Hastings

As a new member I thought I'd start off with a possible explanation of the actions of William, Lord Hastings that led to that date with the axe. I will admit that I believe Edward IV left a will that named Richard Protector. I base this belief on the way the participants acted - Richard as if there were one to be upheld and the Woodvilles as if there were one to be overturned. Anyway, here goes:

- Hastings is Lord Chamberlain during the reign of Edward IV. His position is dependent on Edward.
- Upon Edward's death, Hastings is faced with two choices: allow the Woodvilles to carry out their coup and establish a Royal Council during Edward V's minority (and lose his position) or curry favor with the expected Protector (and hopefully remain on the Council).
- Hastings sends a warning to Richard (and Buckingham) of what the Woodvilles are attempting. The delay in his warning to Richard has two possible explanations: either Hastings attempted to cut a deal with the Woodvilles, who said no; or he simply didn't find out about their plans very quickly.
- Richard forestalls the attempt to replace the Protector with a ruling Council by his arrests at Stony Stratford. Richard enters London still planning on becoming Protector.
- Stillington tells the Council about the pre-Contract. The Council, faced with a minority, or worse yet, a protracted dispute about the legitimacy of Edward V, decides to support Stillington and asks Richard to assume the throne. The Lords and Commons, then in London, do the same.
- Richard agrees to take the throne; this puts Hastings in the same position as when the Woodvilles attempted their coup. As Protector Richard might feel that the support of one of Edward IV's closest companions would provide stability for the regime; as King Richard would fill the various offices with people he (Richard) trusted or felt were politically needed. Hastings fell into neither of these categories.
- Hastings conspires, not with the Woodvilles, but Lord Stanley and Bishop Morton (Lancastrians!?!) to prevent Richard from taking the throne. I understand there are some references to Bishop Russell's oppostion to Richard replacing his nephew as King. As Russell, however, later became Richard's Chancellor - any opposition does not seem to have been very deep. Perhaps the Bishop wanted a Convocation to rule on the pre-Contract first?
- At the famous Council, the attempt by Hastings, Stanley, and Morton fails. Faced with a protracted legal dispute about the succession, the Council supports Richard. If (and I emphasize that IF), at some point Hastings were to draw a weapon or threaten Richard there would be the grounds for Hastings' execution.
- Under Richard's direction, the Council tries and condemns Hastings - a power which the Council had. (Later exercised under Henry Tudor as the 'Star Chamber')
- Warrants for the executions of Rivers, Grey and Vaughn are then also issued.


The one thing that stands out during the Council meeting is the lack of participation by any Woodvilles (although the plotters may have claimed to be acting in their behalf - thus the warrants). Personally, I feel that Morton was simply trying to cause as much confusion as possible - it would be much easier for Henry Tudor to overthrow a minor with a disputed claim (word of the pre-Contract had already been made public), than Richard - whether as Protector OR King. Lord Stanley was apparently already a supporter of Henry Tudor. As Hastings was the only one at the Council meeting to be executed, it seems logical that he (Hastings) had done something more than just oppose Richard's assumption of the throne. The only thing more I can imagine would, as I said, have been either a verbal or physical threat to Richard.



Hope this makes sense and isn't too long. Looking forward to what other members think of it.


Doug Stamate/destama@...

--- In , "Doug Stamate"
<destama@k...> wrote:
>
> As a new member I thought I'd start off with a possible
explanation of the actions of William, Lord Hastings that led to that
date with the axe. I will admit that I believe Edward IV left a will
that named Richard Protector. I base this belief on the way the
participants acted - Richard as if there were one to be upheld and
the Woodvilles as if there were one to be overturned.

Hi, Doug, yes I agree with you. In fact, I think it's very odd that
it hasn't survived. I know the administration of the will was put in
abeyance while the children were in sanctuary, but surely it must
have been proved eventually, and so there should at least be a copy
in Canterbury?

