Re: [Richard III Society Forum] That Old Man Rivers...He Just Keep

Lorraine and Marie

> 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.

Certainly Ratcliffe seems to be the principal mover - certainly Crowland
credits the whole business to him rather than anything else (though how a
mere Knight could sit in judgement over a peer of the realm is beyond my
little mind <g>). I think the debate centres on whether the matter was
handled by a full and legal trial with the accussed entitled to hear the
charge and respond with at least an attempt at defending their own actions
(though at this time charges brought by the Crown were almost always upheld)
or whether it was merely a tribunal in which the accussed were told their
crime and perhaps briefly allowed to speak before being condemned and
sentence carried out. Personally I suspect that a tribunal dispensing
almost battlefield justice is more likely in this case given the nature of
events and the bulk of sources do agree that no "trial" took place.

And Lorraine you may quite rightly suspect all of the sources bar your
sudden and previously unheard of passion for Rous but whilst accepting a
fair amount of scepticism about all of them I think this is one case where
they all tend to agree that there was something rather fishy about the whole
affair.

> 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?
>
You've always had this thing about that which to be honest I don't
understand. You can't have "a death in the Crown" its simply not possible
for Government to function without that transition. A coronation merely
sets the approval of church and state on the succession but it isn't
necessary. At the point a monarch dies their heir is the monarch its a
simple idea I promise. What you do find is that there is a whole load of
ceremony around this that has grown through the centuries which I think is
what muddies the waters for you.
And I can assure you that Coronation or no - Edward VIII was King of GB and
Emperor of India prior to that abdication (if you don't believe me read the
Act of Parliament and its preamble).

> 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.
>
Not so much a pedant as a realist Lorraine. Fact One - the council had the
ultimate authority irrespective of what will Edward IV had made prior to his
demise, Fact Two - If Edward was aware of his impending death and had
decided to name his brother as Protector then he also had ample time to
ensure that the arrangements for the succession were solved which suggests
that he would have had time to make new arrangements for the Governance of
his heir - however he made no change which suggests that he believed that
Richard and Rivers were sensible enough to get on with it and simply divide
their authority or that no change was necessary because he didn't plan on a
protectorate of any kind, Fact Three - Hastings authority was only that of
one council member (and not the senior one at that) and counts for very
little in law. Fact Four - If a Protector was to be appointed then Richard
was indeed the obvious and only possible candidate for the job and he may
well have believed that himself. However I suspect that even he may well
have thought it prudent to wait for the Council ink to dry. Fact Five - the
Council only named him Protector when they had no choice which suggests had
he not acted as he did he would have remained one of many voices in the new
regime (albeit a pretty powerful one).

Personally I suspect that Hastings and Richard feared that the Council as a
whole was the real threat to their own positions rather than the Wydevilles
and that the show of strength in May was more to do with defeating their
pretensions than any that the Wydeville's might have had. That show
effectively forced the council to create a protectorate whether they wanted
one or not - it also removed politically those most likely to oppose a risk
to their own power base - which was effectively the pro-wydeville
councillors.


> 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.


Actually Ross isn't quite as harsh as that (though no great fan of Edward or
Richard to be honest) - there was a truce with Scotland at Edward's death
and relations with France were tense shall we say (largely thanks to the
Treaty of Arras that had ended Edward's pension and the marital ambitions
he'd held for Elizabeth of York). The mess and instability that briefly
ensued were largely a reaction to the death of Edward IV, the deposition of
Edward V and the accession of Richard III - and whose to say that a stable
peaceful succession and a united front wouldn't have dispelled the problems
pretty quickly. The problems with France and Scotland were after all a
perenial problem.

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.
>
Put it this way though Lorraine - the factions were common (and common
almost all of the time in English political life but they were never as bad
as say the Scotish factions - bearing in mind that almost every Stewart had
acceeded the throne as a minor <g>) but they were managed quite well by a
fairly solid and strong governing hand. And commentators have a tendency to
exagerate because of the power vacuum that emerged on Edward's death. I
don't dispute they existed but I do think they are exaggerated both by
contemporaries and historians. One reputed comment from Dorset just isn't
enough evidence for me.

> 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?
>
What swayed the council in the end is because none of them singularly were
going to be strong enough to regain custody of the King - and by
decapitating Rivers (politically) and forcing Dorset to do a runner no-one
was likely to provide the council with a focus (whilst Hastings was on the
side of the angels) for opposition to Richard's requests. They showed
enough gumption to stand up to him on a few issues but on the major ones
seemed to let him have his way.

> 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.
>
That is rather specious chuck - I wonder how willing they were to stand up
to him when it was quite obvious that he was going to be King - and by the
day Rivers and co got the chop it was very clear Richard would be King.

Tim

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> Lorraine and Marie
>
> > 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.
>
> Certainly Ratcliffe seems to be the principal mover - certainly
Crowland
> credits the whole business to him rather than anything else (though
how a
> mere Knight could sit in judgement over a peer of the realm is
beyond my
> little mind <g>).

Mine too. Clearly Northumberland was in charge at Pontefract at that
time, nd the army gathered in York was to be put under his command. I
think Ratcliffe is generally said to have been the headsman, isn't
he? Which, presumably, is why his name stuck in everyone's minds with
regard to the executions. It seems inescapable that Northumberland
must have been overseer of this affair. The fact that this escapes
Croyland, 200 miles away when it happened and writing it up 3 years
later, seems to me to be neither here nor there.


