Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's kangaroo law

Marie

Very briefly on this....

"David, there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers, Vaughan &
Grey to have been executed without trial. If you believe this to be
the case then it is up to you to prove that case. Bringing in Saddam
Hussein (note double d, pronounced as such), George Bush and the
Beatles isn't going to help. And you can always make the argument
that the judiciary are part of the Establishment and therefore not
truly independent."

Actually Marie there is - Rous is I think one of very few sources who
suggest somekind of trial. Croyland had this to say -
"These multitudes of people, accordingly, making a descent from the north to
the south, under the especial conduct and guidance of Sir Richard Ratcliffe;
on their arrival at the town of Pomfret, by command of the said Richard
Ratcliffe, and without any form of trial being observed, Antony, earl of
Rivers, Richard Grey, his nephew, and Thomas Vaughan, an aged knight, were,
in presence of these people, beheaded. This was the second innocent blood
which was shed on the occasion of this sudden change."

Even Fabian had this say to say - "In which pastime, the duke being admitted
for lord protectour, caused sir Antony Wideuile called lord Scalis and
brother unto the quene a vertuous knight, with the lorde Rychard ye quenes
sonne, sir Richard Hawt, and sir Thomas Uaghan knightes, to be beheded at
Pomfreit, more of will than iustyce."

Vergil:
"Whan these thinges wer doone, Richard, knowinge then for certaine that ther
was no cause why he showld any further dissemble the matter, sent his
letters of warrant to the keper of Pontfreyt castle to behead in hast
Anthony lord Ryvers, Richerd Gray, and Thomas Vaghan, which was doone soone
aft".

Incidentally the dates don't suggest much of a possibility of a trial.
Whilst I wouldn't suggest they were simply dragged out of bed and beheaded
the suggestion that there was a full trial is doubtful to say the least. I
am inclined on a good day to agree that there may have been some kind of
tribunal headed by Percy perhaps. The problem with a trial even before a
packed court likely to incline to the crown's position is that you need a
charge (even a manufactured one) and its debatable that Rivers, Grey and
Vaughan could be charged with anything that would justify execution - as
they had been imprisoned since May they weren't in a position to have been
plotting to do anything to restore themselves to political power, nor were
there actions prior to their arrests illegal given that they were acting
under Rivers authority (as granted to him by Edward IV) and under the
instructions of the Council.

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> Very briefly on this....
>
> "David, there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers, Vaughan
&
> Grey to have been executed without trial. If you believe this to be
> the case then it is up to you to prove that case. Bringing in
Saddam
> Hussein (note double d, pronounced as such), George Bush and the
> Beatles isn't going to help. And you can always make the argument
> that the judiciary are part of the Establishment and therefore not
> truly independent."
>
> Actually Marie there is - Rous is I think one of very few sources
who
> suggest somekind of trial. Croyland had this to say -
> "These multitudes of people, accordingly, making a descent from the
north to
> the south, under the especial conduct and guidance of Sir Richard
Ratcliffe;
> on their arrival at the town of Pomfret, by command of the said
Richard
> Ratcliffe, and without any form of trial being observed, Antony,
earl of
> Rivers, Richard Grey, his nephew, and Thomas Vaughan, an aged
knight, were,
> in presence of these people, beheaded. This was the second innocent
blood
> which was shed on the occasion of this sudden change."
>
> Even Fabian had this say to say - "In which pastime, the duke being
admitted
> for lord protectour, caused sir Antony Wideuile called lord Scalis
and
> brother unto the quene a vertuous knight, with the lorde Rychard ye
quenes
> sonne, sir Richard Hawt, and sir Thomas Uaghan knightes, to be
beheded at
> Pomfreit, more of will than iustyce."
>
> Vergil:
> "Whan these thinges wer doone, Richard, knowinge then for certaine
that ther
> was no cause why he showld any further dissemble the matter, sent
his
> letters of warrant to the keper of Pontfreyt castle to behead in
hast
> Anthony lord Ryvers, Richerd Gray, and Thomas Vaghan, which was
doone soone
> aft".
>
> Incidentally the dates don't suggest much of a possibility of a
trial.
> Whilst I wouldn't suggest they were simply dragged out of bed and
beheaded
> the suggestion that there was a full trial is doubtful to say the
least. I
> am inclined on a good day to agree that there may have been some
kind of
> tribunal headed by Percy perhaps. The problem with a trial even
before a
> packed court likely to incline to the crown's position is that you
need a
> charge (even a manufactured one) and its debatable that Rivers,
Grey and
> Vaughan could be charged with anything that would justify
execution - as
> they had been imprisoned since May they weren't in a position to
have been
> plotting to do anything to restore themselves to political power,
nor were
> there actions prior to their arrests illegal given that they were
acting
> under Rivers authority (as granted to him by Edward IV) and under
the
> instructions of the Council.


