George of Clarence

George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
This is a question from a novice:)
Ishita

I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
bath.

Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
glorious stage villain!

Karen

From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: George of Clarence






George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
This is a question from a novice:)
Ishita

It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.

Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> bath.
>
> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> glorious stage villain!
>
> Karen
>
> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: George of Clarence
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> This is a question from a novice:)
> Ishita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> This is a question from a novice:)
> Ishita
>

Carol responds:

The theory that George knew about the precontract is just that, a theory (though I think it's a plausible one), and derives mostly from his connections with Bishop Stillington (who later revealed the precontract to Richard), and Stillington's arrest at about the same time as George's. Another theory is that Edward had finally had enough with George taking the law into his own hands, but the official charges against him don't even mention Ankarette Twynyho, the woman that George illegally executed (or, rather, had his men execute) for supposedly poisoning his wife or the man (whose name escapes me) that he had executed for poisoning his baby son. (George's mental instability seems to have intensified after his wife's death.)

Whatever Edward's reasons, you can set your mind at ease about Richard's involvement in George of Clarence's death. No contemporary chronicler makes that charge. In fact, even More implies only that his protests against George's death were insincere, not that he had any hand in killing him. Edward appointed Buckingham temporary constable so that Richard, as Constable of England, wouldn't have to sentence his own brother to death. Too bad he couldn't clear his own conscience so easily.

Carol

In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
Ishita

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
>
> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > bath.
> >
> > Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > glorious stage villain!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: George of Clarence
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > This is a question from a novice:)
> > Ishita
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks, Marie. The late 1470s are still such a long way away!

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:40:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: George of Clarence






It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s
- Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle
(devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout
his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the
details if you like. There was no trust between the two.

Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then
Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch
back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his
sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/
marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and
Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their
sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to
poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and
John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on
dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was
beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet
was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador
with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for
Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could
then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower.
But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not
included in the Act of Attainder.
The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir
probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later.
The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad
and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be
used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that
happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a
bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't
really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was
the potency of the accusation that mattered.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> bath.
>
> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> glorious stage villain!
>
> Karen
>
> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: George of Clarence
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> This is a question from a novice:)
> Ishita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
Paul

On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:

> In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> Ishita
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
>> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
>>
>> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
>> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
>> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
>> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
>>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
>>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
>>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
>>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
>>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
>>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
>>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
>>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
>>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
>>> bath.
>>>
>>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
>>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
>>> glorious stage villain!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
>>> To: <>
>>> Subject: George of Clarence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
>>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
>>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
>>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
>>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
>>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
>>> This is a question from a novice:)
>>> Ishita
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

>
> Carol responds:
>
> The theory that George knew about the precontract is just that, a theory (though I think it's a plausible one), and derives mostly from his connections with Bishop Stillington (who later revealed the precontract to Richard), and Stillington's arrest at about the same time as George's.

The sticking point for me with this theory is that Stillington wasn't arrested until two or three weeks AFTER Clarence's execution. Is it not more likely that Stillington had criticized the King for executing his brother, or confided in a third party about the precontract after Clarence was dead?
Marie





Another theory is that Edward had finally had enough with George taking the law into his own hands, but the official charges against him don't even mention Ankarette Twynyho, the woman that George illegally executed (or, rather, had his men execute) for supposedly poisoning his wife or the man (whose name escapes me) that he had executed for poisoning his baby son. (George's mental instability seems to have intensified after his wife's death.)