I think the debate centres on whether the matter was
> handled by a full and legal trial with the accussed entitled to
hear the
> charge and respond with at least an attempt at defending their own
actions
> (though at this time charges brought by the Crown were almost
always upheld)
> or whether it was merely a tribunal in which the accussed were told
their
> crime and perhaps briefly allowed to speak before being condemned
and
> sentence carried out. Personally I suspect that a tribunal
dispensing
> almost battlefield justice is more likely in this case given the
nature of
> events and the bulk of sources do agree that no "trial" took place.

Certainly any trial must have been very short, and the outcome not in
doubt. I think the term battlefield justice probably catches the mood
of the time, with both sides (plus apparently the entire population
of London) in total panic. I gather from your earlier messages that
you are very pro both Edward IV and the Woodvilles in general. As you
know, I am not convinced of their total innocence, or that Richard
could not genuinely have feared them. That is not to say that due
processes of law were followed, only that this was not necessarily a
coldblooded calculating act but one of self-preservation (so
perceived, at least). That Rivers, Vaughan and Grey were no threat to
Richard in prison is probably true, but Richard may really have
feared if the Woodville faction got the upper hand again they would
be released and pose a very real danger. I don't buy the notion that
Richard and the Woodvilles had really been that matey until Edward
died, or that he was 'dissembling'. Mancini at the time, and others
later, believed Richard blamed them for Clarence's death; and as I
argued earlier, Richard's letter to Desmond suggests the same.
Frankly, if I were Elizabeth Woodville and Clarence was threatening
notvonly my own position but my children, I would have got involved
too. Evidence of business association is neither here nor there.
Richard may well have felt that his best policy if he wanted to
survive Edward's reign himself was to keep quiet and out of the way -
which is exactly what Mancini suggests. And after Edward's death any
pre-emptive action on the part of the Woodvilles would have set alarm
bells clanging.

>
> And Lorraine you may quite rightly suspect all of the sources bar
your
> sudden and previously unheard of passion for Rous but whilst
accepting a
> fair amount of scepticism about all of them I think this is one
case where
> they all tend to agree that there was something rather fishy about
the whole
> affair.
>
> > 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?
> >
> You've always had this thing about that which to be honest I don't
> understand. You can't have "a death in the Crown" its simply not
possible
> for Government to function without that transition. A coronation
merely
> sets the approval of church and state on the succession but it isn't
> necessary. At the point a monarch dies their heir is the monarch
its a
> simple idea I promise. What you do find is that there is a whole
load of
> ceremony around this that has grown through the centuries which I
think is
> what muddies the waters for you.

Only a simple idea when the identity of the King's heir is obvious.
In other cases, does the king have the right to appoint an heir
during his lifetime any more than to appoint his protector?
Certainly Edward V was king, but being 'The Lord's Anointed' added
another dimension.

> And I can assure you that Coronation or no - Edward VIII was King
of GB and
> Emperor of India prior to that abdication (if you don't believe me
read the
> Act of Parliament and its preamble).
>
> > 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.
> >
> Not so much a pedant as a realist Lorraine. Fact One - the council
had the
> ultimate authority irrespective of what will Edward IV had made
prior to his
> demise, Fact Two - If Edward was aware of his impending death and
had
> decided to name his brother as Protector then he also had ample
time to
> ensure that the arrangements for the succession were solved which
suggests
> that he would have had time to make new arrangements for the
Governance of
> his heir - however he made no change which suggests that he
believed that
> Richard and Rivers were sensible enough to get on with it and
simply divide
> their authority or that no change was necessary because he didn't
plan on a
> protectorate of any kind, Fact Three - Hastings authority was only
that of
> one council member (and not the senior one at that) and counts for
very
> little in law. Fact Four - If a Protector was to be appointed then
Richard
> was indeed the obvious and only possible candidate for the job and
he may
> well have believed that himself. However I suspect that even he
may well
> have thought it prudent to wait for the Council ink to dry. Fact
Five - the
> Council only named him Protector when they had no choice which
suggests had
> he not acted as he did he would have remained one of many voices in
the new
> regime (albeit a pretty powerful one).
>
> Personally I suspect that Hastings and Richard feared that the
Council as a
> whole was the real threat to their own positions rather than the
Wydevilles
> and that the show of strength in May was more to do with defeating
their
> pretensions than any that the Wydeville's might have had. That show
> effectively forced the council to create a protectorate whether
they wanted
> one or not - it also removed politically those most likely to
oppose a risk
> to their own power base - which was effectively the pro-wydeville
> councillors.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Actually Ross isn't quite as harsh as that (though no great fan of
Edward or
> Richard to be honest) - there was a truce with Scotland at Edward's
death
> and relations with France were tense shall we say (largely thanks
to the
> Treaty of Arras that had ended Edward's pension and the marital
ambitions
> he'd held for Elizabeth of York). The mess and instability that
briefly
> ensued were largely a reaction to the death of Edward IV, the
deposition of
> Edward V and the accession of Richard III - and whose to say that a
stable
> peaceful succession and a united front wouldn't have dispelled the
problems
> pretty quickly. The problems with France and Scotland were after
all a
> perenial problem.
>
> 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.
> >
> Put it this way though Lorraine - the factions were common (and
common
> almost all of the time in English political life but they were
never as bad
> as say the Scotish factions - bearing in mind that almost every
Stewart had
> acceeded the throne as a minor <g>) but they were managed quite
well by a
> fairly solid and strong governing hand. And commentators have a
tendency to
> exagerate because of the power vacuum that emerged on Edward's
death. I
> don't dispute they existed but I do think they are exaggerated both
by
> contemporaries and historians. One reputed comment from Dorset
just isn't
> enough evidence for me.
>
> > 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?
> >
> What swayed the council in the end is because none of them
singularly were
> going to be strong enough to regain custody of the King - and by
> decapitating Rivers (politically) and forcing Dorset to do a runner
no-one
> was likely to provide the council with a focus (whilst Hastings was
on the
> side of the angels) for opposition to Richard's requests. They
showed
> enough gumption to stand up to him on a few issues but on the major
ones
> seemed to let him have his way.
>
> > 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.
> >
> That is rather specious chuck - I wonder how willing they were to
stand up
> to him when it was quite obvious that he was going to be King - and
by the
> day Rivers and co got the chop it was very clear Richard would be
King.
>
> Tim

