"Historum" discussion about Richard

Short discussion about Richard's reforms here on Historum discussion list (wish they'd come over here):

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/50397-richard-iii-legal-judicial-political-reformer.html

Talked about a couple of things I'd never heard before, including:

"The landowners and nobles before Richard was able to to make new laws
of Justice were able to exact fines from the common people before they
were found guilty. If prisoners gave the Sheriff more money their
sentence was more lenient.

"He was very fair to the poor, and this annoyed the Nobles and was why
he was brought and sold by Reynold Bray a man who had worked hard to
convince the lords that Henry would be their man on behalf of Margaret
Beaufort."


Who the heck was Reynold Bray?

And further:

"A lot of good things that he had done were unrecognized and have been
left untold. He was well loved by the people who knew him, as much as
the people in the north knew him best."

I wish we could know those untold stories passed from generation to generation by those people of the north.

Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so, that's got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of a Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died.

~Wednesday

Wednesday said:

"Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so, that's
got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of a
Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "

Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460. This
might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd certainly
not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.

Karen

From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a
possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry
Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy
himself.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Wednesday said:
>
> "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
> impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,
> that's
> got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of
> a
> Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
> so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
>
> Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.
> This
> might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
> Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd
> certainly
> not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>

Northumberland was killed by commoners not only because they were loyal to Richard's memory, but because of the huge taxes he was collecting on behalf of Henry Tudor.
Salisbury was killed in the battle of Wakefield alongside his cousin York. Don't know where you got the killed by commoners idea from!
Paul


On 12 Dec 2012, at 02:22, Karen Clark wrote:

> Wednesday said:
>
> "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
> impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so, that's
> got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of a
> Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
> so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
>
> Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460. This
> might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
> Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd certainly
> not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, his policies in the north were a bit like a Tory government acting against the vested interests of the bankers, they sooner or later would turn round and take their revenge.

Reynold Bray was a confidant of Margaret Beaufort, who rose to power along with Henry. He had remained in England and was organising funds for Tudor supporters in England during Richard's reign, while also getting news and letters across the Channel. He became Henry's intimate confident, and his financial wizard.
It is said that 'All roads led to Bray' , and it is said he was the only man who could disagree with the king, who trusted him implicitly as did the king's mother.
Paul

On 12 Dec 2012, at 02:09, wednesday_mc wrote:

>
>
> "The landowners and nobles before Richard was able to to make new laws
> of Justice were able to exact fines from the common people before they
> were found guilty. If prisoners gave the Sheriff more money their
> sentence was more lenient.
>
> "He was very fair to the poor, and this annoyed the Nobles and was why
> he was brought and sold by Reynold Bray a man who had worked hard to
> convince the lords that Henry would be their man on behalf of Margaret
> Beaufort."
>
>
> Who the heck was Reynold Bray?
>


Richard Liveth Yet!

Ah, Sir John Egremont!


--- In , "gillian.laughton1" <gillian.laughton1@...> wrote:
>
> From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a
> possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry
> Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy
> himself.
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Wednesday said:
> >
> > "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
> > impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,
> > that's
> > got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of
> > a
> > Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
> > so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
> >
> > Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.
> > This
> > might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
> > Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd
> > certainly
> > not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Paul wrote:
<snip>
> Reynold Bray was a confidant of Margaret Beaufort, who rose to power along with Henry. He had remained in England and was organising funds for Tudor supporters in England during Richard's reign, while also getting news and letters across the Channel. He became Henry's intimate confident, and his financial wizard.
> It is said that 'All roads led to Bray' , and it is said he was the only man who could disagree with the king, who trusted him implicitly as did the king's mother.

Carol responds:

Wednesday, you may have heard Reynold Bray referred to as Reginald Bray. As Paul said, he was one of the plotters against Richard. He helped to organize the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. Richard made the mistake of pardoning him. He continued to support Tudor and may have been with him in exile. Henry knighted him soon after Bosworth, which suggests that he fought there for Henry, who also made him chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Carol

Illegitimate son of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont.

Oxford DNB Biography

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57620?docPos=1





________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 0:39
Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard


 
Ah, Sir John Egremont!

--- In , "gillian.laughton1" <gillian.laughton1@...> wrote:
>
> From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a
> possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry
> Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy
> himself.
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Wednesday said:
> >
> > "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
> > impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,
> > that's
> > got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of
> > a
> > Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
> > so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
> >
> > Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.
> > This
> > might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
> > Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd
> > certainly
> > not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Article for those who can't access DNB:

Egremont, Sir John (b. 1459?, d. in or after 1505), rebel, was the son of Thomas Percy (14221460), the second son of Henry Percy, second earl of Northumberland, who had been created Lord Egremont on 20 November 1449 and was killed on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460. Thomas Percy is not known to have married, and although John regarded himself as his heir he never inherited the barony, which, with his use of the surname Egremont, suggests that his legitimacy was disputed. He was probably born in 1459, making him twenty-one in 1480 when he released his rights in one of his father's grants; this is the only occasion when their relationship is made explicit. By the mid-1470s, when Egremont was already a knight, he was apparently in the service of his kinsman, the earl of Northumberland, at Leconfield. In 1478 he was granted £20 by Edward IV by way of reward and in 1480 was given an annuity of £20. Richard III
gave him an annuity of £40, which was the usual fee of a knight of the body, and he was described as the king's servant in March 1484 when he was granted Kempston, Bedfordshire, for his good service against the rebels in the previous year.

By May 1486 Egremont had transferred his service to Henry VII, who granted him an annuity of 40 marks from the forfeited lands of Viscount Lovell. Egremont may have hoped for his restoration to his father's barony by the new dynasty. In February 1488 he styled himself John Egremont, Lord Egremont. Restoration, however, was not forthcoming, and in 1489 Egremont rebelled. The rising, which led to the death of his cousin Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, took place against a background of dissatisfaction with heavy royal taxation. Many writers have also seen a lingering loyalty to Richard III's memory in the unrest. Egremont, however, may have had more personal motives, if, as seems probable, Northumberland had refused him his father's land.

The unrest began at Ayton in Cleveland on 20 April 1489, under the leadership of the yeoman Robert Chamber(d. 1489), rebel, of Ayton, whom Tudor chroniclers, perhaps in confusion with a Percy servant of the same name, were later to call John à Chamber. On 28 April Chamber's men confronted and killed Northumberland at Cock Lodge in the earl's park at Topcliffe, near Thirsk. The Cleveland insurgents then joined forces with Egremont, who was at the head of rebels from the North and East Ridings, and they advanced as far south as Doncaster before falling back to York. A faction within the city opened its gates to them on 15 May. By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels. Egremont had already gone north to try and raise more men in Richmondshire and was able to make his escape to the court of Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, at Mechelen near Brussels. Chamber
was among those tried by a commission of oyer and terminer which sat in York at the end of the month and was hanged.

By 1492 Egremont had made his peace with Henry VII and had returned to England. The minority of his kinsman the fifth earl of Northumberland evidently brought him greater recognition as one of the Percy family. In October 1493 he was granted the Percy manors of Isleham, Cambridgeshire, and Forston, Leicestershire, during the earl's minority and the grant, uniquely if slightly ambiguously, describes him as lord of Egremont. He was, however, never summoned to parliament, and in a list of 1492 appears among the knights rather than the barons. His uncertain status was also apparent in November 1495 when Henry VII sent him to confer with the emperor Maximilian about Perkin Warbeck. A Venetian account of the embassy refers to him as Lord Egremont, but adds that he was judged a man of not much repute because he had only ten horses with him. Egremont returned to England late the following March. His date of death is unknown, but was after 30 May 1505 when he
granted his manor of Catterton, Yorkshire, to the earl of Northumberland in return for an annuity. Egremont had a sister, Mary, who married the Percy retainer John Gascoigne of Burghwallis. There is no certain evidence that Egremont himself ever married, but the Mistress Maud Egremont who was in the service of the earl of Northumberland in the early 1520s may have been his widow.

Rosemary Horrox



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 19:25
Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard


 
Illegitimate son of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont.

Oxford DNB Biography

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57620?docPos=1

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 0:39
Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard


 
Ah, Sir John Egremont!

--- In , "gillian.laughton1" <gillian.laughton1@...> wrote:
>
> From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a
> possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry
> Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy
> himself.
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Wednesday said:
> >
> > "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
> > impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,
> > that's
> > got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of
> > a
> > Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
> > so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
> >
> > Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.
> > This
> > might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
> > Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd
> > certainly
> > not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Great article, David.
"By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's
advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."

Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.

--- On Thu, 12/13/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 11:27 AM
















 









Article for those who can't access DNB:



Egremont, Sir John (b. 1459?, d. in or after 1505), rebel, was the son of Thomas Percy (14221460), the second son of Henry Percy, second earl of Northumberland, who had been created Lord Egremont on 20 November 1449 and was killed on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460. Thomas Percy is not known to have married, and although John regarded himself as his heir he never inherited the barony, which, with his use of the surname Egremont, suggests that his legitimacy was disputed. He was probably born in 1459, making him twenty-one in 1480 when he released his rights in one of his father's grants; this is the only occasion when their relationship is made explicit. By the mid-1470s, when Egremont was already a knight, he was apparently in the service of his kinsman, the earl of Northumberland, at Leconfield. In 1478 he was granted £20 by Edward IV by way of reward and in 1480 was given an annuity of £20. Richard III

gave him an annuity of £40, which was the usual fee of a knight of the body, and he was described as the king's servant in March 1484 when he was granted Kempston, Bedfordshire, for his good service against the rebels in the previous year.



By May 1486 Egremont had transferred his service to Henry VII, who granted him an annuity of 40 marks from the forfeited lands of Viscount Lovell. Egremont may have hoped for his restoration to his father's barony by the new dynasty. In February 1488 he styled himself John Egremont, Lord Egremont. Restoration, however, was not forthcoming, and in 1489 Egremont rebelled. The rising, which led to the death of his cousin Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, took place against a background of dissatisfaction with heavy royal taxation. Many writers have also seen a lingering loyalty to Richard III's memory in the unrest. Egremont, however, may have had more personal motives, if, as seems probable, Northumberland had refused him his father's land.



The unrest began at Ayton in Cleveland on 20 April 1489, under the leadership of the yeoman Robert Chamber(d. 1489), rebel, of Ayton, whom Tudor chroniclers, perhaps in confusion with a Percy servant of the same name, were later to call John à Chamber. On 28 April Chamber's men confronted and killed Northumberland at Cock Lodge in the earl's park at Topcliffe, near Thirsk. The Cleveland insurgents then joined forces with Egremont, who was at the head of rebels from the North and East Ridings, and they advanced as far south as Doncaster before falling back to York. A faction within the city opened its gates to them on 15 May. By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels. Egremont had already gone north to try and raise more men in Richmondshire and was able to make his escape to the court of Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, at Mechelen near Brussels. Chamber

was among those tried by a commission of oyer and terminer which sat in York at the end of the month and was hanged.



By 1492 Egremont had made his peace with Henry VII and had returned to England. The minority of his kinsman the fifth earl of Northumberland evidently brought him greater recognition as one of the Percy family. In October 1493 he was granted the Percy manors of Isleham, Cambridgeshire, and Forston, Leicestershire, during the earl's minority and the grant, uniquely if slightly ambiguously, describes him as lord of Egremont. He was, however, never summoned to parliament, and in a list of 1492 appears among the knights rather than the barons. His uncertain status was also apparent in November 1495 when Henry VII sent him to confer with the emperor Maximilian about Perkin Warbeck. A Venetian account of the embassy refers to him as Lord Egremont, but adds that he was judged a man of not much repute because he had only ten horses with him. Egremont returned to England late the following March. His date of death is unknown, but was after 30 May 1505 when he

granted his manor of Catterton, Yorkshire, to the earl of Northumberland in return for an annuity. Egremont had a sister, Mary, who married the Percy retainer John Gascoigne of Burghwallis. There is no certain evidence that Egremont himself ever married, but the Mistress Maud Egremont who was in the service of the earl of Northumberland in the early 1520s may have been his widow.



Rosemary Horrox



________________________________

From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>

To: "" <>

Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 19:25

Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard





 

Illegitimate son of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont.



Oxford DNB Biography



http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57620?docPos=1



________________________________

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>

To:

Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 0:39

Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard



 

Ah, Sir John Egremont!



--- In , "gillian.laughton1" <gillian.laughton1@...> wrote:

>

> From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a

> possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry

> Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy

> himself.

>

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:

>

> > **

> >

> >

> > Wednesday said:

> >

> > "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the

> > impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,

> > that's

> > got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of

> > a

> > Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach

> > so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "

> >

> > Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.

> > This

> > might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to

> > Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd

> > certainly

> > not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.

> >

> > Karen

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

Yes, this Thomas Howard:

(DNB again)

Howard, Thomas, second duke of Norfolk (14431524), magnate and soldier, was the eldest son of John Howard (d. 1485), a kinsman of the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk and first Howard duke, and Catherine (d. 1465), daughter of William, Lord Moleyns. He was probably born at Tendring Hall, Stoke by Nayland, Suffolk, and educated at home and at a grammar school, perhaps at Thetford but more probably Ipswich. His upbringing was chivalric in character and modelled on his father's career as a soldier and gentleman.
Early career and marriageLittle is known of Howard's early life; he was in his twenties when he entered royal service between 1466 and 1469 as a henchman to Edward IV. At some point before the autumn of 1471 he was at the court of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy. When Edward was driven to the Low Countries by the earl of Warwick, Howard took sanctuary at St John's Abbey, Colchester. He was badly wounded fighting for Edward at Barnet in April 1471, but recovered to be appointed an esquire of the body and continued in close personal attendance on Edward IV until 1477.

On 30 April 1472 Howard married Elizabeth, daughter of Frederick Tilney and widow of Humphrey Bourchier, who had been killed at Barnet, and took up residence at her manor of Ashwellthorpe, Norfolk. The marriage was a blow to the Pastons, as they had sought her hand, and it marked the growing status of the Howards in East Anglia. Howard had with Elizabeth three sons and two daughters who lived to maturity; the eldest son, Thomas Howard, born in 1473, succeeded as earl of Surrey and third duke of Norfolk. In 1475 Howard accompanied Edward IV to France, witnessed the treaty signed at Picquigny, and was granted a French pension. Until the end of Edward's reign he served as a justice of the peace for Norfolk and as sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk; he was a member of parliament for Norfolk in 1477 and again, after a disputed election, in 1483. He was knighted on 14 January 1478 at the marriage of the king's second son, Richard, newly created duke of York and
Norfolk, and Anne Mowbray, heir to the last Mowbray duke of Norfolk. This marriage extinguished the Howards' faint claim to lands and titles of their Mowbray kinsmen, and it may have determined their role in the events that followed.
Relations with Richard IIIDespite taking ceremonial roles in Edward IV's funeral the Howards supported the usurpation of Richard, duke of Gloucester, and reaped handsome rewards for their service. They were intimates of Richard in the weeks preceding his coronation; Thomas Howard helped to arrest Lord Hastings at the Tower of London on 13 June, and he and his father may have participated in the murder of Edward V and Richard, duke of York and Norfolk, an act from which they had much to gain (Sutton and Hammond, 26). Richard saw the Howards as being among his most important supporters, for, on 28 June, John was created duke of Norfolk and Thomas earl of Surrey; both were granted lands and Thomas Howard an annuity of £1000. Norfolk acquired the bulk of the former Mowbray lands in East Anglia, Sussex, and Surrey, as well as forfeited estates from Lord Rivers and the earl of Oxford, which established him as the greatest landed baron in the south-east of
England. Surrey was sworn of the council and elected to the Order of the Garter. At Richard's coronation Surrey bore the sword of state and served as steward at the coronation feast, entering Westminster Hall on horseback. That autumn Norfolk and Surrey demonstrated their loyalty by suppressing the rebellion of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, which led to the latter's execution. Both Howards remained close to Richard throughout his brief reign. Interestingly, Thomas Howard's funeral monument, which bore a lengthy autobiographical inscription, glossed over this period, blandly asserting that the Howards both served the said King Richard truly as his subjects during his life, lying at home in their own countries and keeping honorable houses' (Weever, 835).