The Act of Attainder vry much gives the impression that Edward's problem with George was that he thought he was actively plotting to destroy him. Ankarette Twynyho was not entirely forgotten, as her grandson and heir got her convication overturned by the same parliament, but it didn't neatly fit into the overall picture Edward was painting in the Attainder of a man trying to mobilize the country to bring him down.
Marie




>
> Whatever Edward's reasons, you can set your mind at ease about Richard's involvement in George of Clarence's death. No contemporary chronicler makes that charge. In fact, even More implies only that his protests against George's death were insincere, not that he had any hand in killing him. Edward appointed Buckingham temporary constable so that Richard, as Constable of England, wouldn't have to sentence his own brother to death. Too bad he couldn't clear his own conscience so easily.
>
> Carol
>

Well, I think it does make sense. He now knew for sure that Clarence was never ever going to be reconciled, and saw him as a present and dangerous threat. This is just a snatch from the Act:-

"... And so to putte it in noyse in hertes of the people he saide and laboured also to be noysed by suche his servauntes apte for that werk that the Kyng oure Souereigne lorde Wroght by nygromancye and used crafte to poyson his subgettes suche as hym pleased to th'entent to desclaundre the Kyng in the moost haynous wyse he couth in the sight and conceipt of his subgettes, and therfore to encorage theym to hate, despice and aggrugge theire hertes agaynst hym, thynkyng that he ne lived ne dealid with his subgettes as a Christien prynce.
And overe this the said Duke, beyng in full purpose to exalte hym self and his heirez to the regallye and corone of Englande and clerely in opinion to putte aside from the same for ever the said corone from the Kyng and his heirez, uppon oon the falsest and moost vnnaturall colour[e &] pretense that man myght imagyne, falsely and untruely noysed, publisshed and saide that the Kyng oure sovereigne lorde was a bastard and not beg[o]ttinne to reigne uppon vs.
And, to contynue and procede ferther in this his moost malicious and traytorous purpose, after this lothely, false and sedicious langage shewed and declared amonges the people, he enduced dyverse of the Kynges naturall subgettes to be sworne uppon the Blessed Sacrament to be true to hym and his heires, noon ex[c]epcion reserved of the[i]re liegeaunce.
And, after the same othe soo made, he shewed to many other, and to certayn persones that suche othe[s] had made, that the Kyng had taken his lifelode from hym and his men and disheryed theym, and he wold utterly endevoire hym to gete hem theire enheritaunce as he wolde doo for his owen.
He showed also that the Kyng entended to consume hym in like wyse as a candell consumeth in brennyng...."

One mad-as-hell king. Nobody spoke out against it in parliament, including Richard, but who would have dared? One of the charges against Clarence - that he had caused his men to take an oath to him without excepting their allegiance to the King - was also true of Richard. A few years back Tony Pollard apparently found the text of such an oath administered by Richard in 1477 to followers in County Durham. This is the level of family crisis to which Edward's refusal to protect their sister in Burgundy had brought them.
That is, of course, not to say that Richard did not privately plead for Clarence's life. It was the general opinion at the time that he had been very much against his execution. And as ?Carol has already pointed out, he evidently refused to pass the death sentence although that office properly belonged to him.
Michael K. Jones' book is actually extremely good on the crisis of 1477 with regard to Burgundy, and the effect it had on Clarence and Richard and Richard; ironically, it may have brought them closer together.
Marie

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> Ishita
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> > Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> >
> > Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> > Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> > The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> > Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > > aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > > treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > > something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > > originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > > in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > > precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > > Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > > know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > > for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > > bath.
> > >
> > > Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > > to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > > glorious stage villain!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: George of Clarence
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > > not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > > Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > > are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > > drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > > that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > > This is a question from a novice:)
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
> Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
> And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
> Paul
>
> On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
>
> > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> > Ishita
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> >>
> >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> >> Marie
> >>
> >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> >>> bath.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> >>> glorious stage villain!
> >>>
> >>> Karen
> >>>
> >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> >>> Reply-To: <>
> >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> >>> To: <>
> >>> Subject: George of Clarence
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> >>> This is a question from a novice:)
> >>> Ishita
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

