckingham and certainly not HT. She comes down with the view that these so-called Yorkist prince supporters were in fact disgruntled gentry and nobles who saw an opportunity and had to succeed in their rebellion or get out and defect to HT in the event of failure. H

On Friday, 13 December 2013, 11:16, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Thank you for that Hilary. I am now more keen than ever to read that book. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall
Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 10:52:51 AM

Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol





Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 13:36:28
liz williams
Makes a change. Shame about one or two of the comments though. Liz
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 13:21
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall



I've said before, I think it's an excellent book. Strong on analysis of sources and not a hint of special pleading, which gives her positive view of Richard all the more weight.

Speaking of which, there's a decent Philippa Langley interview her, which treats her with more respect than some other journalists have done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/08/philippa-langley-richard-third-car-park

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall

On this broad topic she makes one other interesting point about the October rebellions. If Yorkist supporters believed Richard had murdered the princes, then, as Yorkists, their next blood heir would have been Edward Warwick, attainted or not, not Buckingham and certainly not HT. She comes down with the view that these so-called Yorkist prince supporters were in fact disgruntled gentry and nobles who saw an opportunity and had to succeed in their rebellion or get out and defect to HT in the event of failure. H

On Friday, 13 December 2013, 11:16, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Thank you for that Hilary. I am now more keen than ever to read that book. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall
Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 10:52:51 AM

Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol









Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-13 17:08:35
Jessie Skinner

I have just bought it for my Kindle
Don't know when I'll get round to reading it though. Kinda busy at present!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android


From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall
Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 1:21:18 PM

 

I've said before, I think it's an excellent book.  Strong on analysis of sources and not a hint of special pleading, which gives her positive view of Richard all the more weight.

Speaking of which, there's a decent Philippa Langley interview her, which treats her with more respect than some other journalists have done.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/08/philippa-langley-richard-third-car-park

Jonathan


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall

  On this broad topic she makes one other interesting point about the October rebellions. If Yorkist supporters believed Richard had murdered the princes, then, as Yorkists, their next blood heir would have been Edward Warwick, attainted or not, not Buckingham and certainly not HT. She comes down with the view that these so-called Yorkist prince supporters were in fact disgruntled gentry and nobles who saw an opportunity and had to succeed in their rebellion or get out and defect to HT in the event of failure. H

On Friday, 13 December 2013, 11:16, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
  Thank you for that Hilary. I am now more keen than ever to read that book. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall
Sent: Fri, Dec 13, 2013 10:52:51 AM

  Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged.  H.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013, 18:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  David, Commynes was a witness of events in France and Burgundy, yes, so his description of, say, Picquigny, is important. But his remarks on events in England (say, his comments on Stillington) are not only biased but inaccurate and of no more worth than his assumption that Richard (or Buckingham) killed Richard's nephews. He can't even get the number of Edward IV's daughters correct. He thinks there are only two.

Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!

Carol





Top posting (Was: Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall)

2013-12-15 16:47:55
justcarol67
Carol earlier:

" <snip> Apologies for top posting and not snipping, but I'm very behind on posting!"

Carol again:

Yikes. It appears that when I top-post, the message I'm responding to disappears. Clicking on "show all messages in this topic" just takes me to unrelated messages. I've noticed the same thing in posts by other people on the forum--no way to tell whom they're addressing or which post they're responding to. Thanks, Yahoo. (And to think that the new owner of Yahoo is, IIRC, one of the richest and most tech-savvy women in the world . . . , Guess she doesn't participate in Yahoo Groups!)

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-15 17:36:22
justcarol67

Hilary wrote:


Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.
Carol responds:

But doesn't she follow Hicks in stating that Richard's marriage was invalid (the spurious argument that marrying his brother's sister-in-law constituted incest)? I've asked this question before and received no response. (My source is a review of her book in a recent Ricardian Bulletin--not the newest one, which I have not yet received.)