Anyway, here goes:
>
> - Hastings is Lord Chamberlain during the reign of Edward IV.
His position is dependent on Edward.
> - Upon Edward's death, Hastings is faced with two choices:
allow the Woodvilles to carry out their coup and establish a
Royal Council during Edward V's minority (and lose his
position) or curry favor with the expected Protector (and hopefully
remain on the Council).
> - Hastings sends a warning to Richard (and Buckingham) of what
the Woodvilles are attempting. The delay in his
warning to Richard has two possible explanations: either
Hastings attempted to cut a deal with the Woodvilles, who said no; or
he simply didn't find out about their plans very quickly.
> - Richard forestalls the attempt to replace the Protector with
a ruling Council by his arrests at Stony Stratford. Richard
enters London still planning on becoming Protector.

Yes, I think so too. I can't see why, if he was planning on taking
the throne at that stage, he would have gone round administering all
those oaths of loyalty to Edward V.

> - Stillington tells the Council about the pre-Contract. The
Council, faced with a minority, or worse yet, a protracted
dispute about the legitimacy of Edward V, decides to support
Stillington and asks Richard to assume the throne. The Lords and
Commons, then in London, do the same.
> - Richard agrees to take the throne; this puts Hastings in the
same position as when the Woodvilles attempted their coup.
As Protector Richard might feel that the support of one of
Edward IV's closest companions would provide stability for the
regime; as King Richard would fill the various offices with
people he (Richard) trusted or felt were politically needed.
Hastings fell into neither of these categories.
> - Hastings conspires, not with the Woodvilles, but Lord
Stanley and Bishop Morton (Lancastrians!?!) to prevent
Richard from taking the throne. I understand there are some
references to Bishop Russell's oppostion to Richard replacing his
nephew as King. As Russell, however, later became
Richard's Chancellor - any opposition does not seem to have
been very deep. Perhaps the Bishop wanted a Convocation to rule on
the pre-Contract first?
> - At the famous Council, the attempt by Hastings, Stanley, and
Morton fails. Faced with a protracted legal dispute about the
succession, the Council supports Richard. If (and I emphasize
that IF), at some point Hastings were to draw a weapon or threaten
Richard there would be the grounds for Hastings' execution.
> - Under Richard's direction, the Council tries and condemns
Hastings - a power which the Council had. (Later exercised
under Henry Tudor as the 'Star Chamber')
> - Warrants for the executions of Rivers, Grey and Vaughn are
then also issued.

Just as an extra, I wonder what Hastings was up to, but I also wonder
to what extent Richard was being manipulated by Buckingham and
Catesby. Under Edward, Hastings had become the main power in the
midlands, a poaition which in Henry VI's time had been held by the
Staffords. Also, Hastings main power base was in Leicestershire,
which is the county to which Catesby also belonged. I wonder if the
two of them weren't hoping to 'clean up' after his fall. I believe
Catesby did profit quite a bit from Hastings' death. I also wonder if
Richard didn't eventually twig this, and if worries about the
ambitions of these two didn't lie behind the long and detailed entry
in Harley 433 in which he promises not to attaint Hastings, and to
take his widow and her lands into his protection.

Marie

>
>
> The one thing that stands out during the Council meeting is
the lack of participation by any Woodvilles (although the
plotters may have claimed to be acting in their behalf - thus
the warrants). Personally, I feel that Morton was simply trying
to cause as much confusion as possible - it would be much easier
for Henry Tudor to overthrow a minor with a disputed claim (word
of the pre-Contract had already been made public), than Richard -
whether as Protector OR King. Lord Stanley was apparently
already a supporter of Henry Tudor. As Hastings was the only one
at the Council meeting to be executed, it seems logical that he
(Hastings) had done something more than just oppose Richard's
assumption of the throne. The only thing more I can imagine
would, as I said, have been either a verbal or physical threat
to Richard.
>
>
>
> Hope this makes sense and isn't too long. Looking forward to
what other members think of it.
>
>
> Doug Stamate/destama@k...
>
>
>
>
>
>

>You wrote:
I understand there are some references to Bishop Russell's
oppostion to Richard replacing his nephew as King. As
Russell, however, later became Richard's Chancellor - any opposition
does not seem to have been very deep. Perhaps the Bishop
wanted a Convocation to rule on the pre-Contract first?