It would be odd, really, wouldn't it, if Elizabeth Woodville hadn't wanted rid of Clarence, given that her own future and that of her children depended on Edward remaining king.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
> > Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
> > And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
> >
> > > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> > > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> > >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> > >>
> > >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> > >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> > >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> > >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> > >> Marie
> > >>
> > >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > >>> bath.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > >>> glorious stage villain!
> > >>>
> > >>> Karen
> > >>>
> > >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > >>> Reply-To: <>
> > >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > >>> To: <>
> > >>> Subject: George of Clarence
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > >>> This is a question from a novice:)
> > >>> Ishita
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Very odd indeed Marie....I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall the day the news reached La Woodville's ears that her marriage was illegal (who would have broken it to her...Edward?)..and furthermore, that Clarence of all people knew the truth. By gad! I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for Edward...the old lecher...And strange to think, it could have been this news, once maybe music to Clarence's ears that would have maybe been his death sentence. Poor old Clarence....I quite like him...Im sure he had some good traits..somewhere . Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> It would be odd, really, wouldn't it, if Elizabeth Woodville hadn't wanted rid of Clarence, given that her own future and that of her children depended on Edward remaining king.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
> > > Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
> > > And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
> > >
> > > > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> > > > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> > > >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> > > >>
> > > >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> > > >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> > > >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> > > >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> > > >> Marie
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > > >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > > >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > > >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > > >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > > >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > > >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > > >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > > >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > > >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > > >>> bath.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > > >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > > >>> glorious stage villain!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Karen
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > > >>> Reply-To: <>
> > > >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > > >>> To: <>
> > > >>> Subject: George of Clarence
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > > >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > > >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > > >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > > >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > > >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > > >>> This is a question from a novice:)
> > > >>> Ishita
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Dear George! What a complex character. I find myself wondering on how Cecily felt about her son's impending death....Was she in London at the time? How did she react towards Edward? Not many mothers have faced the dilemma she did....Did she accept George's fate? Did she plead with Edward? Could Edward have stopped it in any case as my understanding is that Parliament interceded and demanded that the execution take place??...Even the method of George's demise remains a secret....His daughter Margaret is wearing a little butt on her bracelet in her portrait...Does this prove the legend is true....
Poor old George...Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Very odd indeed Marie....I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall the day the news reached La Woodville's ears that her marriage was illegal (who would have broken it to her...Edward?)..and furthermore, that Clarence of all people knew the truth. By gad! I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for Edward...the old lecher...And strange to think, it could have been this news, once maybe music to Clarence's ears that would have maybe been his death sentence. Poor old Clarence....I quite like him...Im sure he had some good traits..somewhere . Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It would be odd, really, wouldn't it, if Elizabeth Woodville hadn't wanted rid of Clarence, given that her own future and that of her children depended on Edward remaining king.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
> > > > Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
> > > > And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> > > > > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> > > > >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> > > > >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> > > > >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> > > > >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> > > > >> Marie
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > > > >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > > > >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > > > >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > > > >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > > > >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > > > >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > > > >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > > > >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > > > >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > > > >>> bath.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > > > >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > > > >>> glorious stage villain!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Karen
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > > > >>> Reply-To: <>
> > > > >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > > > >>> To: <>
> > > > >>> Subject: George of Clarence
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > > > >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > > > >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > > > >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > > > >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > > > >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > > > >>> This is a question from a novice:)
> > > > >>> Ishita
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen, I have been musing about Cecily's reactions too.... How must she have felt that three of her grown sons dying violently...... As a mom I can't think of anything more horrible can happen to a mom...... And having to go through it again and again....
Do we know why she did not come to Riii's coronation or how she felt about his taking the throne? How did she react to Henry VII's usurpation? So
Many questions:)