On Croyland, point taken, Tim. In fact, one of the reasons I will no
longer dcorrespond with David is that I feel him dragging me down to
his own level (I assume I'm one of the harpies he mentions; saints,
brutal dictators and harpies - what a colourful world he inhabits!).

As I mentioned in an earlier message, I am just getting back into
things. And for the past umpteen years I have, in any case,
concentrated almost exclusively on the earlier period (late Henry VI
to mid 1460s) and my interest in myth and related topics (so much for
my being some sort of starry-eyed Richard fanatic!). So I'm not as
hot as I should be at present on the day-to-day events of Richard's
reign. I realise I shall have to do my normal rather pedantic
exercise with this period, collating all the information I can get
into a timeline, making allowances for speed of travel of
information, etc, and seeing what comes out.
Do we know where Northumberland was in the period leading up to the
executions? The Percies did of course have their own inn in York, on
Fossegate I seem to remember, and that is not so far from Pontefract.

Also, to pick up on your point that Rivers was acting under
authority given him by Edward and under instructions from the
Council. That is to assume there was no plot against Richard's life
as he came south to London, as he himself claimed; this would hardly
have come from the King or council. It also assumes that Edward had
not appointed Richard as Protector, and I recognise that it is not
provable that he did. But as I recall these two assertions were the
basis of Richard's justification of the arrests, and could they not
also have formed the basis of a charge? If so, the whole business may
not have been all that rushed.
Interested in your views,
Marie

Marie


> Do we know where Northumberland was in the period leading up to the
> executions? The Percies did of course have their own inn in York, on
> Fossegate I seem to remember, and that is not so far from Pontefract.
>
Off the top of my head I can't remember to be truthful - Lorraine is far
more knowledgable when it comes to that type of stuff than me <g>.

> Also, to pick up on your point that Rivers was acting under
> authority given him by Edward and under instructions from the
> Council. That is to assume there was no plot against Richard's life
> as he came south to London, as he himself claimed; this would hardly
> have come from the King or council. It also assumes that Edward had
> not appointed Richard as Protector, and I recognise that it is not
> provable that he did. But as I recall these two assertions were the
> basis of Richard's justification of the arrests, and could they not
> also have formed the basis of a charge? If so, the whole business may
> not have been all that rushed.
> Interested in your views,
> Marie
>
Actually even if Edward had left Richard as Protector - legally there was no
obligation for the Council to follow his requests and even if the council
was going along with the idea of a protectorate (which there is clear
evidence that they weren't) Richard had not been given that authority by the
council when he arrested Rivers etc on their way to London. Once Richard
did arrive in London after his small coup d'etat it seems the Council was
happy to enact a Protectorate though it didn't have much choice once Richard
had control of Edward V but even so they were unwilling to countenance any
charge against Rivers on the basis that any action whether real or supposed
by Rivers against Richard was not against him as "protector" as he had not
been appointed such at that time. They appear to have made it clear that as
a council they would co-operate and while wouldn't order the release of
Rivers etc they would countenance the complaints that Richard made against
them. There was almost certainly no plot against Richard's life as he
travelled south that I would wager a significant amount of cash on.
To be honest Richard's actions suggest a first or pre-emptive strike (for
whatever reason) rather than a reaction to any strike he believed being
planned by Rivers - and River's own actions from the death of the King to
the meeting with Richard don't suggest he was worried about anyone.




>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Marie
>
>
> > Do we know where Northumberland was in the period leading up to
the
> > executions? The Percies did of course have their own inn in York,
on
> > Fossegate I seem to remember, and that is not so far from
Pontefract.
> >
> Off the top of my head I can't remember to be truthful - Lorraine
is far
> more knowledgable when it comes to that type of stuff than me <g>.

I've just looked up my copy of the York House Books (I was lucky
enough to be able to get these cheap - supposedly water damaged after
warehouse accident, but you wouldn't know it). Certainly
Northumberland seems to have been in York, or certainly very close,
on 13th June as on that day it was agreed that "my lord of
Northumberland shalbe presentid thys day with ij s. mayn breid, vj
galons wyn of Gaskwyn and ij pykys".
Marie