Don't remember this. Are you perhaps thinking of Archbishop
Rotherham, who was Lord Chancellor under Edward IV and Edward V? He
was briefly arrested on 13 June, and never got his job back. He had
already blotted his copybook by taking the Great Seal to Queen
Elizabeth when she went into sanctuary (thus enabling her to carry on
issuing edicts), and had to retrieve it.

I think the suspicion that Russell wasn't really that keen on Richard
stemmed from his being identified as the 2nd Continuator of the
Croyland Chronicle. But I don't think many folk still think he was.

Marie



> >
>
> The one thing that stands out during the Council meeting is
the lack of participation by any Woodvilles (although the
plotters may have claimed to be acting in their behalf - thus
the warrants).

Of course, the Woodvilles were by now either in Sanctuary or in
hiding. I find it interesting that Stanley's wife, and Morton, were
heavily involved in the planned insurrection in the autumn (which
seems to have been taken over - probably not very effectively - by
Buckingham at a pretty late stage). Given the timing, I'm sure the
events of 13th June must have been connected with the letters Richard
wrote to York city & Lord Neville on 10th & 11th, accusing the Queen.

Marie

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Apologies, I didn't know this was here or would have added my own
post re Hastings's execution to it. Have you read Michael James on
Richard's actions in 1483? Gives a very interesting new slant, but
sadly doesn't explain Richard's execution of Hastings. I also think
Richard was intending to be Protector and nothing more, and I am not
convinced by historians who think the coup was wqell planned and
failry long-term. I do think the whole issue of Edward IV's
paternity, which was raised at this point and quickly dropped again
(interestingly Richard remained on excellent terms with his mother,
unlikely if he had just tarred her a whore) is relevant to Richard's
usurpation, and that Jones has a valid point, and I see Richard as
essentially very just. That makes this an issue all the harder to
explain, unless Hastings really was up to no good. He would
certainly have objected to the overthrow of Edward V, and as such
one execution was the lesser evil when the alternative was possible
renewed civil war. Nevertheless, the lack of trial bothers me.

--- In , "catherine"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> Apologies, I didn't know this was here or would have added my own
> post re Hastings's execution to it. Have you read Michael James on
> Richard's actions in 1483? Gives a very interesting new slant, but
> sadly doesn't explain Richard's execution of Hastings. I also think
> Richard was intending to be Protector and nothing more, and I am
not
> convinced by historians who think the coup was wqell planned and
> failry long-term. I do think the whole issue of Edward IV's
> paternity, which was raised at this point and quickly dropped again
> (interestingly Richard remained on excellent terms with his mother,
> unlikely if he had just tarred her a whore) is relevant to
Richard's
> usurpation, and that Jones has a valid point, and I see Richard as
> essentially very just. That makes this an issue all the harder to
> explain, unless Hastings really was up to no good. He would
> certainly have objected to the overthrow of Edward V, and as such
> one execution was the lesser evil when the alternative was possible
> renewed civil war. Nevertheless, the lack of trial bothers me.