I ask because I think it's a mistake to view any one source as authoritative. They all have their flaws and blind spots, especially when they follow another source without doing independent research as Wilkinson seems to have done with Hicks.

Carol, who has spent too much money on Christmas presents even to consider buying a book for herself!

Carol
r


Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-15 17:54:40
Hilary Jones
Carol I did reply but it got out of order - yahoo drives me mad too!! In her book on the young Richard she misinterprets consanguinity and thinks that Richard was doing a Henry VIII, but of course he wasn't, he didn't marry his brother's widow. She certainly doesn't follow Hicks and she doesn't do that in a condemning way saying that that was Richard's only 'dark secret', not incenst or under-age sex. The princes book is much better written (see Jonathan's comments as well). It's very non-biased and objective, which means it appeals to a wider public. Like Michael Jones, she has probably done Richard marvellous service by not openly being a 'romantic admirer'. She looks at the texts and the backgrounds and like a true historian says they don't add up or they're out of step with what is proven actually happened; she does a good job on John Howard and his sacks of lime for example. From the book I'd say it's difficult to know who she supports; she's just looking at evidence. And that's what we want.BTW she can find no evidence that the princes were killed by anyone. H.

On Sunday, 15 December 2013, 17:36, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

Whilst we're on sources I really do have to commend Josephine Wilkinson (yes!) on her dissection of sources in the 'Princes in the Tower'. And she manages it without even appearing to lean towards Richard, or indeed Henry - so for once there can be no reviews claiming blinkered bias.The disection and analysis of Thomas More's work and character is particularly good. Interestingly on Stillington her theory is that Henry wanted to get him out of the way so that he could not oppose the repeal of TR. The process for appeal of an Act (so she says) is that it must be read again in Parliament and then formally repealed and destroyed. A bishop with a conscience announcing he couldn't go with this would have been a real embarrassment. In the end TR never went through this process - Henry just ordered it to be expunged. H.
Carol responds:

But doesn't she follow Hicks in stating that Richard's marriage was invalid (the spurious argument that marrying his brother's sister-in-law constituted incest)? I've asked this question before and received no response. (My source is a review of her book in a recent Ricardian Bulletin--not the newest one, which I have not yet received.)

I ask because I think it's a mistake to view any one source as authoritative. They all have their flaws and blind spots, especially when they follow another source without doing independent research as Wilkinson seems to have done with Hicks.

Carol, who has spent too much money on Christmas presents even to consider buying a book for herself!

Carol
r




Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:11:51
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

Carol I did reply but it got out of order - yahoo drives me mad too!! In her book on the young Richard she misinterprets consanguinity and thinks that Richard was doing a Henry VIII, but of course he wasn't, he didn't marry his brother's widow. She certainly doesn't follow Hicks and she doesn't do that in a condemning way saying that that was Richard's only 'dark secret', not incenst or under-age sex. The princes book is much better written (see Jonathan's comments as well). It's very non-biased and objective, which means it appeals to a wider public. Like Michael Jones, she has probably done Richard marvellous service by not openly being a 'romantic admirer'. She looks at the texts and the backgrounds and like a true historian says they don't add up or they're out of step with what is proven actually happened; she does a good job on John Howard and his sacks of lime for example. From the book I'd say it's difficult to know who she supports; she's just looking at evidence. And that's what we want.BTW she can find no evidence that the princes were killed by anyone. H.
Carol responds

Thanks, Hilary. I'm a bit confused. I thought that she had written a sequel to "Richard III: The Young King to Be." Is that different from her "Princes in the Tower" (which I see has that ghastly painting by Paul de la Roche instead of the overly romantic, pretty one by John Everett Millais on the cover--not sure which I hate worse)?