When Henry Tudor challenged for the throne, the Howards came to Richard's defence. Norfolk was slain and Surrey wounded and taken prisoner at Bosworth on 22 August 1485 as Henry VII claimed the crown. Surrey was attainted in Henry's first parliament and, stripped of titles and lands, languished in the Tower of London for three years. Offered escape during the rebellion of the earl of Lincoln in 1487, Thomas Howard refused, perhaps convincing Henry of his loyalty. In May 1489 he was restored as earl of Surrey, although most of his lands were withheld, and sent north to quell rebellion in Yorkshire. Having shown his value to the new regime Surrey continued in the north as king's lieutenant until 1499, residing at Sheriff Hutton Castle, Yorkshire. In 1497 he repelled an attack on Norham Castle by James IV of Scotland in support of the pretender Perkin Warbeck and followed with a raid into Scotland to seize Ayton Castle. However, Henry sought peace rather
than war with Scotland, and Surrey concluded a truce and began negotiations for the marriage of James IV to Henry's daughter Margaret.
Second marriage, 1497, and continental diplomacyIn April 1497 Surrey's wife, Elizabeth, died, and he married Agnes Tilney (d. 1545) [see Howard, Agnes, duchess of Norfolk], a cousin of Elizabeth, on 8 November 1497. This marriage produced six surviving children, including the naval commander William Howard; through his five sons and six daughters, Howard had marital ties to most of the leading English families. Having demonstrated beyond doubt his loyalty and usefulness as a soldier and administrator, Surrey was recalled to court in 1499 and accompanied Henry VII on a state visit to France the next year. In 1501 he was sworn of the council and, on 16 June, made lord treasurer. Along with Richard Fox, lord privy seal, and William Warham, the chancellor, Surrey became part of Henry's executive triumvirate. As Surrey proved his loyalty, he steadily recovered lands once held by his father, mainly in East Anglia, and until 1513 he continued to accumulate
lands and consolidate his holdings in the region. By 1500 his East Anglian lands alone had a net value of over £600 a year, and after the death of the dowager duchess of Norfolk in November 1506 he gained other, mainly East Anglian, lands, with an additional net value of some £600 a year.

Surrey took an active role in diplomacy, including the 1501 negotiations for Katherine of Aragon's marriage to Prince Arthur, and also supervised Arthur's funeral in April 1502. In 1503 he conducted Princess Margaret to Scotland for her wedding to James IV. Despite their past battles James and Surrey got along splendidly as fellow chivalrous knights, and Surrey left Scotland laden with giftsmuch to Margaret's chagrin, since her new husband seemed to prefer Surrey's company to her own. Surrey had accompanied Henry VII to Calais in 1500 to meet Philippe, duke of Burgundy, and went to Flanders in 1507 to seek a marriage between Philippe's son and heir, the future Charles V, and Henry's second daughter, Mary. The marriage was agreed upon in 1508 with Surrey leading negotiations with the emperor Maximilian in Antwerp, although the wedding never took place.
Serving Henry VIIIAt Henry VII's death in April 1509 Surrey was an executor of the king's will and played a prominent role in his funeral and in the coronation of Henry VIII, when he served as earl marshal, an office which was later granted for life. Surrey sought to become the young king's leading minister, but by 1511 Thomas Wolsey had emerged as the dominant figure at court, and this led Surrey, after a final attempt to retain his position in September 1511, to a reconciliation with Wolsey and an acceptance of his supremacy. The main point of contention was foreign policy. Surrey had joined Fox and Thomas Ruthal in March 1510 in signing an Anglo-French truce, but Wolsey, sensing Henry's ambition, sought a policy of war. Surrey led the negotiations with Ferdinand of Spain which bound England to attack France in the spring of 1512, and his sons Edward (killed at sea in 1513) and Thomas served as Henry's admirals in a series of engagements along the
channel. Surrey went north to muster soldiers and inspect defences for an invasion of France in 1513 which he expected to lead.
Defeating the Scots on Flodden Field, 1513Instead Surrey was left behind when Henry departed for Calais on 30 June 1513. Perhaps the king did not want the old soldier at his elbow during his first campaign; certainly Wolsey was happy to have his rival out of the way. Yet while Henry played at war in France, Surrey won his family's and one of his kingdom's greatest victories. Henry had hardly left the realm when James IV launched an invasion. Surrey, with the aid of his sons Thomas and Edmund and such nobles as Henry had left behind, scraped together an army and met James's much larger force near Flodden on 9 September 1513. Surrey, low on supplies and unable to delay the confrontation, boldly divided his forces and took the fight to James in a series of flanking attacks which, combined with superior English weapons in the longbow and bill, threw the Scots into confusion. In a battle lasting from 4 p.m. until nightfall the Scots may have lost as many as
10,000 men, most in the confused last stages of the battle, and King James was killed. While Henry fought the meaningless battle of the Spurs and seized Tournai and Thérouanne, Surrey sent his master the blood-soaked coat of a king and won great popular renown.

Howard was rewarded for his service on 1 February 1514 when he was created duke of Norfolk and his son Thomas was made earl of Surrey, each with grants of land and annuities. All of Norfolk's new lands lay outside East Anglia, with thirty manors scattered across the realm from Kent to Nottinghamshire. The Howard arms were augmented in honour of Flodden with an escutcheon bearing the lion of Scotland pierced through the mouth with an arrow. The new duke of Norfolk held a major role in affairs, and in 1514 he joined Wolsey and Fox in negotiations for the marriage of Princess Mary to Louis XII of France. Norfolk and his family led the grand party which escorted Mary to France for the wedding in the autumn. Norfolk again irritated a princess to please a king by clearing Mary's court of her English servants, which had the further effect of displacing many handpicked by Wolsey.
Final years, death, and reputationDespite his disappointment at being eclipsed by Wolsey, who was made cardinal in September 1515, Norfolk continued as a courtier and diplomat and on 1 May 1517 led a private army of 1300 retainers into London to suppress the evil May day' riots. This episode not only reconfirmed Howard's value as a soldier but also showed the private power of a Tudor magnate. The greatest such figure was Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and when in May 1521 Henry determined to destroy the duke, Norfolk had the painful duty of presiding over the trial as lord high stewardhe pronounced the sentence of death with tears streaming down his face.

By the spring of 1522, nearing eighty years of age and in failing health, Norfolk withdrew from court. In December 1522 he resigned as treasurer in favour of his son and, after attending the opening of parliament in April 1523, retired to his ducal castle at Framlingham in Suffolk. He died there on 21 May 1524. His funeral and burial on 22 June at the Cluniac priory at Thetford were spectacular and enormously expensive, costing over £1300 and including a procession of 400 hooded men bearing torches and an elaborate bier surmounted with 100 wax effigies and 700 candles. This was befitting the richest and most powerful peer in England. At the interment, a sermon on the text Behold the lion of the tribe of Judah triumphs' (Revelation 5: 5) so terrified the congregation that the mourners fled the church. Norfolk left an estate worth £4500 per annum and, according to his funeral monument, when he died he could not be asked one groat for his debt,
nor for restitution to any person' (Weever, 835).

Norfolk was a man of intense determination and courage, cautious when he was able but reckless, as at Flodden, when he needed to be. His role in the usurpation of Richard III raises questions about his character, but he was otherwise staunchly devoted to the crown. His personal and family pride is evident from his funeral and the beginning of his will, dated 31 May 1520, in which he referred to himself in the pluralWe Thomas, Duke of Norfolk'. To judge from an engraving based on a lost brass, he was small and spare in person, with a long face, straight fair hair worn long, and an aquiline nose. He was a faithful conventional Catholic who endowed churches and supported religious foundations. It may have been well that he died when he did, for it is doubtful he could have given even the reluctant assent his son did to the changes of the English Reformation. Howard was one of the last English feudal barons, a man who made his career by his sword and
his counsel to his king and who reaped all the rewards and fame one might so seek. Polydore Vergil described Howard as vir prudentia, gravitate et constantia praeditus (a man endowed with prudence, dignity, and firmness') . It still seems a fitting epitaph.

David M. Head



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 21:52
Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard


 
Great article, David.
"By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's
advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."

Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.