Sorry - this will have to be a bit of rushed response as George wants
to be home early tonight for his tea, and I want to catch up with
Coronation Street <vbg>:

< Certainly Ratcliffe seems to be the principal mover - certainly
Crowland credits the whole business to him rather than anything else
(though how a mere Knight could sit in judgement over a peer of the
realm is beyond my little mind <g>). >

Well, assuming Rous is correct on this point, then Ratcliffe wasn't
in charge of the trial/tribunal, Percy was - a bloke of the 'correct'
rank for trying someone like Rivers and Grey.

<I think the debate centres on whether the matter was
handled by a full and legal trial with the accussed entitled to hear
the charge and respond with at least an attempt at defending their
own actions>

As I said earlier, if the trial followed the template of that of
Warwick's trial some time later, there was time to go through the
motions of a hearing, just as there was with Clarence - another swift
one, IIRC. Trials were often quite quick. Hanratty's trial made
legal history in the early 60s for taking the longest time up until
that point - a mere 3 weeks or something. I'm still shocked that
such a short time in which to parley back and forth about a man's
life was considered far too long! :(

< And Lorraine you may quite rightly suspect all of the sources bar
your sudden and previously unheard of passion for Rous >

Tsk, tsk. I was merely pointing out that all the sources you gave to
uphold the notion there was no trial was either suspect, partisan or
patently written years after the event or with the benefit of
hindsight, shall we say. As you well know, I know perfectly well
that Rous is as suspect as any of them - maybe more so, given that
glowwwwwing account in one Rous Roll and the complete volte-face in
another. However, like Hicks, I tend to trust him on a) the age of
Richard's son Edward, the possibility they had another son George who
died, but doesn't get a mention in other sources, and about Percy
being the judge at Pontefract. I don't really know why I believe
him - he certainly doesn't go into any detail about a trial at all
when he mentions Percy, but just putting together all the other
evidence, it just seems probable to me that a trial was arranged,
with Ratcliffe organising things up North, Percy getting himself
there, Neville, Fitzhugh and co in attendance and Rivers cetainly, if
not Grey likewise, given a day or two to put his affairs in order
before the trotting out from various places to Pontefract. Rous is
just a very small part of the surviving evidence, but what he says
corroborates the other circumstantial evidence that resides in a
number of disparate sources, including the ones you cited. if
anything, it's your reading of the evidence that's different to mine,
but then again, what's new? :)

<they all tend to agree that there was something rather fishy about
the whole affair.>

See - that's simply not the impression I get. I get the impression
of blokes who mostly weren't even there, whose opinions you can't
consider to be untainted by subsequent events, who are trying to make
something out of something they can't honestly know anything about.
Bit like us lot, really ... <g>.

<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?>

<You've always had this thing about that>

Eh? no, I haven't. You must be confusing me with someone who
doesn't know that a king is king on the point of death of a king.

<which to be honest I don't understand. >

Not surprising, since I don't have any difficulties at all with the
concept...

< You can't have "a death in the Crown" its simply not possible
for Government to function without that transition. >

Yes, I know that. I even answered a question to that effect on
another list many moons ago - probably before you even joined it.

However, I probably didn't explain my point too well here. I was
under the impression that once the old king died then any designated
Protector - and I happen to believe that Richard was That Man -
stepped into the role at the same time as the new king stepped into
the old king's shoes: ie. immediately after the death of the king.
Unless I've had a brainstorm, I can't think that I've ever read
anything that contradicts that. I grant you it's probably not
enshrined in law, but then I don't know whether 'the king is dead
long live the king' is, either, given, that you say it's 'simply not
possible' ( a point I could argue about, because Cromwell sort of
ensured that it was theorectically quite possible, didn't he - or was
Charles still technically King upon his dad's execution even if there
had never been a Restoration or another king in England ever again?).

Whatever, my point was that just as E5 was King, if E4 had made it
plain before his death that his brother was to be Protector, then
there was plenty of potential witnesses to his wish - including
Richard himself, if E4 had expressed this when the family were
together in the February, say (when both Rivers and R3 were in London
for a parliamentary session, IIRC). And if R3 knew nowt about it
himself until hastings told him, then I also put it you, that if
*hastings* knew, so did the others on the Council. That's why I'm
inclined to agree with Gairdner's assessment of the documentary
evidence that R3 WAS referred to as Protector, even in his absence,
by the Council back in London, and why I'm disinclined to disregard
bloody PM Kendall's reading of the same documentary evidence until I
examine the documents myself at the PRO in May. yeah, I know PMK
reckons internal evidence suggests a different date, but his not
always accurate when it comes to interpreting internal evidence, and
even a super-duper researcher like Horrox can get it wrong. I like
to do my own digging, as you know...