>
> > Also, to pick up on your point that Rivers was acting under
> > authority given him by Edward and under instructions from the
> > Council. That is to assume there was no plot against Richard's
life
> > as he came south to London, as he himself claimed; this would
hardly
> > have come from the King or council. It also assumes that Edward
had
> > not appointed Richard as Protector, and I recognise that it is not
> > provable that he did. But as I recall these two assertions were
the
> > basis of Richard's justification of the arrests, and could they
not
> > also have formed the basis of a charge? If so, the whole business
may
> > not have been all that rushed.
> > Interested in your views,
> > Marie
> >
> Actually even if Edward had left Richard as Protector - legally
there was no
> obligation for the Council to follow his requests and even if the
council
> was going along with the idea of a protectorate (which there is
clear
> evidence that they weren't) Richard had not been given that
authority by the
> council when he arrested Rivers etc on their way to London. Once
Richard
> did arrive in London after his small coup d'etat it seems the
Council was
> happy to enact a Protectorate though it didn't have much choice
once Richard
> had control of Edward V but even so they were unwilling to
countenance any
> charge against Rivers on the basis that any action whether real or
supposed
> by Rivers against Richard was not against him as "protector" as he
had not
> been appointed such at that time. They appear to have made it
clear that as
> a council they would co-operate and while wouldn't order the
release of
> Rivers etc they would countenance the complaints that Richard made
against
> them. There was almost certainly no plot against Richard's life as
he
> travelled south that I would wager a significant amount of cash on.
> To be honest Richard's actions suggest a first or pre-emptive
strike (for
> whatever reason) rather than a reaction to any strike he believed
being
> planned by Rivers - and River's own actions from the death of the
King to
> the meeting with Richard don't suggest he was worried about anyone.

As you know from my previous messages, this is not the way I read
these same events. It is of course mere speculation, but consistent
with Richard's sudden change after Rivers had retired to bed at
Northampton, that he then heard something from Buckingham (true or
otherwise) that alarmed him. It is often said that Buckingham hated
the Woodvilles, but we have no evidence of any overt problems between
himself and themselves up to that point(or have we?). Since Rivers
had been at Ludlow when he heard of the King's death, and Buckingham
on his lands at Brecknock, about 40 miles SW of same (though
admittedly more like 55 by road), and he was married to Rivers'
sister, it is quite plausible that he had received some communication
from Rivers in the wake of the King's death that had prompted his
journey. There certainly were suggestions that Rivers had to be
stopped from bringing a virtual army with him to London. If Rivers
feared no one, I'm not sure why the King was sent further ahead that
day and was setting off again so early without waiting for Rivers to
rejoin the party with Gloucester.
Marie

>
>
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

Hi Tim & Marie

<there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers, Vaughan &
> Grey to have been executed without trial.
>
> Actually Marie there is - Rous is I think one of very few sources
who suggest somekind of trial. .

Croyland had this to say -
"without any form of trial being observed, Antony, earl of
Rivers, Richard Grey, his nephew, and Thomas Vaughan, an aged knight,
were, in presence of these people, beheaded. "

Fabian had this to say - "In which pastime, the duke being admitted
for lord protectour, caused sir Antony Wideuile [snip]to be beheded
at Pomfreit, more of will than iustyce."

Vergil: Richard, knowinge then for certaine that ther
was no cause why he showld any further dissemble the matter, sent his
letters of warrant to the keper of Pontfreyt castle to behead in hast
Anthony lord Ryvers, Richerd Gray, and Thomas Vaghan, which was doone
soone aft".

Hmm - Croyland, safely writing 8 months after R3's death, a renowned
distruster of northerners, and clearly no eye-witness to what went on
at Pontefract...

Fabyan writing *donkeys* years after the event, wll into the next
century, London-based, and clearly no eye-witness to the event at
Pontefract, and good old Polly Virgil, foreign biographer of a
massive Tudor-commissioned History, and once again, clearly no eye-
witness to events at Pontefract.

I feel an adaptation of the famous phrase used by either Christine
Keeler or her chum Mandy Rice Davies:

"Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"

<the dates don't suggest much of a possibility of a trial.>

Well, let's put it this way, then, Timbo - 'the dates' actually fit
in very well when compared with the length of the 'trial' that was
granted to The Earl of Warwick by Tudor may years later, that was
oooh - all boxed-off in a single morning, IIRC.

Yet very few historians claim that particular poor sod didn't have a
trial. Funny that....

Regards - Lorraine

Hi Marie

< On Croyland, point taken, Tim. In fact, one of the reasons I will
no longer dcorrespond with David is that I feel him dragging me down
to his own level (I assume I'm one of the harpies he mentions;>

Having assumed from clues garnered from the messages of others that
David didn't feel obliged to apologise to you, I have taken steps to
avoid his contributions unles they are incorporated into messages I
am reading, thus I spotted his reference to harpies whilst reading
Victoria's reply.

Don't worry about it. I assume I'm also one of the Harpies he's on
about, but since, as a one-time Industrial Relations Officer, I've
been called much worse by blokes on picket lines who had least had
the courage of their convictions and the balls to do so to my face
instead of hiding behind the 'mirrors and smoke' of cyberspace,
frankly I couldn't give a toss.

As for David taking yet another opportunity to publicly link Hitler
with members of this Forum in addition to his indulging in a bit of
online goading about fancying Richard: well, in my time, and from
wittier hecklers than him, I've put up with references to shagging
myself, as well as accusations of sexual activity with my father, my
mother, various beasts of the field, the singer of 'Smoke on the
Water' and and so on and boringly on. So adding Richard and Adolf to
that little lot is neither here or there, really.

Especially since, unlike our sad friend, I actually have a life.