Thanks, that's fascinating. I'd never traced what happened to him after 1489.
Marie

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Article for those who can't access DNB:
>
> Egremont, Sir John (b. 1459?, d. in or after 1505), rebel, was the son of Thomas Percy (1422â€"1460), the second son of Henry Percy, second earl of Northumberland, who had been created Lord Egremont on 20 November 1449 and was killed on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460. Thomas Percy is not known to have married, and although John regarded himself as his heir he never inherited the barony, which, with his use of the surname Egremont, suggests that his legitimacy was disputed. He was probably born in 1459, making him twenty-one in 1480 when he released his rights in one of his father's grants; this is the only occasion when their relationship is made explicit. By the mid-1470s, when Egremont was already a knight, he was apparently in the service of his kinsman, the earl of Northumberland, at Leconfield. In 1478 he was granted £20 by Edward IV by way of reward and in 1480 was given an annuity of £20. Richard III
> gave him an annuity of £40, which was the usual fee of a knight of the body, and he was described as the king's servant in March 1484 when he was granted Kempston, Bedfordshire, for his good service against the rebels in the previous year.
>
> By May 1486 Egremont had transferred his service to Henry VII, who granted him an annuity of 40 marks from the forfeited lands of Viscount Lovell. Egremont may have hoped for his restoration to his father's barony by the new dynasty. In February 1488 he styled himself John Egremont, Lord Egremont. Restoration, however, was not forthcoming, and in 1489 Egremont rebelled. The rising, which led to the death of his cousin Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, took place against a background of dissatisfaction with heavy royal taxation. Many writers have also seen a lingering loyalty to Richard III's memory in the unrest. Egremont, however, may have had more personal motives, if, as seems probable, Northumberland had refused him his father's land.
>
> The unrest began at Ayton in Cleveland on 20 April 1489, under the leadership of the yeoman Robert Chamber(d. 1489), rebel, of Ayton, whom Tudor chroniclers, perhaps in confusion with a Percy servant of the same name, were later to call John à Chamber. On 28 April Chamber's men confronted and killed Northumberland at Cock Lodge in the earl's park at Topcliffe, near Thirsk. The Cleveland insurgents then joined forces with Egremont, who was at the head of rebels from the North and East Ridings, and they advanced as far south as Doncaster before falling back to York. A faction within the city opened its gates to them on 15 May. By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels. Egremont had already gone north to try and raise more men in Richmondshire and was able to make his escape to the court of Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, at Mechelen near Brussels. Chamber
> was among those tried by a commission of oyer and terminer which sat in York at the end of the month and was hanged.
>
> By 1492 Egremont had made his peace with Henry VII and had returned to England. The minority of his kinsman the fifth earl of Northumberland evidently brought him greater recognition as one of the Percy family. In October 1493 he was granted the Percy manors of Isleham, Cambridgeshire, and Forston, Leicestershire, during the earl's minority and the grant, uniquely if slightly ambiguously, describes him as lord of Egremont. He was, however, never summoned to parliament, and in a list of 1492 appears among the knights rather than the barons. His uncertain status was also apparent in November 1495 when Henry VII sent him to confer with the emperor Maximilian about Perkin Warbeck. A Venetian account of the embassy refers to him as Lord Egremont, but adds that he was judged a man of not much repute because he had only ten horses with him. Egremont returned to England late the following March. His date of death is unknown, but was after 30 May 1505 when he
> granted his manor of Catterton, Yorkshire, to the earl of Northumberland in return for an annuity. Egremont had a sister, Mary, who married the Percy retainer John Gascoigne of Burghwallis. There is no certain evidence that Egremont himself ever married, but the Mistress Maud Egremont who was in the service of the earl of Northumberland in the early 1520s may have been his widow.
>
> Rosemary Horrox
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 19:25
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
>
>
>  
> Illegitimate son of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont.
>
> Oxford DNB Biography
>
> http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57620?docPos=1
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 0:39
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
>
>
>  
> Ah, Sir John Egremont!
>
> --- In , "gillian.laughton1" <gillian.laughton1@> wrote:
> >
> > From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a
> > possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry
> > Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy
> > himself.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Wednesday said:
> > >
> > > "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
> > > impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,
> > > that's
> > > got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of
> > > a
> > > Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
> > > so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
> > >
> > > Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.
> > > This
> > > might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
> > > Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd
> > > certainly
> > > not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