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Dear George! What a complex character. I find myself wondering on how Cecily felt about her son's impending death....Was she in London at the time? How did she react towards Edward? Not many mothers have faced the dilemma she did....Did she accept George's fate? Did she plead with Edward? Could Edward have stopped it in any case as my understanding is that Parliament interceded and demanded that the execution take place??...Even the method of George's demise remains a secret....His daughter Margaret is wearing a little butt on her bracelet in her portrait...Does this prove the legend is true....
> Poor old George...Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Very odd indeed Marie....I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall the day the news reached La Woodville's ears that her marriage was illegal (who would have broken it to her...Edward?)..and furthermore, that Clarence of all people knew the truth. By gad! I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for Edward...the old lecher...And strange to think, it could have been this news, once maybe music to Clarence's ears that would have maybe been his death sentence. Poor old Clarence....I quite like him...Im sure he had some good traits..somewhere . Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It would be odd, really, wouldn't it, if Elizabeth Woodville hadn't wanted rid of Clarence, given that her own future and that of her children depended on Edward remaining king.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
> > > > > Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
> > > > > And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> > > > > > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> > > > > > Ishita
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> > > > > >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> > > > > >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> > > > > >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> > > > > >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> > > > > >> Marie
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > > > > >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > > > > >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > > > > >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > > > > >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > > > > >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > > > > >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > > > > >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > > > > >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > > > > >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > > > > >>> bath.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > > > > >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > > > > >>> glorious stage villain!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Karen
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > > > > >>> Reply-To: <>
> > > > > >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > > > > >>> To: <>
> > > > > >>> Subject: George of Clarence
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > > > > >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > > > > >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > > > > >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > > > > >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > > > > >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > > > > >>> This is a question from a novice:)
> > > > > >>> Ishita
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (13)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 2 New Files 2

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Dear George! What a complex character. I find myself wondering on how Cecily felt about her son's impending death....Was she in London at the time? How did she react towards Edward? Not many mothers have faced the dilemma she did....Did she accept George's fate? Did she plead with Edward? Could Edward have stopped it in any case as my understanding is that Parliament interceded and demanded that the execution take place??...Even the method of George's demise remains a secret....His daughter Margaret is wearing a little butt on her bracelet in her portrait...Does this prove the legend is true....
> Poor old George...Eileen

Carol responds:

I'm not sure how I feel about George. It seems that Edward sensed some sort of inadequacy in him when he started assigning offices with real responsibility to Richard but gave George only lands and titles. I recall reading that Cecily came out of her seclusion at Berkampstead Abbey to plead for George's life (despite his having called Edward a bastard, implying her unfaithfulness to Richard Duke of York), but I can't recall the source for that claim. I think that Edward could have stopped George's execution by not referring the matter to Parliament in the first place, but perhaps he wanted to share the blame. (At least, he spared Richard from taking part in it by giving the role of constable to Buckingham, who had, I suspect, no qualms at all about George's execution based on his subsequent conduct.)

It seems clear that George's daughter believed the legend of the butt of malmsey, but she was raised for awhile in the home of Margaret Beaufort, along with her brother Edward before he was moved to the Tower. (Side note: I suspect that Henry Tudor's treatment of little Edward of Warwick contributed to the notion that Richard had "imprisoned" his other nephews in the Tower. Edward of Warwick certainly *was* a prisoner, apparently not having so much as a tutor to keep him company if the remark about geese and capons has any basis.)

Carol

Ishita...I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...

Not only did Cecily have to cope with the deaths of her sons but also the imprisonment of her grandson Edward of Warwick in the Tower by the Weasle..which ended in his execution.

Whether she knew the fate of her two other grandsons, Edward and Richard....a mystery...