I was merely angry that he's taken an unfair pop at you on a public
forum and used undoubtedly questionable statements to do. I hope he
heeds his reprimand, for the sake of colleagues who, like Victoria,
are obviously giving him the benefit of the doubt and responding to
him. She's young and has a lot to learn. Fortunately I'm a little
older, I actually don't need this Forum to get on with what I want to
do Richard-wise, so to be honest contributors like him can go and get
stuffed - I've heard it all before, and from members of the human
race that I have rather more time for.

Lorraine

Hello again Marie & Tim

< I realise I shall have to do my normal rather pedantic
> exercise with this period, collating all the information I can get
> into a timeline, making allowances for speed of travel of
> information, etc, and seeing what comes out. >

A few years back, after Tim and I had a rather protracted but
brilliantly informative correspondence I did draw up a timeline
Marie. It's rather revealing.

< Do we know where Northumberland was in the period leading up to the
executions? >

He was further north than Pontefract, if memory serves: probably at
York. I'm still at college so can't supply an exact location from my
files, but I believe Ratcliffe organised most of the necessary by
himself at Pontefract. the accused came from different Castles,
Rivers at Sheriff Hutton and Grey at Middleham (sorry, can't remember
where Vaughan - and Haute, was it? - were originally incarcerated).
Geoffrey Franke's, the Middleham Receviour was amongat those
conducted Grey to Middleham. It seems Rivers wasn't entirely sure of
his final destination as he gives a choice of burial places in his
last Will. Although it is customary to bang on about how many troops
accompanied Richard's arrival in the capital, apparently there was
quite a few northern peers left in the north, certainly enough to
cobble together some sort of trial or tribunal, incl. at least one
Neville.

<The Percies did of course have their own inn in York, on
Fossegate I seem to remember, and that is not so far from Pontefract.>

This inn, would it be like the Crosby place that Richard was renting
out in London. Or was it simply a hostelry?

<But as I recall these two assertions were the
basis of Richard's justification of the arrests, and could they not
also have formed the basis of a charge? If so, the whole business may
not have been all that rushed.>

Tim and I differ on this point, and I don't want to go through the
whole pro-and con of it all here, but it's basically a variation of
the the old argument of when is a king a king - at the point of death
of the old king, or when the new one is anointed at their
coronation?

Certainly if my mum is representative of the views of the Ordinary
Man on the Clapham Omnibus, she definitely thinks Edward 8 was
briefly king when she was little, even though he abdicated before his
Coronation, so maybe I take after her in having no problem with
Richard believing he was Protector because Hastings had informed him
that he was, or because his brother had intimated as much when they
last met in the February of 85 or whatever, whereas Tim, the pedant,
wants to see the ink drying on the page before he'll accept such a
role had certain immediate and innate privileges and responsibilities.

My own view is that it was a rotten job but someone had to do it.
It's all very well saying the Council had agreed that there should be
a Council-led minority government, but at the time of Edward's death,
the country was in a mess, and technically at war with either France
or Scotland or both, I forget now. Even Ross says law and order had
broken down. Someone had to be the hand on the tiller, and Rivers
wasn't necessarily the best man for the job *at the time*, any more
than Richard may not have been the best man to arrange the King's
dancing lessons and Latin parsing. Personally, Im inclined to think
a joint cistody Protectorate of Rivers and Gloucester might have been
ideal, if a radical departure from the norm, but in times of crisis,
Council consensus probably wasn't the best option - one bloke had to
be in charge, and I think everyone in the know knew that in their
heart of hearts. No doubt Rivers fancied he could be just that
bloke, and Hastings fancied it could be him, Dorset him, Buckingham
him and Richard him, etc. etc. Again I know Tim doesn't agree that
there were all these different faction at Court, but that is to
ignore ther evidence of commentators, and his own eyes.

In such a *potentially* volatile situation, it was probably just as
well Richard went for it when and how he did, for Cabinet-type rule
probably would not have worked anyway.

Besides, had a mass of armed marauders burst upon the king and his
uncles en-route for London, i'd bet my house *nobody* would've been
debating the legal niceties of who of the three uncles would have
been seen as Protector, all eyes would have naturally turned to
Richard to sort them all out, because he was the bloke with the most,
certainly the most recent, military experience and that's probably
why even the kid's Governor, Rivers, appears to have deferred to
Richard's authority and returned to meet with him, instead of doing a
Dorset and saying 'We are so Important, the northern oik and that fop
Stafford can just trot on a few miles more and dine with us here.
Stay put, young king Sire, while my man Vaughan here goes and tells
me Lords Gloucester and Buckingham of my will in this matter...'.

SOMETHING happened to sway the Council in the end, to demur when
(presumably) the opportunity to either free Rivers or let him go
cropped up. If they were solid enough to tell him to get on his bike
when he tried pressing for the guys' execution in early May, then
they should have still been sold enough by the following month, to my
way of thinking. Buckingham & Richard may have had a huge number of
supporters in town, and Hastings men had been gathered in by
Buckingham, true enough, but where was the Stanley fighting force -
potential numbers so huge, Richard HAD to rely on that family's
support at Bosworth. Where was the combined men at arms of all those
chaps who were supposedly chuntering about the Richard/Buckingham
Sweep?