How do we know Howard was offered escape in 1487 and refused?
Marie

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, this Thomas Howard:
>
> (DNB again)
>
> Howard, Thomas, second duke of Norfolk (1443â€"1524), magnate and soldier, was the eldest son of John Howard (d. 1485), a kinsman of the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk and first Howard duke, and Catherine (d. 1465), daughter of William, Lord Moleyns. He was probably born at Tendring Hall, Stoke by Nayland, Suffolk, and educated at home and at a grammar school, perhaps at Thetford but more probably Ipswich. His upbringing was chivalric in character and modelled on his father's career as a soldier and gentleman.
> Early career and marriageLittle is known of Howard's early life; he was in his twenties when he entered royal service between 1466 and 1469 as a henchman to Edward IV. At some point before the autumn of 1471 he was at the court of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy. When Edward was driven to the Low Countries by the earl of Warwick, Howard took sanctuary at St John's Abbey, Colchester. He was badly wounded fighting for Edward at Barnet in April 1471, but recovered to be appointed an esquire of the body and continued in close personal attendance on Edward IV until 1477.
>
> On 30 April 1472 Howard married Elizabeth, daughter of Frederick Tilney and widow of Humphrey Bourchier, who had been killed at Barnet, and took up residence at her manor of Ashwellthorpe, Norfolk. The marriage was a blow to the Pastons, as they had sought her hand, and it marked the growing status of the Howards in East Anglia. Howard had with Elizabeth three sons and two daughters who lived to maturity; the eldest son, Thomas Howard, born in 1473, succeeded as earl of Surrey and third duke of Norfolk. In 1475 Howard accompanied Edward IV to France, witnessed the treaty signed at Picquigny, and was granted a French pension. Until the end of Edward's reign he served as a justice of the peace for Norfolk and as sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk; he was a member of parliament for Norfolk in 1477 and again, after a disputed election, in 1483. He was knighted on 14 January 1478 at the marriage of the king's second son, Richard, newly created duke of York and
> Norfolk, and Anne Mowbray, heir to the last Mowbray duke of Norfolk. This marriage extinguished the Howards' faint claim to lands and titles of their Mowbray kinsmen, and it may have determined their role in the events that followed.
> Relations with Richard IIIDespite taking ceremonial roles in Edward IV's funeral the Howards supported the usurpation of Richard, duke of Gloucester, and reaped handsome rewards for their service. They were intimates of Richard in the weeks preceding his coronation; Thomas Howard helped to arrest Lord Hastings at the Tower of London on 13 June, and he and his father may have participated in the murder of Edward V and Richard, duke of York and Norfolk, an act from which they had much to gain (Sutton and Hammond, 26). Richard saw the Howards as being among his most important supporters, for, on 28 June, John was created duke of Norfolk and Thomas earl of Surrey; both were granted lands and Thomas Howard an annuity of £1000. Norfolk acquired the bulk of the former Mowbray lands in East Anglia, Sussex, and Surrey, as well as forfeited estates from Lord Rivers and the earl of Oxford, which established him as the greatest landed baron in the south-east of
> England. Surrey was sworn of the council and elected to the Order of the Garter. At Richard's coronation Surrey bore the sword of state and served as steward at the coronation feast, entering Westminster Hall on horseback. That autumn Norfolk and Surrey demonstrated their loyalty by suppressing the rebellion of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, which led to the latter's execution. Both Howards remained close to Richard throughout his brief reign. Interestingly, Thomas Howard's funeral monument, which bore a lengthy autobiographical inscription, glossed over this period, blandly asserting that the Howards ‘both served the said King Richard truly as his subjects during his life, lying at home in their own countries and keeping honorable houses’ (Weever, 835).
>
> When Henry Tudor challenged for the throne, the Howards came to Richard's defence. Norfolk was slain and Surrey wounded and taken prisoner at Bosworth on 22 August 1485 as Henry VII claimed the crown. Surrey was attainted in Henry's first parliament and, stripped of titles and lands, languished in the Tower of London for three years. Offered escape during the rebellion of the earl of Lincoln in 1487, Thomas Howard refused, perhaps convincing Henry of his loyalty. In May 1489 he was restored as earl of Surrey, although most of his lands were withheld, and sent north to quell rebellion in Yorkshire. Having shown his value to the new regime Surrey continued in the north as king's lieutenant until 1499, residing at Sheriff Hutton Castle, Yorkshire. In 1497 he repelled an attack on Norham Castle by James IV of Scotland in support of the pretender Perkin Warbeck and followed with a raid into Scotland to seize Ayton Castle. However, Henry sought peace rather
> than war with Scotland, and Surrey concluded a truce and began negotiations for the marriage of James IV to Henry's daughter Margaret.
> Second marriage, 1497, and continental diplomacyIn April 1497 Surrey's wife, Elizabeth, died, and he married Agnes Tilney (d. 1545) [see Howard, Agnes, duchess of Norfolk], a cousin of Elizabeth, on 8 November 1497. This marriage produced six surviving children, including the naval commander William Howard; through his five sons and six daughters, Howard had marital ties to most of the leading English families. Having demonstrated beyond doubt his loyalty and usefulness as a soldier and administrator, Surrey was recalled to court in 1499 and accompanied Henry VII on a state visit to France the next year. In 1501 he was sworn of the council and, on 16 June, made lord treasurer. Along with Richard Fox, lord privy seal, and William Warham, the chancellor, Surrey became part of Henry's executive triumvirate. As Surrey proved his loyalty, he steadily recovered lands once held by his father, mainly in East Anglia, and until 1513 he continued to accumulate
> lands and consolidate his holdings in the region. By 1500 his East Anglian lands alone had a net value of over £600 a year, and after the death of the dowager duchess of Norfolk in November 1506 he gained other, mainly East Anglian, lands, with an additional net value of some £600 a year.
>
> Surrey took an active role in diplomacy, including the 1501 negotiations for Katherine of Aragon's marriage to Prince Arthur, and also supervised Arthur's funeral in April 1502. In 1503 he conducted Princess Margaret to Scotland for her wedding to James IV. Despite their past battles James and Surrey got along splendidly as fellow chivalrous knights, and Surrey left Scotland laden with giftsâ€"much to Margaret's chagrin, since her new husband seemed to prefer Surrey's company to her own. Surrey had accompanied Henry VII to Calais in 1500 to meet Philippe, duke of Burgundy, and went to Flanders in 1507 to seek a marriage between Philippe's son and heir, the future Charles V, and Henry's second daughter, Mary. The marriage was agreed upon in 1508 with Surrey leading negotiations with the emperor Maximilian in Antwerp, although the wedding never took place.
> Serving Henry VIIIAt Henry VII's death in April 1509 Surrey was an executor of the king's will and played a prominent role in his funeral and in the coronation of Henry VIII, when he served as earl marshal, an office which was later granted for life. Surrey sought to become the young king's leading minister, but by 1511 Thomas Wolsey had emerged as the dominant figure at court, and this led Surrey, after a final attempt to retain his position in September 1511, to a reconciliation with Wolsey and an acceptance of his supremacy. The main point of contention was foreign policy. Surrey had joined Fox and Thomas Ruthal in March 1510 in signing an Anglo-French truce, but Wolsey, sensing Henry's ambition, sought a policy of war. Surrey led the negotiations with Ferdinand of Spain which bound England to attack France in the spring of 1512, and his sons Edward (killed at sea in 1513) and Thomas served as Henry's admirals in a series of engagements along the
> channel. Surrey went north to muster soldiers and inspect defences for an invasion of France in 1513 which he expected to lead.
> Defeating the Scots on Flodden Field, 1513Instead Surrey was left behind when Henry departed for Calais on 30 June 1513. Perhaps the king did not want the old soldier at his elbow during his first campaign; certainly Wolsey was happy to have his rival out of the way. Yet while Henry played at war in France, Surrey won his family's and one of his kingdom's greatest victories. Henry had hardly left the realm when James IV launched an invasion. Surrey, with the aid of his sons Thomas and Edmund and such nobles as Henry had left behind, scraped together an army and met James's much larger force near Flodden on 9 September 1513. Surrey, low on supplies and unable to delay the confrontation, boldly divided his forces and took the fight to James in a series of flanking attacks which, combined with superior English weapons in the longbow and bill, threw the Scots into confusion. In a battle lasting from 4 p.m. until nightfall the Scots may have lost as many as
> 10,000 men, most in the confused last stages of the battle, and King James was killed. While Henry fought the meaningless battle of the Spurs and seized Tournai and Thérouanne, Surrey sent his master the blood-soaked coat of a king and won great popular renown.
>
> Howard was rewarded for his service on 1 February 1514 when he was created duke of Norfolk and his son Thomas was made earl of Surrey, each with grants of land and annuities. All of Norfolk's new lands lay outside East Anglia, with thirty manors scattered across the realm from Kent to Nottinghamshire. The Howard arms were augmented in honour of Flodden with an escutcheon bearing the lion of Scotland pierced through the mouth with an arrow. The new duke of Norfolk held a major role in affairs, and in 1514 he joined Wolsey and Fox in negotiations for the marriage of Princess Mary to Louis XII of France. Norfolk and his family led the grand party which escorted Mary to France for the wedding in the autumn. Norfolk again irritated a princess to please a king by clearing Mary's court of her English servants, which had the further effect of displacing many handpicked by Wolsey.
> Final years, death, and reputationDespite his disappointment at being eclipsed by Wolsey, who was made cardinal in September 1515, Norfolk continued as a courtier and diplomat and on 1 May 1517 led a private army of 1300 retainers into London to suppress the ‘evil May day’ riots. This episode not only reconfirmed Howard's value as a soldier but also showed the private power of a Tudor magnate. The greatest such figure was Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and when in May 1521 Henry determined to destroy the duke, Norfolk had the painful duty of presiding over the trial as lord high stewardâ€"he pronounced the sentence of death with tears streaming down his face.
>
> By the spring of 1522, nearing eighty years of age and in failing health, Norfolk withdrew from court. In December 1522 he resigned as treasurer in favour of his son and, after attending the opening of parliament in April 1523, retired to his ducal castle at Framlingham in Suffolk. He died there on 21 May 1524. His funeral and burial on 22 June at the Cluniac priory at Thetford were spectacular and enormously expensive, costing over £1300 and including a procession of 400 hooded men bearing torches and an elaborate bier surmounted with 100 wax effigies and 700 candles. This was befitting the richest and most powerful peer in England. At the interment, a sermon on the text ‘Behold the lion of the tribe of Judah triumphs’ (Revelation 5: 5) so terrified the congregation that the mourners fled the church. Norfolk left an estate worth £4500 per annum and, according to his funeral monument, when he died ‘he could not be asked one groat for his debt,
> nor for restitution to any person’ (Weever, 835).
>
> Norfolk was a man of intense determination and courage, cautious when he was able but reckless, as at Flodden, when he needed to be. His role in the usurpation of Richard III raises questions about his character, but he was otherwise staunchly devoted to the crown. His personal and family pride is evident from his funeral and the beginning of his will, dated 31 May 1520, in which he referred to himself in the pluralâ€"‘We Thomas, Duke of Norfolk’. To judge from an engraving based on a lost brass, he was small and spare in person, with a long face, straight fair hair worn long, and an aquiline nose. He was a faithful conventional Catholic who endowed churches and supported religious foundations. It may have been well that he died when he did, for it is doubtful he could have given even the reluctant assent his son did to the changes of the English Reformation. Howard was one of the last English feudal barons, a man who made his career by his sword and
> his counsel to his king and who reaped all the rewards and fame one might so seek. Polydore Vergil described Howard as vir prudentia, gravitate et constantia praeditus (‘a man endowed with prudence, dignity, and firmness’) . It still seems a fitting epitaph.
>
> David M. Head
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 21:52
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
>
>
>  
> Great article, David.
> "By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's
> advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."
>
> Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.
>
>
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Great article, David.
> "By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."
>
> Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.

Carol responds:

Henry arrested him after Bosworth, but he was released from prison three years later after ostensibly claiming that he had fought not for Richard personally but for the crown of England, which he would serve even if it were mounted on a stick. I don't believe him if he really said those words (which I've paraphrased and which may be apocryphal); I'm sure that, like his father, he fought for Richard as the rightful king, never expecting him to lose the battle (or to lose his father into the bargain). He had been wounded in the battle and stripped of his lands and titles afterwards, and even when Henry restored his title (but withheld his father's dukedom), he didn't restore most of his lands. It seems to me that Howard knew, especially after the Battle of Stoke failed to restore the House of York, that he had no choice but to serve the Tudor or remain in prison. He had to wait until 1514, after many years of faithful (or at least competent and nonrebellious) service to receive his father's dukedom.

I suspect that he kept any resentment he felt for Henry VII to himself. He can't have felt any affection or respect for him, and any loyalty he expressed was, indeed, to the Crown of England and not to Henry personally. He had served Richard well, but whether he mourned him, we will never know.

Carol

So Thomas forgot his father's slaying and went on with his life. He did pretty well too!
Maybe he believed in being loyal to the " administration" rather than to King "the man"?
I am not feeling very charitable towards the people of that time. Loyalty meant very little to these people..