I believe Cecily's faith helped her and keep her sane...Eileen

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I have been musing about Cecily's reactions too.... How must she have felt that three of her grown sons dying violently...... As a mom I can't think of anything more horrible can happen to a mom...... And having to go through it again and again....
> Do we know why she did not come to Riii's coronation or how she felt about his taking the throne? How did she react to Henry VII's usurpation? So
> Many questions:)
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear George! What a complex character. I find myself wondering on how Cecily felt about her son's impending death....Was she in London at the time? How did she react towards Edward? Not many mothers have faced the dilemma she did....Did she accept George's fate? Did she plead with Edward? Could Edward have stopped it in any case as my understanding is that Parliament interceded and demanded that the execution take place??...Even the method of George's demise remains a secret....His daughter Margaret is wearing a little butt on her bracelet in her portrait...Does this prove the legend is true....
> > Poor old George...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Very odd indeed Marie....I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall the day the news reached La Woodville's ears that her marriage was illegal (who would have broken it to her...Edward?)..and furthermore, that Clarence of all people knew the truth. By gad! I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for Edward...the old lecher...And strange to think, it could have been this news, once maybe music to Clarence's ears that would have maybe been his death sentence. Poor old Clarence....I quite like him...Im sure he had some good traits..somewhere . Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would be odd, really, wouldn't it, if Elizabeth Woodville hadn't wanted rid of Clarence, given that her own future and that of her children depended on Edward remaining king.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
> > > > > > Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
> > > > > > And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
> > > > > > > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
> > > > > > > Ishita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
> > > > > > >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
> > > > > > >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
> > > > > > >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
> > > > > > >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
> > > > > > >> Marie
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
> > > > > > >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
> > > > > > >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
> > > > > > >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
> > > > > > >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
> > > > > > >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
> > > > > > >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
> > > > > > >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
> > > > > > >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
> > > > > > >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
> > > > > > >>> bath.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
> > > > > > >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
> > > > > > >>> glorious stage villain!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Karen
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > >>> Reply-To: <>
> > > > > > >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
> > > > > > >>> To: <>
> > > > > > >>> Subject: George of Clarence
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
> > > > > > >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
> > > > > > >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
> > > > > > >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
> > > > > > >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
> > > > > > >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
> > > > > > >>> This is a question from a novice:)
> > > > > > >>> Ishita
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (13)
> > RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 2 New Files 2
>
>
>
>

When you just think about it....it must have been just a ghastly time....I cannot imagine a mother would not plead for her son's life if it were in another son's power to save it even if the sentence were justifiable. That it had no effect....what a dreadful dark shadow hovering over a family. How they moved on from that...If they ever did. Eileen


-
>. I recall reading that Cecily came out of her seclusion at Berkampstead Abbey to plead for George's life

Not that old a lecher...

Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, November 5, 2012 2:55 PM
>Subject: Re: George of Clarence
>
>
> 
>Very odd indeed Marie....I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall the day the news reached La Woodville's ears that her marriage was illegal (who would have broken it to her...Edward?)..and furthermore, that Clarence of all people knew the truth. By gad! I almost, but not quite, feel sorry for Edward...the old lecher...And strange to think, it could have been this news, once maybe music to Clarence's ears that would have maybe been his death sentence. Poor old Clarence....I quite like him...Im sure he had some good traits..somewhere . Eileen
>
>--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It would be odd, really, wouldn't it, if Elizabeth Woodville hadn't wanted rid of Clarence, given that her own future and that of her children depended on Edward remaining king.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Paul...I agree...I wonder as well if he had the old trouble and strife nagging in his earhole...My understanding is that Clarence had heard about the pre-contract...If he was talking a little too much and it got back to La Woodville, as it would, then he would be in deep deep trouble...Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > First of all he accused Ankarette Twynhoe one of his late wife's ladies of poisoning her, then dragged her and her husband out and hanged them. Not only immoral but illegal. Then he charged into a council meeting telling them that their conviction of his follower Burdett for necromancy was illegal and wrong. Basically he was taking the kings justice into his own hands. Treason. Then he raised forces, ordering them 'to be ready to levy war against the king' and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. He also accused Edward of using the Black Arts against his subjects.
>> > > Treason in many ways. Edward had, after previous treasons, had had enough. Frankly I don't blame him.
>> > > And yes it is on record that Richard pleaded with the king for his other brother's life, but to no avail this time. Sources Mancini and Croyland.
>> > > Paul
>> > >
>> > > On 5 Nov 2012, at 16:53, bandyoi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In my modest understanding, if Edward wanted to execute Clarence, he should and could have done it after his rebellion with Warwick. It would make sense to me. He called Edward a bastard then too. To wait for 8 years and then killing him makes no sense.....
>> > > > So there is no concrete contemporary source to indicate the reasons other than Clarence's bizarre and ill fated behaviors? Did Richard speak out against this?
>> > > > Ishita
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
>> > > >> Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the 1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle (devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/ marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son.
>> > > >> Edward retaliated by having Clarence's retainer Thomas Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
>> > > >> The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later. The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
>> > > >> Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was the potency of the accusation that mattered.
>> > > >> Marie
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I don't understand either, Ishita. The reasons behind the treason charges
>> > > >>> aren't all that clear. That Edward allowed his brother to be executed for
>> > > >>> treason is a difficult thing to come to terms with. It appears that it was
>> > > >>> something he came to regret. My understanding is that the charges were
>> > > >>> originally civil. There's been a suggestion that he kept a letter naming him
>> > > >>> in the Lancastrian succession. Others have thought he knew about the
>> > > >>> precontract, reasoning that he got this information from Warwick. But had
>> > > >>> Warwick known about it, he'd have used it against Edward. If Clarence did
>> > > >>> know, he learned it from a different source. There's no concrete evidence
>> > > >>> for either of these ideas. It's possible that Clarence was drowned in his
>> > > >>> bath.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Maybe Shakespeare's audience neither took his words at face value or stopped
>> > > >>> to think about what might not be true, but just sat back and enjoyed a
>> > > >>> glorious stage villain!
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Karen
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@>
>> > > >>> Reply-To: <>
>> > > >>> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:41:38 -0000
>> > > >>> To: <>
>> > > >>> Subject: George of Clarence
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> George has always been a thorn to Edward and Richard's side but I still do
>> > > >>> not understand why finally Edward had him killed...... Is it true that
>> > > >>> Clarence knew about the per contract and that's why was executed or there
>> > > >>> are any other reasons?According to Shakespeare Richard had him
>> > > >>> drowned....... With a king around how Richard could do it , is something
>> > > >>> that his audience never thought about seems odd to say the least!
>> > > >>> This is a question from a novice:)
>> > > >>> Ishita
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
Paul