Yes, the Council agreed to those executions sure as eggs is eggs,
because when they didn't, they weren't killed. Nothing much changed
in that regard, Richard and Buckingham were in town and mob-handed
when the first request to execute went up for review - only Hastings
was out of the loop for the second submission - one man, out of a
possible 2 dozen. It doesn't compute unless the Council had agreed
with the Protector this time. And I also think the Council had
agreed that the charge was Treason, possibly backdated, and, yes,
possibly trumped up by our lights these days, depending on your view,
but that's how I think it all panned out that June, the trial went
ahead and Rivers & Co bought it very quickly thereafter.

Regards - Lorraine

In a message dated 3/31/2003 9:07:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
lpickering2@... writes:

> I hope he
> heeds his reprimand, for the sake of colleagues who, like Victoria,
> are obviously giving him the benefit of the doubt and responding to
> him. She's young and has a lot to learn.

If I offended anyone, I apologize. I try to keep an open mind on forums. And
frankly, the remark about harpies was uncalled for David.
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Tim & Marie
>
> <there appear to be no grounds for supposing Rivers, Vaughan &
> > Grey to have been executed without trial.
> >
> > Actually Marie there is - Rous is I think one of very few sources
> who suggest somekind of trial. .
>
> Croyland had this to say -
> "without any form of trial being observed, Antony, earl of
> Rivers, Richard Grey, his nephew, and Thomas Vaughan, an aged
knight,
> were, in presence of these people, beheaded. "
>
> Fabian had this to say - "In which pastime, the duke being admitted
> for lord protectour, caused sir Antony Wideuile [snip]to be beheded
> at Pomfreit, more of will than iustyce."
>
> Vergil: Richard, knowinge then for certaine that ther
> was no cause why he showld any further dissemble the matter, sent
his
> letters of warrant to the keper of Pontfreyt castle to behead in
hast
> Anthony lord Ryvers, Richerd Gray, and Thomas Vaghan, which was
doone
> soone aft".
>
> Hmm - Croyland, safely writing 8 months after R3's death, a
renowned
> distruster of northerners, and clearly no eye-witness to what went
on
> at Pontefract...
>
> Fabyan writing *donkeys* years after the event, wll into the next
> century, London-based, and clearly no eye-witness to the event at
> Pontefract, and good old Polly Virgil, foreign biographer of a
> massive Tudor-commissioned History, and once again, clearly no eye-
> witness to events at Pontefract.
>
> I feel an adaptation of the famous phrase used by either Christine
> Keeler or her chum Mandy Rice Davies:
>
> "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"
>
> <the dates don't suggest much of a possibility of a trial.>
>
> Well, let's put it this way, then, Timbo - 'the dates' actually fit
> in very well when compared with the length of the 'trial' that was
> granted to The Earl of Warwick by Tudor may years later, that was
> oooh - all boxed-off in a single morning, IIRC.
>
> Yet very few historians claim that particular poor sod didn't have
a
> trial. Funny that....
>
> Regards - Lorraine

Yes, I certainly agree with your points about Croyland. Whether the
2nd Continuator had access to the Council at that time is dubious,
and anything coming from Up North,the dark quarter of the world, was
the Devil's work as far as he was concerned.
Of course Rous wasn't an eye witness either, and he has one version
of Richard during his lifetime and another after his death, but it's
an odd detail for him to make up.
Also, as you say, Lorraine, a trial would have required no extra
time. Although there were trials that went into more than one day,
the overwhelming majority were over in one very short sitting.

However, it seemed to me the bottom line was whether Northumblerand
was available to try Rivers, so that needed to be got out of the way
first. Since he was in York, only about 20 miles north of Pontefract,
on 13th June, it seems highly likely. Does anyone else have any other
dates for his itinerary?

By the by, all that stuff about the cope has made me very nostalgic
for Durham, where I did my PGCE in ancient times.
Marie

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hello again Marie & Tim
>
> < I realise I shall have to do my normal rather pedantic
> > exercise with this period, collating all the information I can
get
> > into a timeline, making allowances for speed of travel of
> > information, etc, and seeing what comes out. >
>
> A few years back, after Tim and I had a rather protracted but
> brilliantly informative correspondence I did draw up a timeline
> Marie. It's rather revealing.
>
> < Do we know where Northumberland was in the period leading up to
the
> executions? >
>
> He was further north than Pontefract, if memory serves: probably at
> York. I'm still at college so can't supply an exact location from
my
> files, but I believe Ratcliffe organised most of the necessary by
> himself at Pontefract. the accused came from different Castles,
> Rivers at Sheriff Hutton and Grey at Middleham (sorry, can't
remember
> where Vaughan - and Haute, was it? - were originally incarcerated).
> Geoffrey Franke's, the Middleham Receviour was amongat those
> conducted Grey to Middleham. It seems Rivers wasn't entirely sure
of
> his final destination as he gives a choice of burial places in his
> last Will. Although it is customary to bang on about how many
troops
> accompanied Richard's arrival in the capital, apparently there was
> quite a few northern peers left in the north, certainly enough to
> cobble together some sort of trial or tribunal, incl. at least one
> Neville.