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

On Dec 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

> Yes, this Thomas Howard:
>
> (DNB again)
>
> Howard, Thomas, second duke of Norfolk (14431524), magnate and soldier, was the eldest son of John Howard (d. 1485), a kinsman of the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk and first Howard duke, and Catherine (d. 1465), daughter of William, Lord Moleyns. He was probably born at Tendring Hall, Stoke by Nayland, Suffolk, and educated at home and at a grammar school, perhaps at Thetford but more probably Ipswich. His upbringing was chivalric in character and modelled on his father's career as a soldier and gentleman.
> Early career and marriageLittle is known of Howard's early life; he was in his twenties when he entered royal service between 1466 and 1469 as a henchman to Edward IV. At some point before the autumn of 1471 he was at the court of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy. When Edward was driven to the Low Countries by the earl of Warwick, Howard took sanctuary at St John's Abbey, Colchester. He was badly wounded fighting for Edward at Barnet in April 1471, but recovered to be appointed an esquire of the body and continued in close personal attendance on Edward IV until 1477.
>
> On 30 April 1472 Howard married Elizabeth, daughter of Frederick Tilney and widow of Humphrey Bourchier, who had been killed at Barnet, and took up residence at her manor of Ashwellthorpe, Norfolk. The marriage was a blow to the Pastons, as they had sought her hand, and it marked the growing status of the Howards in East Anglia. Howard had with Elizabeth three sons and two daughters who lived to maturity; the eldest son, Thomas Howard, born in 1473, succeeded as earl of Surrey and third duke of Norfolk. In 1475 Howard accompanied Edward IV to France, witnessed the treaty signed at Picquigny, and was granted a French pension. Until the end of Edward's reign he served as a justice of the peace for Norfolk and as sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk; he was a member of parliament for Norfolk in 1477 and again, after a disputed election, in 1483. He was knighted on 14 January 1478 at the marriage of the king's second son, Richard, newly created duke of York and
> Norfolk, and Anne Mowbray, heir to the last Mowbray duke of Norfolk. This marriage extinguished the Howards' faint claim to lands and titles of their Mowbray kinsmen, and it may have determined their role in the events that followed.
> Relations with Richard IIIDespite taking ceremonial roles in Edward IV's funeral the Howards supported the usurpation of Richard, duke of Gloucester, and reaped handsome rewards for their service. They were intimates of Richard in the weeks preceding his coronation; Thomas Howard helped to arrest Lord Hastings at the Tower of London on 13 June, and he and his father may have participated in the murder of Edward V and Richard, duke of York and Norfolk, an act from which they had much to gain (Sutton and Hammond, 26). Richard saw the Howards as being among his most important supporters, for, on 28 June, John was created duke of Norfolk and Thomas earl of Surrey; both were granted lands and Thomas Howard an annuity of £1000. Norfolk acquired the bulk of the former Mowbray lands in East Anglia, Sussex, and Surrey, as well as forfeited estates from Lord Rivers and the earl of Oxford, which established him as the greatest landed baron in the south-east of
> England. Surrey was sworn of the council and elected to the Order of the Garter. At Richard's coronation Surrey bore the sword of state and served as steward at the coronation feast, entering Westminster Hall on horseback. That autumn Norfolk and Surrey demonstrated their loyalty by suppressing the rebellion of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, which led to the latter's execution. Both Howards remained close to Richard throughout his brief reign. Interestingly, Thomas Howard's funeral monument, which bore a lengthy autobiographical inscription, glossed over this period, blandly asserting that the Howards both served the said King Richard truly as his subjects during his life, lying at home in their own countries and keeping honorable houses' (Weever, 835).
>
> When Henry Tudor challenged for the throne, the Howards came to Richard's defence. Norfolk was slain and Surrey wounded and taken prisoner at Bosworth on 22 August 1485 as Henry VII claimed the crown. Surrey was attainted in Henry's first parliament and, stripped of titles and lands, languished in the Tower of London for three years. Offered escape during the rebellion of the earl of Lincoln in 1487, Thomas Howard refused, perhaps convincing Henry of his loyalty. In May 1489 he was restored as earl of Surrey, although most of his lands were withheld, and sent north to quell rebellion in Yorkshire. Having shown his value to the new regime Surrey continued in the north as king's lieutenant until 1499, residing at Sheriff Hutton Castle, Yorkshire. In 1497 he repelled an attack on Norham Castle by James IV of Scotland in support of the pretender Perkin Warbeck and followed with a raid into Scotland to seize Ayton Castle. However, Henry sought peace rather
> than war with Scotland, and Surrey concluded a truce and began negotiations for the marriage of James IV to Henry's daughter Margaret.
> Second marriage, 1497, and continental diplomacyIn April 1497 Surrey's wife, Elizabeth, died, and he married Agnes Tilney (d. 1545) [see Howard, Agnes, duchess of Norfolk], a cousin of Elizabeth, on 8 November 1497. This marriage produced six surviving children, including the naval commander William Howard; through his five sons and six daughters, Howard had marital ties to most of the leading English families. Having demonstrated beyond doubt his loyalty and usefulness as a soldier and administrator, Surrey was recalled to court in 1499 and accompanied Henry VII on a state visit to France the next year. In 1501 he was sworn of the council and, on 16 June, made lord treasurer. Along with Richard Fox, lord privy seal, and William Warham, the chancellor, Surrey became part of Henry's executive triumvirate. As Surrey proved his loyalty, he steadily recovered lands once held by his father, mainly in East Anglia, and until 1513 he continued to accumulate
> lands and consolidate his holdings in the region. By 1500 his East Anglian lands alone had a net value of over £600 a year, and after the death of the dowager duchess of Norfolk in November 1506 he gained other, mainly East Anglian, lands, with an additional net value of some £600 a year.
>
> Surrey took an active role in diplomacy, including the 1501 negotiations for Katherine of Aragon's marriage to Prince Arthur, and also supervised Arthur's funeral in April 1502. In 1503 he conducted Princess Margaret to Scotland for her wedding to James IV. Despite their past battles James and Surrey got along splendidly as fellow chivalrous knights, and Surrey left Scotland laden with giftsmuch to Margaret's chagrin, since her new husband seemed to prefer Surrey's company to her own. Surrey had accompanied Henry VII to Calais in 1500 to meet Philippe, duke of Burgundy, and went to Flanders in 1507 to seek a marriage between Philippe's son and heir, the future Charles V, and Henry's second daughter, Mary. The marriage was agreed upon in 1508 with Surrey leading negotiations with the emperor Maximilian in Antwerp, although the wedding never took place.
> Serving Henry VIIIAt Henry VII's death in April 1509 Surrey was an executor of the king's will and played a prominent role in his funeral and in the coronation of Henry VIII, when he served as earl marshal, an office which was later granted for life. Surrey sought to become the young king's leading minister, but by 1511 Thomas Wolsey had emerged as the dominant figure at court, and this led Surrey, after a final attempt to retain his position in September 1511, to a reconciliation with Wolsey and an acceptance of his supremacy. The main point of contention was foreign policy. Surrey had joined Fox and Thomas Ruthal in March 1510 in signing an Anglo-French truce, but Wolsey, sensing Henry's ambition, sought a policy of war. Surrey led the negotiations with Ferdinand of Spain which bound England to attack France in the spring of 1512, and his sons Edward (killed at sea in 1513) and Thomas served as Henry's admirals in a series of engagements along the
> channel. Surrey went north to muster soldiers and inspect defences for an invasion of France in 1513 which he expected to lead.
> Defeating the Scots on Flodden Field, 1513Instead Surrey was left behind when Henry departed for Calais on 30 June 1513. Perhaps the king did not want the old soldier at his elbow during his first campaign; certainly Wolsey was happy to have his rival out of the way. Yet while Henry played at war in France, Surrey won his family's and one of his kingdom's greatest victories. Henry had hardly left the realm when James IV launched an invasion. Surrey, with the aid of his sons Thomas and Edmund and such nobles as Henry had left behind, scraped together an army and met James's much larger force near Flodden on 9 September 1513. Surrey, low on supplies and unable to delay the confrontation, boldly divided his forces and took the fight to James in a series of flanking attacks which, combined with superior English weapons in the longbow and bill, threw the Scots into confusion. In a battle lasting from 4 p.m. until nightfall the Scots may have lost as many as
> 10,000 men, most in the confused last stages of the battle, and King James was killed. While Henry fought the meaningless battle of the Spurs and seized Tournai and Thérouanne, Surrey sent his master the blood-soaked coat of a king and won great popular renown.
>
> Howard was rewarded for his service on 1 February 1514 when he was created duke of Norfolk and his son Thomas was made earl of Surrey, each with grants of land and annuities. All of Norfolk's new lands lay outside East Anglia, with thirty manors scattered across the realm from Kent to Nottinghamshire. The Howard arms were augmented in honour of Flodden with an escutcheon bearing the lion of Scotland pierced through the mouth with an arrow. The new duke of Norfolk held a major role in affairs, and in 1514 he joined Wolsey and Fox in negotiations for the marriage of Princess Mary to Louis XII of France. Norfolk and his family led the grand party which escorted Mary to France for the wedding in the autumn. Norfolk again irritated a princess to please a king by clearing Mary's court of her English servants, which had the further effect of displacing many handpicked by Wolsey.
> Final years, death, and reputationDespite his disappointment at being eclipsed by Wolsey, who was made cardinal in September 1515, Norfolk continued as a courtier and diplomat and on 1 May 1517 led a private army of 1300 retainers into London to suppress the evil May day' riots. This episode not only reconfirmed Howard's value as a soldier but also showed the private power of a Tudor magnate. The greatest such figure was Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and when in May 1521 Henry determined to destroy the duke, Norfolk had the painful duty of presiding over the trial as lord high stewardhe pronounced the sentence of death with tears streaming down his face.
>
> By the spring of 1522, nearing eighty years of age and in failing health, Norfolk withdrew from court. In December 1522 he resigned as treasurer in favour of his son and, after attending the opening of parliament in April 1523, retired to his ducal castle at Framlingham in Suffolk. He died there on 21 May 1524. His funeral and burial on 22 June at the Cluniac priory at Thetford were spectacular and enormously expensive, costing over £1300 and including a procession of 400 hooded men bearing torches and an elaborate bier surmounted with 100 wax effigies and 700 candles. This was befitting the richest and most powerful peer in England. At the interment, a sermon on the text Behold the lion of the tribe of Judah triumphs' (Revelation 5: 5) so terrified the congregation that the mourners fled the church. Norfolk left an estate worth £4500 per annum and, according to his funeral monument, when he died he could not be asked one groat for his debt,
> nor for restitution to any person' (Weever, 835).
>
> Norfolk was a man of intense determination and courage, cautious when he was able but reckless, as at Flodden, when he needed to be. His role in the usurpation of Richard III raises questions about his character, but he was otherwise staunchly devoted to the crown. His personal and family pride is evident from his funeral and the beginning of his will, dated 31 May 1520, in which he referred to himself in the pluralWe Thomas, Duke of Norfolk'. To judge from an engraving based on a lost brass, he was small and spare in person, with a long face, straight fair hair worn long, and an aquiline nose. He was a faithful conventional Catholic who endowed churches and supported religious foundations. It may have been well that he died when he did, for it is doubtful he could have given even the reluctant assent his son did to the changes of the English Reformation. Howard was one of the last English feudal barons, a man who made his career by his sword and
> his counsel to his king and who reaped all the rewards and fame one might so seek. Polydore Vergil described Howard as vir prudentia, gravitate et constantia praeditus (a man endowed with prudence, dignity, and firmness') . It still seems a fitting epitaph.
>
> David M. Head
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 21:52
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
>
>
>
> Great article, David.
> "By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's
> advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."
>
> Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.
>
>
>
>