Moreover, assuming Richard *was* the Protector in name from the point
of E4's death prior to that ratification by the Council on his return
to London that it seems you set a great deal of store by, whilst
acknowledging that resistance was futile <g>, then I contend his
initial point about Treason was understandable, given he circs: ie.
underage king left in inn with old retainer and a step-bro not much
older than himself whilst his Govenor/Uncle and notional head of the
Regal Retinue buggars off miles away for a pie and pint...

What if he hadn't reached Richard and Buckingham? What if Tony'd
fallen off his horse and died in an awful riding accident on those
rutted roads? Who would have taken charge? Who would the troops
have followed? What ift he king had taken ill in the night, and
nearly died of pure melacholy, being naturally upset about his Dad
dying. Would Grey and the others have pressed on, or waited for
Richard? And if Richard wasn't all that important to the scheme of
things cos he was merely an Uncle with no official role as yet, why
wait for him anyway? Hell, why meet up with him at all, either as a
pre-arranged plan or when one half of the party had overshot?

If you read that account, from any of the sources, including those
not naturally sympathetic to Richard, the message you get loud and
clear if that everyone, apart from Richard, and possibly Buckingham,
seems to have known they were doing something that wasn't
entirely 'part of the plan'. (I was gonna say 'kosher', but that may
be overstating it, bearing in mind, I really don't now think Rivers
needed to die for his faux pax).

<What you do find is that there is a whole load of
ceremony around this that has grown through the centuries which I
think is what muddies the waters for you.>

No muddy Waters for me - as can be seen from the above, with one or
two minor quibbles or wonderings about Constitutional Law (of the
sort that would have been custom and practice in R3's time, not what
passes for it nowadays or post-Cromwell, I mean) - my own, admittedly
rather simplistic view of all this is that just as a king was a king
on the death of an old king, an underage king (esp one with a
precedent already set down in one Will from nearly a decade before
when a regency was certainly mooted), could probably expect any
designated Protector also took on that role at the same second. E5
quibbled w. Richard over how Rivers and Co had conducted themselves,
not over R3 rushing in mob-handed claiming to be his Proector,
remember, which rather suggests E5 KNEW what Richard's Job
Description was already. Of course the Council ratification had to
wait until Richard and the king got to London - no-one had thought/or
had the courtesy to write to Richard, apart from Hastings, and no
member of the Council in london had galloped out to meet both parties
at Noerthampton to inform them of any Council decisions made in their
absence. Nobody knew what the othrs were up to, is how I read it,
and the British Constitution or whatever you wanna call it, was
really neither here or there in that situation. I put it to you.

Of course I would have loved it if everyone had behaved properly,
pointing out all the things we've pointed out in the past, like E4's
supposed wishes not being worth a candle anyway because it wasn't
enforceable in legal terms, once he was dead anyway. Though why any
will or those disputed codicils weren't enforceable when other wills
apparently are puzzles me, but you have a rich and wonderfully obtuse
mind, Timbo, while mine is merely sensible <g>. I would have liked
it if Rivers had stayed put, R & B arrived as arranged, no-one had
been arrested, and they'd all come in to London together wherupon the
Council would have said we've decided you're Protector/We're In
Charge [tick appropriate box], E5's mum had been waiting for him in
the throne room, with his brother Dorset and all other Wydeville
uncles there on hand organising the sausage rolls and the balloons.

But it didn't happen like that and Richard, Buckingham, E4, EW,
Dorset, Rivers etc, plus the Council all played their part as to why
not.

< And I can assure you that Coronation or no - Edward VIII was King
of GB and Emperor of India prior to that abdication (if you don't
believe me read the Act of Parliament and its preamble).>

I've got better things to do, thanks but at least you're confirming
what me and my mum already thought - I'm sure she'll be mightily
relieved <g>.

<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.

> Not so much a pedant as a realist Lorraine. >

As realist as I? Surely not...

< Fact One - the council had the
> ultimate authority irrespective of what will Edward IV had made
prior to his demise>

Agreed - see above.

< would have had time to make new arrangements for the Governance of
> his heir - however he made no change which suggests that he
believed that Richard and Rivers were sensible enough to get on with
it and simply divide their authority>

Also see above. However, should either party start overstepping
their authority - what then? Who is in charge when those in charge
go native? The Council? Well they did, didn't they, when Richard
demanded Rivers' head earlier on. And whose in Charge if the Council
folds in on itself at the first sign of trouble?

Er...Richard. Which is where we came in. A weak Council is worse
than useless govermentally, and despite all your fancy rhetoric about
what should have happened, what actually happened suggested they
didn't bother trying to save Rivers in any way whatsoever after that
first time. They *had* stood up to Richard over Rivers. Fact. Then
they apparently didn't. Fact. Of the two who emerges the stronger?
Richard. Fact. Which party emerges with any honour over this.
Arguably neither.

<Fact Three - Hastings authority was only that of
one council member (and not the senior one at that) and counts for
very little in law. >

Er, yes. I know. It was me that pointed out that Hastings was only
one man on the council out of a probable two dozen members. And your
point is? (I wasn't for one minute suggesting Hastings' letter to R3
had any foundation in law BTW - I'm not even that convinced it ever
existed, actually).