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:18:36
Hilary Jones
She did indeed start to write the sequel but found the 'princes' issue was hijacking it. So this book (called the Princes in the Tower) on that issue is a collection of her essays on the subject - and very good it is too (no saints honest, Paul). H (who also hates the pretty boy pictures)

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:11, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

Carol I did reply but it got out of order - yahoo drives me mad too!! In her book on the young Richard she misinterprets consanguinity and thinks that Richard was doing a Henry VIII, but of course he wasn't, he didn't marry his brother's widow. She certainly doesn't follow Hicks and she doesn't do that in a condemning way saying that that was Richard's only 'dark secret', not incenst or under-age sex. The princes book is much better written (see Jonathan's comments as well). It's very non-biased and objective, which means it appeals to a wider public. Like Michael Jones, she has probably done Richard marvellous service by not openly being a 'romantic admirer'. She looks at the texts and the backgrounds and like a true historian says they don't add up or they're out of step with what is proven actually happened; she does a good job on John Howard and his sacks of lime for example. From the book I'd say it's difficult to know who she supports; she's just looking at evidence. And that's what we want.BTW she can find no evidence that the princes were killed by anyone. H.
Carol responds

Thanks, Hilary. I'm a bit confused. I thought that she had written a sequel to "Richard III: The Young King to Be." Is that different from her "Princes in the Tower" (which I see has that ghastly painting by Paul de la Roche instead of the overly romantic, pretty one by John Everett Millais on the cover--not sure which I hate worse)?

Carol


Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:37:47
Hilary Jones
Going back to David's original points about HT's support, one of the things I've noticed as I meander round the gentry south of Sheffield is the lack of really tangible Yorkist support. Yes, there is Coventry/Warks held by the Nevilles, then Clarence then Hastings and a bit of Leics (Hastings again) and the far reaches of East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) but there are some regions that provided 'iffey' support like Kent (Woodvilles and Hautes), Essex (Tyrells etc), Staffs (Audley, Stanley and Staffords). Horrox always had Richard at a disadvantage because of his northern connections, but I don't discern any greater support for Edward - except for London.Now whether by accident or design, in courting London Edward had mentioned to gain the support of a quarter of the population. And help would be at hand if needed. Think of Richard's troubles in having to call for help from Yorkshire. And once Hastings is extinguished significant Midland support is gone (Richard Boughton for example was murdered whilst gathering troops in Warks to fight for Richard at Bosworth)Was Richard's big mistake that he set off on his (very laudable) progress before courting London in the same way as Edward? A clever observer like Louis XI would know that instability in the capital would significantly undermine Richard and rumours were not difficult to start. To me all this seems to spell that the Yorkists even before Richard were living on borrowed time. H

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:18, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
She did indeed start to write the sequel but found the 'princes' issue was hijacking it. So this book (called the Princes in the Tower) on that issue is a collection of her essays on the subject - and very good it is too (no saints honest, Paul). H (who also hates the pretty boy pictures)

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:11, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

Carol I did reply but it got out of order - yahoo drives me mad too!! In her book on the young Richard she misinterprets consanguinity and thinks that Richard was doing a Henry VIII, but of course he wasn't, he didn't marry his brother's widow. She certainly doesn't follow Hicks and she doesn't do that in a condemning way saying that that was Richard's only 'dark secret', not incenst or under-age sex. The princes book is much better written (see Jonathan's comments as well). It's very non-biased and objective, which means it appeals to a wider public. Like Michael Jones, she has probably done Richard marvellous service by not openly being a 'romantic admirer'. She looks at the texts and the backgrounds and like a true historian says they don't add up or they're out of step with what is proven actually happened; she does a good job on John Howard and his sacks of lime for example. From the book I'd say it's difficult to know who she supports; she's just looking at evidence. And that's what we want.BTW she can find no evidence that the princes were killed by anyone. H.
Carol responds

Thanks, Hilary. I'm a bit confused. I thought that she had written a sequel to "Richard III: The Young King to Be." Is that different from her "Princes in the Tower" (which I see has that ghastly painting by Paul de la Roche instead of the overly romantic, pretty one by John Everett Millais on the cover--not sure which I hate worse)?