They would all have had to come through York on their way to
Pontefract. Is it possible that the trial took place there? I recall
that in the 1450s, the Duke of Exeter was tried at York Castle before
being imprisoned at Pontefract.
>
> <The Percies did of course have their own inn in York, on
> Fossegate I seem to remember, and that is not so far from
Pontefract.>
>
> This inn, would it be like the Crosby place that Richard was
renting
> out in London. Or was it simply a hostelry?

No, like Crosby Place. I think all these mansions were called inns. I
seem to remember it was near (perhaps opposite) the church of St
Denis, where some of the Percies were buried. Also I notice I spelt
Fossgate wrong.
Marie
>
> <But as I recall these two assertions were the
> basis of Richard's justification of the arrests, and could they not
> also have formed the basis of a charge? If so, the whole business
may
> not have been all that rushed.>
>
> Tim and I differ on this point, and I don't want to go through the
> whole pro-and con of it all here, but it's basically a variation of
> the the old argument of when is a king a king - at the point of
death
> of the old king, or when the new one is anointed at their
> coronation?
>
> Certainly if my mum is representative of the views of the Ordinary
> Man on the Clapham Omnibus, she definitely thinks Edward 8 was
> briefly king when she was little, even though he abdicated before
his
> Coronation, so maybe I take after her in having no problem with
> Richard believing he was Protector because Hastings had informed
him
> that he was, or because his brother had intimated as much when they
> last met in the February of 85 or whatever, whereas Tim, the
pedant,
> wants to see the ink drying on the page before he'll accept such a
> role had certain immediate and innate privileges and
responsibilities.
>
> My own view is that it was a rotten job but someone had to do it.
> It's all very well saying the Council had agreed that there should
be
> a Council-led minority government, but at the time of Edward's
death,
> the country was in a mess, and technically at war with either
France
> or Scotland or both, I forget now. Even Ross says law and order
had
> broken down. Someone had to be the hand on the tiller, and Rivers
> wasn't necessarily the best man for the job *at the time*, any more
> than Richard may not have been the best man to arrange the King's
> dancing lessons and Latin parsing. Personally, Im inclined to
think
> a joint cistody Protectorate of Rivers and Gloucester might have
been
> ideal, if a radical departure from the norm, but in times of
crisis,
> Council consensus probably wasn't the best option - one bloke had
to
> be in charge, and I think everyone in the know knew that in their
> heart of hearts. No doubt Rivers fancied he could be just that
> bloke, and Hastings fancied it could be him, Dorset him, Buckingham
> him and Richard him, etc. etc. Again I know Tim doesn't agree that
> there were all these different faction at Court, but that is to
> ignore ther evidence of commentators, and his own eyes.
>
> In such a *potentially* volatile situation, it was probably just as
> well Richard went for it when and how he did, for Cabinet-type rule
> probably would not have worked anyway.
>
> Besides, had a mass of armed marauders burst upon the king and his
> uncles en-route for London, i'd bet my house *nobody* would've been
> debating the legal niceties of who of the three uncles would have
> been seen as Protector, all eyes would have naturally turned to
> Richard to sort them all out, because he was the bloke with the
most,
> certainly the most recent, military experience and that's probably
> why even the kid's Governor, Rivers, appears to have deferred to
> Richard's authority and returned to meet with him, instead of doing
a
> Dorset and saying 'We are so Important, the northern oik and that
fop
> Stafford can just trot on a few miles more and dine with us here.
> Stay put, young king Sire, while my man Vaughan here goes and tells
> me Lords Gloucester and Buckingham of my will in this matter...'.
>
> SOMETHING happened to sway the Council in the end, to demur when
> (presumably) the opportunity to either free Rivers or let him go
> cropped up. If they were solid enough to tell him to get on his
bike
> when he tried pressing for the guys' execution in early May, then
> they should have still been sold enough by the following month, to
my
> way of thinking. Buckingham & Richard may have had a huge number
of
> supporters in town, and Hastings men had been gathered in by
> Buckingham, true enough, but where was the Stanley fighting force -
> potential numbers so huge, Richard HAD to rely on that family's
> support at Bosworth. Where was the combined men at arms of all
those
> chaps who were supposedly chuntering about the Richard/Buckingham
> Sweep?
>
> Yes, the Council agreed to those executions sure as eggs is eggs,
> because when they didn't, they weren't killed. Nothing much
changed
> in that regard, Richard and Buckingham were in town and mob-handed
> when the first request to execute went up for review - only
Hastings
> was out of the loop for the second submission - one man, out of a
> possible 2 dozen. It doesn't compute unless the Council had agreed
> with the Protector this time. And I also think the Council had
> agreed that the charge was Treason, possibly backdated, and, yes,
> possibly trumped up by our lights these days, depending on your
view,
> but that's how I think it all panned out that June, the trial went
> ahead and Rivers & Co bought it very quickly thereafter.
>
> Regards - Lorraine