On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:

> .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...

Richard Liveth Yet!

It must be remembered, too, that Cecily was by this time living as a Benedictine, so she she would have been discreet in her appearances.

Judy

 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: George of Clarence


 
But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
Paul

On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:

> .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...

Richard Liveth Yet!

Of course its certainly possible that Cecily was there although her name has not been noted down. Did not the Weasle and his mother watch Elizabeth of York's coronation from behind a screen. And Judy...are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? Interesting point....Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> It must be remembered, too, that Cecily was by this time living as a Benedictine, so she she would have been discreet in her appearances.
>
> Judy
>
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:36 AM
> Subject: Re: George of Clarence
>
>
>  
> But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
> Paul
>
> On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:
>
> > .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Of course its certainly possible that Cecily was there although her name has not been noted down. Did not the Weasle and his mother watch Elizabeth of York's coronation from behind a screen.

Indeed. I referred to this earlier, wondering if Cecily and Anne Beauchamp may have been absent because that was actually the proper protocol. The herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation makes it clear that Henry and his mother were only able to attend the banquet by virtue of being screened off and invisible. My question is whether the proper protocol was for members of the family senior to those being crowned to stay away. To answer that, though, would mean looking in detail at the records for other coronations.
Marie



And Judy...are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? Interesting point....Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > It must be remembered, too, that Cecily was by this time living as a Benedictine, so she she would have been discreet in her appearances.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: George of Clarence
> >
> >
> >  
> > But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Think she was at my stag-do.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? ....Eileen

Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Of course its certainly possible that Cecily was there although her name has not been noted down. Did not the Weasle and his mother watch Elizabeth of York's coronation from behind a screen.

Marie responded:
> Indeed. I referred to this earlier, wondering if Cecily and Anne Beauchamp may have been absent because that was actually the proper protocol. The herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation makes it clear that Henry and his mother were only able to attend the banquet by virtue of being screened off and invisible. My question is whether the proper protocol was for members of the family senior to those being crowned to stay away. To answer that, though, would mean looking in detail at the records for other coronations.