<Fact Four - If a Protector was to be appointed then Richard
was indeed the obvious and only possible candidate for the job >

Eureka! Can you repeat that? I might not have taken it in the first
time:

<Fact Four - If a Protector was to be appointed then Richard
was indeed the obvious and only possible candidate for the job >

Thank you - my point exactly.

<Fact Five - the Council only named him Protector when they had no
choice which suggests had he not acted as he did he would have
remained one of many voices in the new regime (albeit a pretty
powerful one).>

This is not entirely accurate, is it? Even leaving aside the
Gairdner/Kendall documents, they confirmed Richard in the role of
Protector when the king was a) out of his immediate custody and
ensconced in the Tower as tradition dictated, and b) Hastings was
still alive. The only real surprise for the Council may have been
his arrest of Rivers of Co, but the evidence is clearly there that
this actually cut little ice with the Council on the whole - they
actually refused to countenance an execution, just they could have
refused to install R3 as Protector and could have agreed to a Council
Regency, with Richard in an important role. To me it rather more
likely appears that they had every bit as much choicee as they had
over Rivers - and they chose Richard as the Protector. You might not
like it or agree with it, but it's rather dissingenuous to suggest
they had no choice at that particular point in time, because they
did, and furthermore they had already exercised a variety of choices.


< Actually Ross isn't quite as harsh as that (though no great fan of
Edward or Richard to be honest)>

Oh, but he is - read some of the stuff that didn't appear in his
books. He, and his pupils are actually quite at one on this one -
see references in Pollard, Hicks, Richmond, and articles in EHR etc.
to name but a few sources on this topic. There's stats and
everything to support my claim on this one. Sorry, dear...

< The mess and instability that briefly
ensued were largely a reaction to the death of Edward IV, the
deposition of Edward V and the accession of Richard III - and whose
to say that a stable peaceful succession and a united front wouldn't
have dispelled the problems pretty quickly. >

See above - you clearly have missed out on a large chunk of research
on domestic law and order at E4's death. I have gone into this with
you before, and supplied all the refs, too, so I'm not going to
repeat myself again here, but if you think that it was E4's death and
just the summer of 1483 that was to blame, you are seriously,
seriously, misinformed, Timbo. Even Louise Gill touches on the
problems that were brewing at that time, and I've already mentioned
the piracy figures falling, and the crime rate dropping under R3, but
there's plenty of independent research on this particular topic at
this particular time.

<The problems with France and Scotland were after all a
perenial problem.>

It wasn't my main point, I just mentioned it as it was current at
E4's death...

< 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.
> >
> Put it this way though Lorraine - the factions were common (and
common almost all of the time in English political life>

Well you've certainly come round to this point! I seem to remember
you vehemently denying - and I mean getting quite a strop on - that
there were factions at Court *at all* in April 83 on the LMB LIst! I
had a nice long list of all the supposed factions and you very nearly
had a fit when I published it, I seem to recall...

< And commentators have a tendency to exagerate because of the power
vacuum that emerged on Edward's death. >

Yes, another of the points that I myself made on The Other List.

< I don't dispute they existed but I do think they are exaggerated
both by contemporaries and historians.>

Well, factions either serve a purpose or they don't, or else why
bother having them. The fact that it's clear certain folk acted in
concert, and certain folk didn't, is a fact, and these divisions
played their part, to a greater or lesser degree in subsequent events.

Be they real/imagined by the folk themselves, or real and imagined by
historians and commentators, contemporaneous or not, is neither here
or there. That's just life, isn't is?

<One reputed comment from Dorset just isn't enough evidence for me.>

I don't know what this is not 'enough evidence for you' of, to be
honest. I have referred to Dorset's alleged statement, but not
recently I thought, certainly not to make a major point, anyway.
There's far more evidence than merely that one upon which to base an
opinion about the events of May/June 83, of course.


<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.

> That is rather specious chuck >

Please yourself.

<I wonder how willing they were to stand up
to him when it was quite obvious that he was going to be King>

Yeah? Well, they were either up to the job or they weren't. And if
they weren't, as you're suggesting here, then they had no busines
collecting the pay at the end of the day. What were they gonna do if
France invaded or Buckingham had turned his coat (cough)? I said it
before, I'll say it again - they'd have looked directly at Richard
and leave him to sort everything out. Blimey - they even stuck
Edward Wydeville in a boat with a massive amount of wedge which he
handed straight over to Tudor - and Richard had sod-all to do with
*that* particular decision! Could you really say that was a wise
decision - putting to sea with State assets - what with all those
pirates circling the island waiting to pick off vulnerable Princes
and suchlike leaving our shores...

Besides, you were also arguing earlier that they had no choice from
the minute Richard came to London which - and I'm sorry to do this
yet again to David's sensitive reading equipment- is bollocks, isn't
it?

Regards - Rainey

Good evening dear Lorraine <g>....