Have read Michael jones. As you may have gathered from past threads,
I'm taken with his theory on Edward IV's paternity, simply because:
a) there is the 'Pontoise factor' to be taken into account; and
b) it makes more sense of various people's actions. Too many unstable
individuals doing things that make no sense more or less
simultaneously stretches my credulity (and at this point in my life I
can do without anything else getting stretched).
Also, regarding Richard's relations with his mother. She would have
been far less miffed if it were true than if it were a slur. And,
indeed, may have felt impelled to give her blessing - and
encouragement - to a change of dynastic direction.
Now Hastings. . . .
Oh, dear. Two questions you raise:
a) the date. I think Alison Hanahm's was a good try. She's very
bright but misuses her intelligence by employing it to predetermined
ends. I've read Stallworthe's letter recently from start to finish
and I'd take a lot of persuading that by 'Friday last' he was talking
about 'yesterday'. I think the linguistic verdict on that (putting
other hat on) is definite. Also, he talks about that, and then goes
ON to Prince Richard being taken from sanctuary "on Monday last",
THEN goes on to talk about the state of play with people in still
custody, speculation that Gloucester will send men to their country
houses, Foster moving for his life etc., and Hastings' men having
gone over to Bucnkigham (all of which would take more than a day!).
So he seems also to be taking events in chronological order.

But the execution? Very unsettling. Stallworthe (a true contemporary
source, the only one we have) is clear that Hastings was beheaded.
More (informed by Morton on this?) as I remember suggests an
accusation by Richard followed by Buckingham's men rushing in, swords
being drawn. I don't know if drawn weapons would have been treason.
But this was a royal palace, and this was certainly the rule that
prevailed in Westminster Palace.
But why not a trial? Perhaps I want to exonerate Richard,
but 'More's' implication of Buckingham's retainers, and Master-same-
area-as-Hastings-and-on-the-make-Catesby's involvement as an
informer, worry me.
Yes, I'm sure Hastings would have gone on protecting Edward V's
right - and this was after Stillington made his announcement.
I keep reading date of 9th June for Stillington, but never a source.
Is this surmised because Richard started writing panicky letters
after that date? Anyway, there is a steady, if very panicky, stream
of events from that to Hasting's death.
But Hastings and the Woodvilles make strange bedfellows, if you'll
forgive the pun. and Richard did refuse to attaint him.
But maybe Hastings WAS up to something. I think his brother went on
working loyally with Richard - odd if he'd been 'murdered' without
any justification. And Catesby, though his hysterical, pre-execution
will tries to make amends in so many ways, it never mentions Hastings
(perhaps we'll come back to Catesby??).
Perhaps Hastings was panicked by Stillington's revelation. Perhaps
Mistress Shore really did have a hand in bringing him round - she had
certainly been arrested by 21st when Stallworthe wrote his letter.

I suspect Hastings was involved in something. But also that
Buckingham saw to it that he was dispatched on the spot, so
guaranteeing he wouldn't get off or be pardoned, and that he himself
would be free to exercise his 'rightful' power in the Midlands. (I'm
beginning to think that in the beginning all Buckingham wanted by
supporting Richard was to bring down the people who were suppressing
his 'natural' authority - ie Rivers and his council in S. Wales -
(Buckingham wasn't even a member) and Hastings in the midlands.

So Richard, I'm afraid, was a dupe at the very least. But if it's any
consolation, I think the most naturally honest folk are those most
easily fooled by the dishonest. Not much consolation to Hastings &
Rivers, though.