Carol, I wrote my email before I read this one! And I am also inclined to think he fought for the crown not the king..... He fought with Richard at Barnet and have known young Richard. He could have mourned R. But I am beginning think they all were just loyal to themselves not any one else!

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

On Dec 13, 2012, at 7:11 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Great article, David.
> > "By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."
> >
> > Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Henry arrested him after Bosworth, but he was released from prison three years later after ostensibly claiming that he had fought not for Richard personally but for the crown of England, which he would serve even if it were mounted on a stick. I don't believe him if he really said those words (which I've paraphrased and which may be apocryphal); I'm sure that, like his father, he fought for Richard as the rightful king, never expecting him to lose the battle (or to lose his father into the bargain). He had been wounded in the battle and stripped of his lands and titles afterwards, and even when Henry restored his title (but withheld his father's dukedom), he didn't restore most of his lands. It seems to me that Howard knew, especially after the Battle of Stoke failed to restore the House of York, that he had no choice but to serve the Tudor or remain in prison. He had to wait until 1514, after many years of faithful (or at least competent and nonrebellious) service to receive his father's dukedom.
>
> I suspect that he kept any resentment he felt for Henry VII to himself. He can't have felt any affection or respect for him, and any loyalty he expressed was, indeed, to the Crown of England and not to Henry personally. He had served Richard well, but whether he mourned him, we will never know.
>
> Carol
>
>

"His role in the usurpation of Richard III raises questions about his
character, but he was otherwise staunchly devoted to the crown."

Or maybe raises questions about the 'usurpation'?

When brought before Tudor after the fighting at Bosworth he was asked why he had served Richard. he pointed to a fence post and told Henry 'Parliament told me he was king. If they told me that post were King I would serve that post." Or so the story goes. He spent some years in the Tower, then after release was not given his Norfolk inheritance until he proved his loyalty. He would later lead an army against Scotland and win the battle of Flodden in which the Scots king [James IV?] was killed.
Paul


On 13 Dec 2012, at 21:52, Ishita Bandyo wrote:

> Great article, David.
> "By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's
> advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels."
>
> Is this Thomas Howard, John Howard's son? The Duke of Norfolk who led the vanguard for Richard? Strange he went over to the usurper responsible for his father's death....That is if he is Norfolk's son.
>
> --- On Thu, 12/13/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
> To: "" <>
> Date: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 11:27 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Article for those who can't access DNB:
>
>
>
> Egremont, Sir John (b. 1459?, d. in or after 1505), rebel, was the son of Thomas Percy (14221460), the second son of Henry Percy, second earl of Northumberland, who had been created Lord Egremont on 20 November 1449 and was killed on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460. Thomas Percy is not known to have married, and although John regarded himself as his heir he never inherited the barony, which, with his use of the surname Egremont, suggests that his legitimacy was disputed. He was probably born in 1459, making him twenty-one in 1480 when he released his rights in one of his father's grants; this is the only occasion when their relationship is made explicit. By the mid-1470s, when Egremont was already a knight, he was apparently in the service of his kinsman, the earl of Northumberland, at Leconfield. In 1478 he was granted £20 by Edward IV by way of reward and in 1480 was given an annuity of £20. Richard III
>
> gave him an annuity of £40, which was the usual fee of a knight of the body, and he was described as the king's servant in March 1484 when he was granted Kempston, Bedfordshire, for his good service against the rebels in the previous year.
>
>
>
> By May 1486 Egremont had transferred his service to Henry VII, who granted him an annuity of 40 marks from the forfeited lands of Viscount Lovell. Egremont may have hoped for his restoration to his father's barony by the new dynasty. In February 1488 he styled himself John Egremont, Lord Egremont. Restoration, however, was not forthcoming, and in 1489 Egremont rebelled. The rising, which led to the death of his cousin Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, took place against a background of dissatisfaction with heavy royal taxation. Many writers have also seen a lingering loyalty to Richard III's memory in the unrest. Egremont, however, may have had more personal motives, if, as seems probable, Northumberland had refused him his father's land.
>
>
>
> The unrest began at Ayton in Cleveland on 20 April 1489, under the leadership of the yeoman Robert Chamber(d. 1489), rebel, of Ayton, whom Tudor chroniclers, perhaps in confusion with a Percy servant of the same name, were later to call John à Chamber. On 28 April Chamber's men confronted and killed Northumberland at Cock Lodge in the earl's park at Topcliffe, near Thirsk. The Cleveland insurgents then joined forces with Egremont, who was at the head of rebels from the North and East Ridings, and they advanced as far south as Doncaster before falling back to York. A faction within the city opened its gates to them on 15 May. By then Henry VII was marching north, and the approach of his army's advance guard under Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, dispersed the rebels. Egremont had already gone north to try and raise more men in Richmondshire and was able to make his escape to the court of Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, at Mechelen near Brussels. Chamber
>
> was among those tried by a commission of oyer and terminer which sat in York at the end of the month and was hanged.
>
>
>
> By 1492 Egremont had made his peace with Henry VII and had returned to England. The minority of his kinsman the fifth earl of Northumberland evidently brought him greater recognition as one of the Percy family. In October 1493 he was granted the Percy manors of Isleham, Cambridgeshire, and Forston, Leicestershire, during the earl's minority and the grant, uniquely if slightly ambiguously, describes him as lord of Egremont. He was, however, never summoned to parliament, and in a list of 1492 appears among the knights rather than the barons. His uncertain status was also apparent in November 1495 when Henry VII sent him to confer with the emperor Maximilian about Perkin Warbeck. A Venetian account of the embassy refers to him as Lord Egremont, but adds that he was judged a man of not much repute because he had only ten horses with him. Egremont returned to England late the following March. His date of death is unknown, but was after 30 May 1505 when he
>
> granted his manor of Catterton, Yorkshire, to the earl of Northumberland in return for an annuity. Egremont had a sister, Mary, who married the Percy retainer John Gascoigne of Burghwallis. There is no certain evidence that Egremont himself ever married, but the Mistress Maud Egremont who was in the service of the earl of Northumberland in the early 1520s may have been his widow.
>
>
>
> Rosemary Horrox
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>
> To: "" <>
>
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 19:25
>
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Illegitimate son of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont.
>
>
>
> Oxford DNB Biography
>
>
>
> http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/57620?docPos=1
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>
> To:
>
> Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 0:39
>
> Subject: Re: "Historum" discussion about Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, Sir John Egremont!
>
>
>
> --- In , "gillian.laughton1" <gillian.laughton1@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> From memory of material for a presentation on the Percys, there is a
>
>> possibility that a leader of the pack who killed Northumberland ((Henry
>
>> Percy) a couple of years after Bosworth was an illegitimate born Percy
>
>> himself.
>
>>
>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> **
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Wednesday said:
>
>>>
>
>>> "Northunberland wasn't killed by northern nobles, was he? I always had the
>
>>> impression it was the commoners who surrounded and killed him. If so,
>
>>> that's
>
>>> got to be a first in English history -- commoners avenging the betrayal of
>
>>> a
>
>>> Duke/king they loved. It really makes you wonder what Richard did to reach
>
>>> so many of them, to inspire that sort of devotion even after he had died. "
>
>>>
>
>>> Salisbury was murdered by the commons at Pontefract at the end of 1460.
>
>>> This
>
>>> might have been personally motivated, though, as well as uber-loyalty to
>
>>> Henry VI. Given Salisbury and York's recent status as 'rebels' I'd
>
>>> certainly
>
>>> not discount loyalty to Henry as a factor.
>
>>>
>
>>> Karen
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi All