> Tsk, tsk. I was merely pointing out that all the sources you gave to
> uphold the notion there was no trial was either suspect, partisan or
> patently written years after the event or with the benefit of
> hindsight, shall we say. As you well know, I know perfectly well
> that Rous is as suspect as any of them - maybe more so, given that
> glowwwwwing account in one Rous Roll and the complete volte-face in
> another. However, like Hicks, I tend to trust him on a) the age of
> Richard's son Edward, the possibility they had another son George who
> died, but doesn't get a mention in other sources, and about Percy
> being the judge at Pontefract. I don't really know why I believe
> him - he certainly doesn't go into any detail about a trial at all
> when he mentions Percy, but just putting together all the other
> evidence, it just seems probable to me that a trial was arranged,
> with Ratcliffe organising things up North, Percy getting himself
> there, Neville, Fitzhugh and co in attendance and Rivers cetainly, if
> not Grey likewise, given a day or two to put his affairs in order
> before the trotting out from various places to Pontefract. Rous is
> just a very small part of the surviving evidence, but what he says
> corroborates the other circumstantial evidence that resides in a
> number of disparate sources, including the ones you cited. if
> anything, it's your reading of the evidence that's different to mine,
> but then again, what's new? :)

I doubt we'll ever agree on it - all I would say is that partial or not with
one exception all the sources (and as unreliable on many points as most of
them are they are all we have) suggest that there was something not quite
"right" about the whole affair. Now you may well believe that it was a full
legal trial with a proper charge and even a jury of their peers but I
suspect it was nearer a tribunal. And on that we may have to agree to
disagree <g>


> However, I probably didn't explain my point too well here. I was
> under the impression that once the old king died then any designated
> Protector - and I happen to believe that Richard was That Man -
> stepped into the role at the same time as the new king stepped into
> the old king's shoes: ie. immediately after the death of the king.

Ahhh light dawns on Tim - now I understand what you mean!

Not strictly correct though - the King's authority dies with him therefore
any arrangements he makes with regard the governance of the realm in the
future are irrelevant unless agreed publicly prior to his death and are
enforceable through legislation (why do you think Henry VIII made sure his
will was turned into a Parliamentary Act to ensure that in the event of his
son's death his technically illegitimate daughters would succeed - its
equally worth noting that his intentions for the regency council to run the
state under the minor Edward VI were quickly thrown out with Somerset
becoming the key figure). On both previous occassions where a minority had
occurred the Lords Spiritual and Temporal (IE the Council) assumed the
authority of the dead King. Even had Edward IV named Richard as Protector
(which is debatable) and even had he stated that Richard should control the
realm and the King (which again is debatable) his word was no longer law.
Ross is quite clear on this in his RIII worth a look at - he is basing much
of it on Roskell's "The Office and Dignity of Protector of England with
special reference to its origins".

Now Richard's actions may have been precisely because of that - after all
the last time it happened a previous Duke of Gloucester found his
pretensions roundly defeated by the council.

> Unless I've had a brainstorm, I can't think that I've ever read
> anything that contradicts that. I grant you it's probably not
> enshrined in law, but then I don't know whether 'the king is dead
> long live the king' is, either, given, that you say it's 'simply not
> possible' ( a point I could argue about, because Cromwell sort of
> ensured that it was theorectically quite possible, didn't he - or was
> Charles still technically King upon his dad's execution even if there
> had never been a Restoration or another king in England ever again?).
>
Actually to a true Royalist Charles II was King from the moment of his
fathers death - and was proclaimed as such throughout the interregnum by
many.

> Whatever, my point was that just as E5 was King, if E4 had made it
> plain before his death that his brother was to be Protector, then
> there was plenty of potential witnesses to his wish - including
> Richard himself, if E4 had expressed this when the family were
> together in the February, say (when both Rivers and R3 were in London
> for a parliamentary session, IIRC).

And had that been it wish he could have had that very same Parliament pass
an act to enforce his subsequent will (and given Edward's fondness for
pushing through legislation to the benefit of his friends and relations it
wouldn't have been that unusual <g>) - he had plenty or precedent to know
what could happen to a monarch's intentions after his death.

And if R3 knew nowt about it
> himself until hastings told him, then I also put it you, that if
> *hastings* knew, so did the others on the Council. That's why I'm
> inclined to agree with Gairdner's assessment of the documentary
> evidence that R3 WAS referred to as Protector, even in his absence,
> by the Council back in London, and why I'm disinclined to disregard
> bloody PM Kendall's reading of the same documentary evidence until I
> examine the documents myself at the PRO in May. yeah, I know PMK
> reckons internal evidence suggests a different date, but his not
> always accurate when it comes to interpreting internal evidence, and
> even a super-duper researcher like Horrox can get it wrong. I like
> to do my own digging, as you know...
>
Well I agree about the dating issue and the document is indeed worth a look
at. However even the very nosey "what men say" Mancini states probably
inaccurately that the council voted AGAINST a regency on April 27th - which
gels with Crowland's implication that the council as a whole intended to
govern.

> Moreover, assuming Richard *was* the Protector in name from the point
> of E4's death prior to that ratification by the Council on his return
> to London that it seems you set a great deal of store by, whilst
> acknowledging that resistance was futile <g>, then I contend his
> initial point about Treason was understandable, given he circs: ie.
> underage king left in inn with old retainer and a step-bro not much
> older than himself whilst his Govenor/Uncle and notional head of the
> Regal Retinue buggars off miles away for a pie and pint...
>

Well sadly Lorraine without that ratification he had no legal authority and
if the Council had clearly not ratified his appointment on the 27th April
then it isn't that likely they were going to bother to do it when he arrived
in London. Unless of course he removed Rivers, and took control of the 12
year old King.

Well even Mancini suggests that he was left with Sir Thomas Vaughan (hardly
just an old retainer chuck), Lord Richard Grey and Sir Richard Haute and
presumably some of the 2,000 retinue he'd been told to bring with him.
However the sources about the meeting and how it happened vary considerably
which in itself is confusing.

Anyway its late and I am full of cold! Enough I think for now dear.