Carol




Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:39:52
Hilary Jones
Sorry the Yahoo imp spell checker's been at it again. It should read Edward managed H

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:38, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Going back to David's original points about HT's support, one of the things I've noticed as I meander round the gentry south of Sheffield is the lack of really tangible Yorkist support. Yes, there is Coventry/Warks held by the Nevilles, then Clarence then Hastings and a bit of Leics (Hastings again) and the far reaches of East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) but there are some regions that provided 'iffey' support like Kent (Woodvilles and Hautes), Essex (Tyrells etc), Staffs (Audley, Stanley and Staffords). Horrox always had Richard at a disadvantage because of his northern connections, but I don't discern any greater support for Edward - except for London.Now whether by accident or design, in courting London Edward had mentioned to gain the support of a quarter of the population. And help would be at hand if needed. Think of Richard's troubles in having to call for help from Yorkshire. And once Hastings is extinguished significant Midland support is gone (Richard Boughton for example was murdered whilst gathering troops in Warks to fight for Richard at Bosworth)Was Richard's big mistake that he set off on his (very laudable) progress before courting London in the same way as Edward? A clever observer like Louis XI would know that instability in the capital would significantly undermine Richard and rumours were not difficult to start. To me all this seems to spell that the Yorkists even before Richard were living on borrowed time. H

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:18, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
She did indeed start to write the sequel but found the 'princes' issue was hijacking it. So this book (called the Princes in the Tower) on that issue is a collection of her essays on the subject - and very good it is too (no saints honest, Paul). H (who also hates the pretty boy pictures)

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:11, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

Carol I did reply but it got out of order - yahoo drives me mad too!! In her book on the young Richard she misinterprets consanguinity and thinks that Richard was doing a Henry VIII, but of course he wasn't, he didn't marry his brother's widow. She certainly doesn't follow Hicks and she doesn't do that in a condemning way saying that that was Richard's only 'dark secret', not incenst or under-age sex. The princes book is much better written (see Jonathan's comments as well). It's very non-biased and objective, which means it appeals to a wider public. Like Michael Jones, she has probably done Richard marvellous service by not openly being a 'romantic admirer'. She looks at the texts and the backgrounds and like a true historian says they don't add up or they're out of step with what is proven actually happened; she does a good job on John Howard and his sacks of lime for example. From the book I'd say it's difficult to know who she supports; she's just looking at evidence. And that's what we want.BTW she can find no evidence that the princes were killed by anyone. H.
Carol responds

Thanks, Hilary. I'm a bit confused. I thought that she had written a sequel to "Richard III: The Young King to Be." Is that different from her "Princes in the Tower" (which I see has that ghastly painting by Paul de la Roche instead of the overly romantic, pretty one by John Everett Millais on the cover--not sure which I hate worse)?

Carol






Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:42:34
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

She did indeed start to write the sequel but found the 'princes' issue was hijacking it. So this book (called the Princes in the Tower) on that issue is a collection of her essays on the subject - and very good it is too (no saints honest, Paul). H (who also hates the pretty boy pictures)

Carol responds:

Thanks again, Hilary. I'll look into buying it if the price is reasonable once I've recovered from Christmas expenses. Meanwhile, maybe Marie can write to her and straighten her out on Richard's "dark secret" (the misconception that marrying your brother's wife's sister requires a papal dispensation) before her next book comes out. That way, she would know the truth and not spread Hicks's new Richard myth any further. Or someone else who has read the books could recommend Marie's article to her as she clearly has not read it.

Carol

Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:48:04
Hilary Jones
That is a very good idea (the Marie one). If it comes out in paperback it should be quite cheap as it's quite slim. H

On Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:44, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

She did indeed start to write the sequel but found the 'princes' issue was hijacking it. So this book (called the Princes in the Tower) on that issue is a collection of her essays on the subject - and very good it is too (no saints honest, Paul). H (who also hates the pretty boy pictures)

Carol responds:

Thanks again, Hilary. I'll look into buying it if the price is reasonable once I've recovered from Christmas expenses. Meanwhile, maybe Marie can write to her and straighten her out on Richard's "dark secret" (the misconception that marrying your brother's wife's sister requires a papal dispensation) before her next book comes out. That way, she would know the truth and not spread Hicks's new Richard myth any further. Or someone else who has read the books could recommend Marie's article to her as she clearly has not read it.