Carol adds:

It might be parents and spouses rather than senior family members since Richard's older sister, Eliza, Duchess of Suffolk, walked by herself in state in the procession. (Obviously, Margaret could not have come from Burgundy on such short notice, and Richard's other sister, Anne, was dead.) But, IIRC, there was some such protocol for funerals as well as coronations. It would be an interesting topic to investigate for anyone with the time and resources.

Carol

I don't think that Richard could even have attended Anne's funeral...well not openly anyway...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course its certainly possible that Cecily was there although her name has not been noted down. Did not the Weasle and his mother watch Elizabeth of York's coronation from behind a screen.
>
> Indeed. I referred to this earlier, wondering if Cecily and Anne Beauchamp may have been absent because that was actually the proper protocol. The herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation makes it clear that Henry and his mother were only able to attend the banquet by virtue of being screened off and invisible. My question is whether the proper protocol was for members of the family senior to those being crowned to stay away. To answer that, though, would mean looking in detail at the records for other coronations.
> Marie
>
>
>
> And Judy...are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? Interesting point....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It must be remembered, too, that Cecily was by this time living as a Benedictine, so she she would have been discreet in her appearances.
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > >  
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:36 AM
> > > Subject: Re: George of Clarence
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:
> > >
> > > > .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I'm told she became Benedictine, post coronation. 

Unless she was dress-rehearsing, of course.... :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: George of Clarence


 


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Of course its certainly possible that Cecily was there although her name has not been noted down. Did not the Weasle and his mother watch Elizabeth of York's coronation from behind a screen.

Indeed. I referred to this earlier, wondering if Cecily and Anne Beauchamp may have been absent because that was actually the proper protocol. The herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation makes it clear that Henry and his mother were only able to attend the banquet by virtue of being screened off and invisible. My question is whether the proper protocol was for members of the family senior to those being crowned to stay away. To answer that, though, would mean looking in detail at the records for other coronations.
Marie

And Judy...are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? Interesting point....Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > It must be remembered, too, that Cecily was by this time living as a Benedictine, so she she would have been discreet in her appearances.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: George of Clarence
> >
> >
> >  
> > But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You had a nun at your stag-do? How naughty of you...I suspect you blamed it on your mates though....:0)

--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> Think she was at my stag-do.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? ....Eileen
>

Eileen, why could not Richard have attended Anne's funeral?
What about the"rumor" that he cried at her funeral? Time travel seems to be the only way.....
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 7, 2012, at 4:07 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> I don't think that Richard could even have attended Anne's funeral...well not openly anyway...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course its certainly possible that Cecily was there although her name has not been noted down. Did not the Weasle and his mother watch Elizabeth of York's coronation from behind a screen.
> >
> > Indeed. I referred to this earlier, wondering if Cecily and Anne Beauchamp may have been absent because that was actually the proper protocol. The herald's account of Elizabeth of York's coronation makes it clear that Henry and his mother were only able to attend the banquet by virtue of being screened off and invisible. My question is whether the proper protocol was for members of the family senior to those being crowned to stay away. To answer that, though, would mean looking in detail at the records for other coronations.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > And Judy...are you saying that Cecily could have been dressed as a nun? Interesting point....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It must be remembered, too, that Cecily was by this time living as a Benedictine, so she she would have been discreet in her appearances.
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:36 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: George of Clarence
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But then again we do not know that she wasn't there, and having had him living in her house during the crisis weeks I doubt she would not have gone had she been able to. Perhaps like Margaret Beaufort at the Weasel's crowning, she stayed hidden away. As her husband would have been crowned Richard III had he become king, perhaps the sight of her son becoming Richard III was too much for her, or else a very proud moment. I like to think it the latter. Sometimes he could be so like his father!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:23, EileenB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > .I think I can reliably say that it is not known if Cecily went to Richard's Coronation ...something I find a tad worrying...
> > > >
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

on Monday, November 05, 2012 10:40 AM, Marie wrote:

"It is hard to understand, but less so if you drill down into the detail.
Clarence was probably the intended beneficiary of all the plots of the
1470s - Archbishop Neville & the de Veres. You can see Edward using subtle
(devious if you prefer) means to minimise Clarence's power base throughout
his second reign - there's a good article on the subject; I can dig out the
details if you like. There was no trust between the two.
Then early in 1477 it all ratcheted up. Isabel and her baby died, then
Charles of Burgundy was killed and King Louis of Frnce prepared to snatch
back the Burgundian domains. Edward refused to do anything to help his
sister Margaret, Charles' widow, for fear of losing the French pension/
marriage. He vetoed suggested foreign marriages for Clarence. Clarence and
Gloucester were both frustrated and angry at Edward's refusal to help their
sister. Clarence stopped eating at court, claiming Edward was trying to
poison him, then went home for Easter and strung up Ankarette Twynyho and
John Thoresby for poisoning his wife and son. Edward retaliated by having
Clarence's retainer Thomas
Burdet strung up on dubious charges of plotting with the king's own
astrologers. Clarence was beside himself with rage, went round the country
telling people that Burdet was innocent and the King was a bastard. Then
Louis sent over an ambassador with the "information" that Clarence and
Margaret had plotted together for Clarence to marry Mary of Burgundy only in
order that the pair of them could then seize the English throne. Clarence
was arrested and flung in the Tower. But it was still not clear he would be
executed, and Louis' claim was not included in the Act of Attainder.
The copy of the Lancastrian Act naming Clarence as King Henry's heir
probably came to light when his goods were seized a couple of months later.
The imprisoned Clarence also tried to get his son and heir smuggled abroad
and replaced with another little boy, allegedly so that his son could be
used as the figurehead of a rebellion launched from Ireland or Burgundy.
Just which thing it was that tipped Edward over the edge, and when that
happened, is not at all clear. The claim that Edward IV himself was a
bastard was if anything even more dangerous than the precontract. It doesn't
really matter whether he was or not - there were no DNA tests anyway. It was
the potency of the accusation that mattered."

First off, thank you for such a detailed answer. Even though we're lacking
direct sources providing intent (letters, Act of Parliament, etc), your
first paragraph bolsters my original thought that the MAJOR reason behind
Edward's removing control of her property from the hands of the Countess was
for his OWN defense (or"defence"[grin]).
I find it extremely interesting in your third paragraph where you mention
that the French king sent information to Edward that his brother and sister
(George and Margaret) had plotted to have George marry his niece Mary(!!!)
and then take the throne from Edward! I had never seen this before.
I definitely need to get my hands on a couple of good, detailed histories of
the WoTR; can you recommend any?
Thanks again,
Doug
(I included the DTG as this is in reply to your message from five days ago)

Paul wrote:


//snip//"...and began spreading tales that Edward was a bastard and his
marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid."//snip

It couldvery well have been something on the order of "A bastard son by a
bastard father" during one of George's rants, but Edward, knowing the facts,
might view such remaks in a very different light!
Doug

Again, Yahoo won't let me respond directly to a post.

Doug wrote:
<snip>
I find it extremely interesting in your third paragraph where you mention that the French king sent information to Edward that his brother and sister (George and Margaret) had plotted to have George marry his niece Mary(!!!) and then take the throne from Edward! I had never seen this before. <snip>

Carol responds:

Just a small point: Mary was not George's niece, at least not by blood. Margaret was childless. Mary was her stepdaughter, the daughter of Margaret's late husband, Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by his first wife. Margaret probably had no intention of having George take the throne from Edward; she was just trying to help her brother find what she considered a suitable marriage (though Mary herself did not). George, however, probably did have such intentions. But Louis, being the Spider that he was, would have placed it in the worst light.

It reminds me of Philip the (un)Fair's message to Prince John telling him that John's brother, Richard I had escaped from prison: "Look to yourself. The devil is loose!" Another French king interfering between an English king and his brother for his own ends.

Carol