Hi Marie & Timbo

<Certainly Ratcliffe seems to be the principal mover - certainly
> Crowland
> > credits the whole business to him rather than anything else (though
> how a
> > mere Knight could sit in judgement over a peer of the realm is
> beyond my
> > little mind <g>).
>
> Mine too. Clearly Northumberland was in charge at Pontefract at that
time, nd the army gathered in York was to be put under his command. I
think Ratcliffe is generally said to have been the headsman, isn't
he? Which, presumably, is why his name stuck in everyone's minds with
regard to the executions.>

As I mentioned in another post,it seems pretty likely Percy was in
charge of the Rivers' trial/tribunal/despatch, but Ratcliffe's
apparent influence in the north is actual rather interesting. The
(other) Durham document, ie. the one I mentioned recently, was written
by the Prior at Durham in 1484 and he regards Ratcliffe as a very
influenctial person indeed - so much so, the Prior tells the recipient
of that letter (the Bishop of Carlisle, I think) that regretfully
he'll have to turn down a recommendation for a particular candidate
for a vacant position as a priest because his chum's candidate differs
from Ratcliffe's recommendation, and he feels he has to give the gig
to Ratcliffe's protege on this particular occasion. Quite what
Ratcliffe is doing interfering in church 'livings' isn't explained in
any other source, AFAIK, but certainly on this occasion he appears to
be doing what Richard often did - which is to support local men he
knew when opportunities arose to do so. This was just an ordinary
vacancy in a local parish BTW - no grand Life Position in the Durham
Cathedral Hierarchy or anything, so it appears Ratcliffe himself
didn't stand to gain personally from his promotion of his man here.
The Prior's 'apology' to his fellow clerical high-up definitely goes
on to confirm that Ratcliffe is seen to be a pretty important bloke in
the area in his own right - as well as one who has the king's ear, as
well, of course [which no doubt would have been part of the Prior's
reasoning, I expect ;) ].

Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Marie & Timbo
>
> <Certainly Ratcliffe seems to be the principal mover - certainly
> > Crowland
> > > credits the whole business to him rather than anything else
(though
> > how a
> > > mere Knight could sit in judgement over a peer of the realm is
> > beyond my
> > > little mind <g>).
> >
> > Mine too. Clearly Northumberland was in charge at Pontefract at
that
> time, nd the army gathered in York was to be put under his
command. I
> think Ratcliffe is generally said to have been the headsman, isn't
> he? Which, presumably, is why his name stuck in everyone's minds
with
> regard to the executions.>
>
> As I mentioned in another post,it seems pretty likely Percy was in
> charge of the Rivers' trial/tribunal/despatch, but Ratcliffe's
> apparent influence in the north is actual rather interesting. The
> (other) Durham document, ie. the one I mentioned recently, was
written
> by the Prior at Durham in 1484 and he regards Ratcliffe as a very
> influenctial person indeed - so much so, the Prior tells the
recipient
> of that letter (the Bishop of Carlisle, I think) that regretfully
> he'll have to turn down a recommendation for a particular candidate
> for a vacant position as a priest because his chum's candidate
differs
> from Ratcliffe's recommendation, and he feels he has to give the gig
> to Ratcliffe's protege on this particular occasion. Quite what
> Ratcliffe is doing interfering in church 'livings' isn't explained
in
> any other source, AFAIK, but certainly on this occasion he appears
to
> be doing what Richard often did - which is to support local men he
> knew when opportunities arose to do so. This was just an ordinary
> vacancy in a local parish BTW - no grand Life Position in the Durham
> Cathedral Hierarchy or anything, so it appears Ratcliffe himself
> didn't stand to gain personally from his promotion of his man here.
> The Prior's 'apology' to his fellow clerical high-up definitely goes
> on to confirm that Ratcliffe is seen to be a pretty important bloke
in
> the area in his own right - as well as one who has the king's ear,
as
> well, of course [which no doubt would have been part of the Prior's
> reasoning, I expect ;) ].
>
> Lorraine

Hi Lorraine,

I wonder where the living in question was. I note you mention the
Bishop of Carlisle. Ratcliffe came from somewhere round Derwentwater,
as I seem to remember. Perhaps this living may have been somewhere on
his lands, or at least in his local area of influence??? Certainly he
must have been very big with Richard - viz the Cat the Rat rhyme, but
I can't see him pushing Percy out of the way when he got to
Pontefract. And that, taken together with Rous, convinces me that
Northumberland did oversee the executions there.
Marie

Marie

Hi Marie

< I wonder where the living in question was. I note you mention the
Bishop of Carlisle. Ratcliffe came from somewhere round Derwentwater,
as I seem to remember.>

I've checked my files and have some more details for you. The living
was at Merrington - in Co Durham, I understand.

Robert Ebchester was the Prior who wrote the undated letter. He died
24 June 1484 so the letter must have been written before then. He
writes to Richard Redman, then Bishop of (St)Asaph and mentions that
Ratcliffe had made an arrangement w. Ebchester's predecessor (Richard
Bell, who I think ended up Bishop at Carlisle) about the post. Bell
was a supporter of R3. Ebchester reminds Redman of
Ratcliffe's 'great rule at he beareth under the king's grace in our
country'.

Ratcliffe's father was Sir Thos Ratcliffe of Derwentwater.