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > Hello again Marie & Tim
> >
> > < I realise I shall have to do my normal rather pedantic
> > > exercise with this period, collating all the information I can
> get
> > > into a timeline, making allowances for speed of travel of
> > > information, etc, and seeing what comes out. >
> >
> > A few years back, after Tim and I had a rather protracted but
> > brilliantly informative correspondence I did draw up a timeline
> > Marie. It's rather revealing.
> >
> > < Do we know where Northumberland was in the period leading up to
> the
> > executions? >
> >
> > He was further north than Pontefract, if memory serves: probably
at
> > York. I'm still at college so can't supply an exact location
from
> my
> > files, but I believe Ratcliffe organised most of the necessary by
> > himself at Pontefract. the accused came from different Castles,
> > Rivers at Sheriff Hutton and Grey at Middleham (sorry, can't
> remember
> > where Vaughan - and Haute, was it? - were originally
incarcerated).
> > Geoffrey Franke's, the Middleham Receviour was amongat those
> > conducted Grey to Middleham. It seems Rivers wasn't entirely
sure
> of
> > his final destination as he gives a choice of burial places in
his
> > last Will. Although it is customary to bang on about how many
> troops
> > accompanied Richard's arrival in the capital, apparently there
was
> > quite a few northern peers left in the north, certainly enough to
> > cobble together some sort of trial or tribunal, incl. at least
one
> > Neville.
>
> They would all have had to come through York on their way to
> Pontefract. Is it possible that the trial took place there? I
recall
> that in the 1450s, the Duke of Exeter was tried at York Castle
before
> being imprisoned at Pontefract.

Answering myself, now (wonder what Some People might have to say
about that). Just looked at the York House Books again, and found the
following for 15th June after receipt of Richard's letter:
various named persons "with CC horsmen defensably arayd shall ryd upp
to London to asyst (upon) my said lord gude grace and to be at
Pomfret at Wednysday at nyght next cumyng thar to atend apon my lord
of Northumberland....".
Since 13th June was a Friday, the next Wednesday after the 15th would
have been the 18th. As they were to attend upon Northumberland that
night, he wwas expected to be still there on the morning of the 19th.
On the 19th itself a proclamation was made in York in response to
Richard's letter, ordering all men to rise and come to London "in the
compeny of his coysn the erle of Northumberland, the lord Nevill and
odir men of wirship by his highnes appontyed...". This doesn't really
tell us whether Northumberland was at York or still a day's ride
south at Pontefract; however, on the 21st the force raised was sent
to Pontefract, with instructions that until they reached there they
should wear the cognisances of the Duke of Gloucester and of the city
of York. My reading of this is that they were being sent to
Pontefract to be put under Northumberland's command.