Carol


Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-16 16:57:51
Jonathan Evans
Hi Carol

She was working on the second part of her biography of Richard ('From Lord of the North to King of England'), when she decided that the debate surrounding the princes was in in danger of over-shadowing the years 1483-1485. So she decided to cover it in detail via a series of essays before carrying on with the biography in order that Richard would remain the star of his own story (I think that was how she phrased it in her introduction).

You can decide for yourself whether that's a good reason or just a good way of marketing an extra publication. But, regardless of the motivation, it *is* a good book and allows her to use an approach that might either seem jarring in a conventional biography or be relegated to some disproportionately long appendices.

Personally, I think what she says makes sense. If you're not careful, the issue of the princes can dominate to such an extent that you leap from Titulus Regius to Bosworth, which, according to your interpretation of the "mystery", thereby assumes the character of "just deserts" or "tragic denouement". And that's a perspective that perhaps owes more to the moral exemplars and neat endings of Agatha Christie than a real-world understanding of how events unfold, surprise and confound.

Jonathan


From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013, 16:11
Subject: Re: Re Richard and Phillipe de Commynes / Kendall

Hilary wrote:

Carol I did reply but it got out of order - yahoo drives me mad too!! In her book on the young Richard she misinterprets consanguinity and thinks that Richard was doing a Henry VIII, but of course he wasn't, he didn't marry his brother's widow. She certainly doesn't follow Hicks and she doesn't do that in a condemning way saying that that was Richard's only 'dark secret', not incenst or under-age sex. The princes book is much better written (see Jonathan's comments as well). It's very non-biased and objective, which means it appeals to a wider public. Like Michael Jones, she has probably done Richard marvellous service by not openly being a 'romantic admirer'. She looks at the texts and the backgrounds and like a true historian says they don't add up or they're out of step with what is proven actually happened; she does a good job on John Howard and his sacks of lime for example. From the book I'd say it's difficult to know who she supports; she's just looking at evidence. And that's what we want.BTW she can find no evidence that the princes were killed by anyone. H.
Carol responds

Thanks, Hilary. I'm a bit confused. I thought that she had written a sequel to "Richard III: The Young King to Be." Is that different from her "Princes in the Tower" (which I see has that ghastly painting by Paul de la Roche instead of the overly romantic, pretty one by John Everett Millais on the cover--not sure which I hate worse)?

Carol


Re: Re [Richard III Society Forum] Richard and Phillipe de Commynes

2013-12-24 15:01:55
justcarol67

Jonathan wrote:

"She [Wilkinson] was working on the second part of her biography of Richard ('From Lord of the North to King of England'), when she decided that the debate surrounding the princes was in in danger of over-shadowing the years 1483-1485. So she decided to cover it in detail via a series of essays before carrying on with the biography in order that Richard would remain the star of his own story (I think that was how she phrased it in her introduction). [snip]

"Personally, I think what she says makes sense. If you're not careful, the issue of the princes can dominate to such an extent that you leap from Titulus Regius to Bosworth, which, according to your interpretation of the "mystery", thereby assumes the character of "just deserts" or "tragic denouement". And that's a perspective that perhaps owes more to the moral exemplars and neat endings of Agatha Christie than a real-world understanding of how events unfold, surprise and confound."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Jonathan. I see what you mean, only I'd say that the temptation is to leap from the "usurpation" to the disappearance of the "Princes" to Bosworth, forgetting Richard's reign and accomplishments (though mentioning the deaths of his wife and child as if they were just retribution for his "sins"). Anyway, I'll give her a chance, but I do hope that someone straightens her out on the matter of Richard's marriage.

Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it and peace, love, joy, and good will to all.

Carol



Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.