Forwarding this FYI. sounds as if it should be fabulous - hope they make
a CD/DVD for those of us who can't get there.

Not too sure whether the link will work - might have to type it in or go
to Leicester Uni's press releases.

cheers

Jac


***********************************************



University of Leicester to hold concert of Early Music which will follow
the King's life

Search for King Richard III press portal:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii
The University of Leicester will hold a concert of medieval music which
will tell the story of King Richard III's life.

Members of the archaeological team behind the search for King Richard
III are organising a concert featuring music from the times and places
the King would have known.

The concert will be held on Friday 11 January at the Fraser Noble Hall
in Leicester and will feature a trio of leading Early Music performers.

It coincides with the annual meeting of the Society for Historical
Archaeology, hosted by the University's Centre for Historical
Archaeology in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History.
This is the major, global learned society for historical archaeology,
and this will be only the second time that it has convened these
meetings outside the USA.

The ensemble, named TritonE, is a newly-formed recorder trio led by
Janet Forbes, a graduate of the Royal Conservatory, The Hague.
She will be joined by Mary-Jannet Lieth and Elspeth Robertson, who are
both currently studying at the Royal College of Music, London.
Janet has been researching Richard's life and travels, which will help
inform her choices of pieces to perform at the concert.

The programme will explore the kind of music he would have grown up with
in England as well as during his time abroad. There will be singing and
dance music, as well as more serious pieces.
The group plan to include works from the Glogauer Liedbuch, a 15th
century German manuscript collection of songs, as well as Franco-Flemish
repertoire from the Low Countries, to reflect Richard's travels in
Europe.

Janet Forbes said: When I first heard about the discovery it was
really exciting. The music will provide an amazing context to the life
of someone like Richard III. We are trying to pick music from places he
visited and pieces written about things he was doing.

Professor Lin Foxhall said: This concert offers another perspective
on the life and times of Richard III, presenting the sound world in
which he lived, and the different kinds of music he would have heard and
known.


The University of Leicester, in association with Leicester City Council
and the Richard III Society, is leading the Search for Richard III.

The University has made it clear that it is not saying it has found King
Richard III  rather that the skeleton has characteristics that
warrant extensive further detailed examination and that the search has
moved from an archaeological to a laboratory phase.
The University has added that the outcomes of its investigations are
expected early next year.

The Search for Richard III is also the subject of a Channel 4
documentary being made by Darlow Smithson.

The concert will take place on Friday 11 January from 6.30pm to 7.30 pm
and will be held at the Fraser Noble Hall, Leicester. Tickets are £5
for the general public and £3 for Society for Historical Archaeology
delegates, and can be booked through the University's Shop@le site here:


http://shop.le.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?modid=1&prodid=0&deptid=7&cati
d=711&prodvarid=343
--

Thank you Jac....Eileen

--- In , jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Forwarding this FYI. sounds as if it should be fabulous - hope they make
> a CD/DVD for those of us who can't get there.
>
> Not too sure whether the link will work - might have to type it in or go
> to Leicester Uni's press releases.
>
> cheers
>
> Jac
>
>
> ***********************************************
>
>
>
> University of Leicester to hold concert of Early Music which will follow
> the King’s life
>
> Search for King Richard III press portal:
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii
> The University of Leicester will hold a concert of medieval music which
> will tell the story of King Richard III’s life.
>
> Members of the archaeological team behind the search for King Richard
> III are organising a concert featuring music from the times and places
> the King would have known.
>
> The concert will be held on Friday 11 January at the Fraser Noble Hall
> in Leicester and will feature a trio of leading Early Music performers.
>
> It coincides with the annual meeting of the Society for Historical
> Archaeology, hosted by the University’s Centre for Historical
> Archaeology in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History.
> This is the major, global learned society for historical archaeology,
> and this will be only the second time that it has convened these
> meetings outside the USA.
>
> The ensemble, named TritonE, is a newly-formed recorder trio led by
> Janet Forbes, a graduate of the Royal Conservatory, The Hague.
> She will be joined by Mary-Jannet Lieth and Elspeth Robertson, who are
> both currently studying at the Royal College of Music, London.
> Janet has been researching Richard’s life and travels, which will help
> inform her choices of pieces to perform at the concert.
>
> The programme will explore the kind of music he would have grown up with
> in England as well as during his time abroad. There will be singing and
> dance music, as well as more serious pieces.
> The group plan to include works from the Glogauer Liedbuch, a 15th
> century German manuscript collection of songs, as well as Franco-Flemish
> repertoire from the Low Countries, to reflect Richard’s travels in
> Europe.
>
> Janet Forbes said: “When I first heard about the discovery it was
> really exciting. The music will provide an amazing context to the life
> of someone like Richard III. We are trying to pick music from places he
> visited and pieces written about things he was doing.”
>
> Professor Lin Foxhall said: “This concert offers another perspective
> on the life and times of Richard III, presenting the sound world in
> which he lived, and the different kinds of music he would have heard and
> known.”
>
>
> The University of Leicester, in association with Leicester City Council
> and the Richard III Society, is leading the Search for Richard III.
>
> The University has made it clear that it is not saying it has found King
> Richard III â€" rather that the skeleton has characteristics that
> warrant extensive further detailed examination and that the search has
> moved from an archaeological to a laboratory phase.
> The University has added that the outcomes of its investigations are
> expected early next year.
>
> The Search for Richard III is also the subject of a Channel 4
> documentary being made by Darlow Smithson.
>
> The concert will take place on Friday 11 January from 6.30pm to 7.30 pm
> and will be held at the Fraser Noble Hall, Leicester. Tickets are £5
> for the general public and £3 for Society for Historical Archaeology
> delegates, and can be booked through the University’s Shop@le site here:
>
>
> http://shop.le.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?modid=1&prodid=0&deptid=7&cati
> d=711&prodvarid=343
> --
>

I'm reminded of the song that says, "Pledge allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer."

I think Henry found Howard useful, and Howard chose to be useful. Mutual survival tactics, and Howard was a good chess player. Practicality trumps romanticism.

Just because Howard served the usurper doesn't necessarily mean he didn't mourn Richard. He served Richard to the end of Richard's life. But Howard couldn't do a thing for his family if he got himself executed after Richard died. What would be the point of that? He couldn't take Henry with him...that opportunity was gone. And nothing would bring Richard back.


--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I wrote my email before I read this one! And I am also inclined to think he fought for the crown not the king..... He fought with Richard at Barnet and have known young Richard. He could have mourned R. But I am beginning think they all were just loyal to themselves not any one else!