Marie
> >
> > <The Percies did of course have their own inn in York, on
> > Fossegate I seem to remember, and that is not so far from
> Pontefract.>
> >
> > This inn, would it be like the Crosby place that Richard was
> renting
> > out in London. Or was it simply a hostelry?
>
> No, like Crosby Place. I think all these mansions were called inns.
I
> seem to remember it was near (perhaps opposite) the church of St
> Denis, where some of the Percies were buried. Also I notice I spelt
> Fossgate wrong.
> Marie
> >
> > <But as I recall these two assertions were the
> > basis of Richard's justification of the arrests, and could they
not
> > also have formed the basis of a charge? If so, the whole business
> may
> > not have been all that rushed.>
> >
> > Tim and I differ on this point, and I don't want to go through
the
> > whole pro-and con of it all here, but it's basically a variation
of
> > the the old argument of when is a king a king - at the point of
> death
> > of the old king, or when the new one is anointed at their
> > coronation?
> >
> > Certainly if my mum is representative of the views of the
Ordinary
> > Man on the Clapham Omnibus, she definitely thinks Edward 8 was
> > briefly king when she was little, even though he abdicated before
> his
> > Coronation, so maybe I take after her in having no problem with
> > Richard believing he was Protector because Hastings had informed
> him
> > that he was, or because his brother had intimated as much when
they
> > last met in the February of 85 or whatever, whereas Tim, the
> pedant,
> > wants to see the ink drying on the page before he'll accept such
a
> > role had certain immediate and innate privileges and
> responsibilities.
> >
> > My own view is that it was a rotten job but someone had to do
it.
> > It's all very well saying the Council had agreed that there
should
> be
> > a Council-led minority government, but at the time of Edward's
> death,
> > the country was in a mess, and technically at war with either
> France
> > or Scotland or both, I forget now. Even Ross says law and order
> had
> > broken down. Someone had to be the hand on the tiller, and
Rivers
> > wasn't necessarily the best man for the job *at the time*, any
more
> > than Richard may not have been the best man to arrange the King's
> > dancing lessons and Latin parsing. Personally, Im inclined to
> think
> > a joint cistody Protectorate of Rivers and Gloucester might have
> been
> > ideal, if a radical departure from the norm, but in times of
> crisis,
> > Council consensus probably wasn't the best option - one bloke had
> to
> > be in charge, and I think everyone in the know knew that in their
> > heart of hearts. No doubt Rivers fancied he could be just that
> > bloke, and Hastings fancied it could be him, Dorset him,
Buckingham
> > him and Richard him, etc. etc. Again I know Tim doesn't agree
that
> > there were all these different faction at Court, but that is to
> > ignore ther evidence of commentators, and his own eyes.
> >
> > In such a *potentially* volatile situation, it was probably just
as
> > well Richard went for it when and how he did, for Cabinet-type
rule
> > probably would not have worked anyway.
> >
> > Besides, had a mass of armed marauders burst upon the king and
his
> > uncles en-route for London, i'd bet my house *nobody* would've
been
> > debating the legal niceties of who of the three uncles would have
> > been seen as Protector, all eyes would have naturally turned to
> > Richard to sort them all out, because he was the bloke with the
> most,
> > certainly the most recent, military experience and that's
probably
> > why even the kid's Governor, Rivers, appears to have deferred to
> > Richard's authority and returned to meet with him, instead of
doing
> a
> > Dorset and saying 'We are so Important, the northern oik and that
> fop
> > Stafford can just trot on a few miles more and dine with us
here.
> > Stay put, young king Sire, while my man Vaughan here goes and
tells
> > me Lords Gloucester and Buckingham of my will in this matter...'.
> >
> > SOMETHING happened to sway the Council in the end, to demur when
> > (presumably) the opportunity to either free Rivers or let him go
> > cropped up. If they were solid enough to tell him to get on his
> bike
> > when he tried pressing for the guys' execution in early May, then
> > they should have still been sold enough by the following month,
to
> my
> > way of thinking. Buckingham & Richard may have had a huge number
> of
> > supporters in town, and Hastings men had been gathered in by
> > Buckingham, true enough, but where was the Stanley fighting
force -
> > potential numbers so huge, Richard HAD to rely on that family's
> > support at Bosworth. Where was the combined men at arms of all
> those
> > chaps who were supposedly chuntering about the Richard/Buckingham
> > Sweep?
> >
> > Yes, the Council agreed to those executions sure as eggs is eggs,
> > because when they didn't, they weren't killed. Nothing much
> changed
> > in that regard, Richard and Buckingham were in town and mob-
handed
> > when the first request to execute went up for review - only
> Hastings
> > was out of the loop for the second submission - one man, out of a
> > possible 2 dozen. It doesn't compute unless the Council had
agreed
> > with the Protector this time. And I also think the Council had
> > agreed that the charge was Treason, possibly backdated, and, yes,
> > possibly trumped up by our lights these days, depending on your
> view,
> > but that's how I think it all panned out that June, the trial
went
> > ahead and Rivers & Co bought it very quickly thereafter.
> >
> > Regards - Lorraine

hi Victoria

No, lovey, I wasn't what you'd call offended. Well, only by David's
rather crass attempts at Divide & Rule (that old 'I-like-you, Vicky -
but-that's-'cos-you're-not-like-the-other-basket-cases-on-the List'
bit).

Ha! Like THAT old chestnut has never been used on Lists such as these
before!!

And which wasn't actually offensive in the least, but just downright
laughable.

Ah, well, as my old granny used to say:

'God Loves a Trier'

and Our Mutual List Chum is certainly a trier! :)

I agree with you that one should keep an open mind on the Forum,
which is why I don't particularly want David to leave/go/be
suspended. It doesn't matter when he lost it for me, I'm not the
public arbier of taste, suffice it say, he did, for reasons already
explained on the Forum.

But, in fact think it's flipping marvellous that he's been banging on
about His Version of Richard the Third for blooming months now, and
hasn't even made the slightest dint in the collective psyche of his
List colleagues. I can almost guarantee that he won't have ever
changed a single mind with his particular version of the tale, on or
off the list, so what is there to worry about? Keep on whistling
away David - we Ricardians have rather more whistle than you have...

Lorraine

mariewalsh200301/04/2003 9:56 ammarie@...

> By the by, all that stuff about the cope has made me very nostalgic
> for Durham
Heard about Tony Pollard's discovery at Durham that he passed onto Michael
Jones asking him if "you might be interested in this". Makes me wonder what
elase is just lying around like that.
Paul