<Perhaps this living may have been somewhere on
his lands, or at least in his local area of influence???>

Quite possibly. By 1484 Ratcliffe was also connected with a place in
Gilling, nr. Richmond, Yorks - Sadbury/Sudbury, if memory serves, the
one-time home of the Boyton family (but perhaps more by virtue of his
marriage to Agnes, dau. of lord Scrope of Bolton who'd been
Christopher Boyton's widow). He was appointed High Sheriff of
Westmoreland 10 Aug 1484.

<I can't see him pushing Percy out of the way when he got to
> Pontefract. >

No, me neither.

<And that, taken together with Rous, convinces me that
Northumberland did oversee the executions there.>

Yes - I agree. And I'd forgotten about his Scrope connection, so
maybe it's possible that representatives of the Scropes of Bolton and
Masham were also in attendance at Pontefract. I can't remember
offhand if there's mention of them being in London at that time, but
if Ratcliffe could travel about, then the Scropes could have done
quite easily - certainly one of the Nevilles - and not the old, half-
dead one - was in the north at the time...

Regards - Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Marie
>
> < I wonder where the living in question was. I note you mention the
> Bishop of Carlisle. Ratcliffe came from somewhere round
Derwentwater,
> as I seem to remember.>
>
> I've checked my files and have some more details for you. The
living
> was at Merrington - in Co Durham, I understand.
>
> Robert Ebchester was the Prior who wrote the undated letter. He
died
> 24 June 1484 so the letter must have been written before then. He
> writes to Richard Redman, then Bishop of (St)Asaph and mentions
that
> Ratcliffe had made an arrangement w. Ebchester's predecessor
(Richard
> Bell, who I think ended up Bishop at Carlisle) about the post.
Bell
> was a supporter of R3. Ebchester reminds Redman of
> Ratcliffe's 'great rule at he beareth under the king's grace in our
> country'.
>
> Ratcliffe's father was Sir Thos Ratcliffe of Derwentwater.
>
> <Perhaps this living may have been somewhere on
> his lands, or at least in his local area of influence???>
>
> Quite possibly. By 1484 Ratcliffe was also connected with a place
in
> Gilling, nr. Richmond, Yorks - Sadbury/Sudbury, if memory serves,
the
> one-time home of the Boyton family (but perhaps more by virtue of
his
> marriage to Agnes, dau. of lord Scrope of Bolton who'd been
> Christopher Boyton's widow). He was appointed High Sheriff of
> Westmoreland 10 Aug 1484.

I've found a Kirk Merrington in Co. Durham between Ferryhill and
Bishop Auckland - would that be the one? Looks a bit far from
Richmond & the Yorkshire border. I agree it does indicate that
Ratcliffe was virtually Richard's viceroy in the north - never mind
that lot of ninnies at Sheriff Hutton, if his writ even ran in the
principality. I presume the arrangement with Bell would have been
made even before Richard became king? Of course, I suppose it may
have been Ebchester's way of turning down Redman's man without making
it look personal.
Do we know anything about Merrington?
Marie

>
> <I can't see him pushing Percy out of the way when he got to
> > Pontefract. >
>
> No, me neither.
>
> <And that, taken together with Rous, convinces me that
> Northumberland did oversee the executions there.>
>
> Yes - I agree. And I'd forgotten about his Scrope connection, so
> maybe it's possible that representatives of the Scropes of Bolton
and
> Masham were also in attendance at Pontefract. I can't remember
> offhand if there's mention of them being in London at that time,
but
> if Ratcliffe could travel about, then the Scropes could have done
> quite easily - certainly one of the Nevilles - and not the old,
half-
> dead one - was in the north at the time...
>
> Regards - Lorraine

Hi Marie

< I've found a Kirk Merrington in Co. Durham between Ferryhill and
> Bishop Auckland - would that be the one? Looks a bit far from
> Richmond & the Yorkshire border. >

Yes, that's the one I had assumed was the one under discussion,
though I've not found any other evidence, so hedged my bets on it, as
it were <g>, in my reply. I've not come across another Merrington
during my researches, even on the old maps, some of which have
revealed parishes and place names that no longer exist in the
palatinate.

Yes, it's a fair few miles away from the Yorkshire Border and
Richmond (why Richmond, out of curiosity?). In fact, Kirk Merrington
is not all that far from where I live, very near Spennymoor, a
smaller town than Bishop Auckland. The village itself is tiny - the
church is the main feature in it.

At one time I used to pass through the village every morning. Kirk
Merrington's church *is* medieval, and the graveyard houses a few
interesting gravestones, including one detailing a murder, IIRC. On
misty autumnal mornings the chuch looks very atmospheric indeed, its
stout no nonsense square tower poking out on the horizon through the
fog...

<Ratcliffe was virtually Richard's viceroy in the north - never mind
> that lot of ninnies at Sheriff Hutton, if his writ even ran in the
> principality. I presume the arrangement with Bell would have been
> made even before Richard became king? >

Quite possibly. Certainly it appears Ratcliffe's taken the trouble to
secure a grant (as Ebchester puts it) or some kind of official
agreement for his man from Bell, so he was obviously keen that his
protege got the gig when the vacancy came up. It would be nice to
find that grant somewhere, but Kirk Merrington church doesn't appear
to have any records going that far back, and I've not found it in any
of the main repositories of the Durham archives - yet. Ooh -
actually, I never thought to look for the bloke's name in the
churchyard, or in the church itself.
Must do that one day...

<Of course, I suppose it may have been Ebchester's way of turning
down Redman's man without making it look personal.>

:-)

Regards - Lorraine