What do the rest of you think?
Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "catherine"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > Apologies, I didn't know this was here or would have added my own
> > post re Hastings's execution to it. Have you read Michael James
on
> > Richard's actions in 1483? Gives a very interesting new slant,
but
> > sadly doesn't explain Richard's execution of Hastings. I also
think
> > Richard was intending to be Protector and nothing more, and I am
> not
> > convinced by historians who think the coup was wqell planned and
> > failry long-term. I do think the whole issue of Edward IV's
> > paternity, which was raised at this point and quickly dropped
again
> > (interestingly Richard remained on excellent terms with his
mother,
> > unlikely if he had just tarred her a whore) is relevant to
> Richard's
> > usurpation, and that Jones has a valid point, and I see Richard
as
> > essentially very just. That makes this an issue all the harder to
> > explain, unless Hastings really was up to no good. He would
> > certainly have objected to the overthrow of Edward V, and as such
> > one execution was the lesser evil when the alternative was
possible
> > renewed civil war. Nevertheless, the lack of trial bothers me.
>
> Have read Michael jones. As you may have gathered from past
threads,
> I'm taken with his theory on Edward IV's paternity, simply because:
> a) there is the 'Pontoise factor' to be taken into account; and
> b) it makes more sense of various people's actions. Too many
unstable
> individuals doing things that make no sense more or less
> simultaneously stretches my credulity (and at this point in my life
I
> can do without anything else getting stretched).
> Also, regarding Richard's relations with his mother. She would have
> been far less miffed if it were true than if it were a slur. And,
> indeed, may have felt impelled to give her blessing - and
> encouragement - to a change of dynastic direction.
> Now Hastings. . . .
> Oh, dear. Two questions you raise:
> a) the date. I think Alison Hanahm's was a good try. She's very
> bright but misuses her intelligence by employing it to
predetermined
> ends. I've read Stallworthe's letter recently from start to finish
> and I'd take a lot of persuading that by 'Friday last' he was
talking
> about 'yesterday'. I think the linguistic verdict on that (putting
> other hat on) is definite. Also, he talks about that, and then goes
> ON to Prince Richard being taken from sanctuary "on Monday last",
> THEN goes on to talk about the state of play with people in still
> custody, speculation that Gloucester will send men to their country
> houses, Foster moving for his life etc., and Hastings' men having
> gone over to Bucnkigham (all of which would take more than a day!).
> So he seems also to be taking events in chronological order.
>
> But the execution? Very unsettling. Stallworthe (a true
contemporary
> source, the only one we have) is clear that Hastings was beheaded.
> More (informed by Morton on this?) as I remember suggests an
> accusation by Richard followed by Buckingham's men rushing in,
swords
> being drawn. I don't know if drawn weapons would have been treason.
> But this was a royal palace, and this was certainly the rule that
> prevailed in Westminster Palace.
> But why not a trial? Perhaps I want to exonerate Richard,
> but 'More's' implication of Buckingham's retainers, and Master-same-
> area-as-Hastings-and-on-the-make-Catesby's involvement as an
> informer, worry me.
> Yes, I'm sure Hastings would have gone on protecting Edward V's
> right - and this was after Stillington made his announcement.
> I keep reading date of 9th June for Stillington, but never a
source.
> Is this surmised because Richard started writing panicky letters
> after that date? Anyway, there is a steady, if very panicky, stream
> of events from that to Hasting's death.
> But Hastings and the Woodvilles make strange bedfellows, if you'll
> forgive the pun. and Richard did refuse to attaint him.
> But maybe Hastings WAS up to something. I think his brother went on
> working loyally with Richard - odd if he'd been 'murdered' without
> any justification. And Catesby, though his hysterical, pre-
execution
> will tries to make amends in so many ways, it never mentions
Hastings
> (perhaps we'll come back to Catesby??).
> Perhaps Hastings was panicked by Stillington's revelation. Perhaps
> Mistress Shore really did have a hand in bringing him round - she
had
> certainly been arrested by 21st when Stallworthe wrote his letter.
>
> I suspect Hastings was involved in something. But also that
> Buckingham saw to it that he was dispatched on the spot, so
> guaranteeing he wouldn't get off or be pardoned, and that he
himself
> would be free to exercise his 'rightful' power in the Midlands.
(I'm
> beginning to think that in the beginning all Buckingham wanted by
> supporting Richard was to bring down the people who were
suppressing
> his 'natural' authority - ie Rivers and his council in S. Wales -
> (Buckingham wasn't even a member) and Hastings in the midlands.
>
> So Richard, I'm afraid, was a dupe at the very least. But if it's
any
> consolation, I think the most naturally honest folk are those most
> easily fooled by the dishonest. Not much consolation to Hastings &
> Rivers, though.
>
> What do the rest of you think?
> Marie

But weren't Hastings and the Woodvilles literally bedmates? Wasn't
he married to one of Elizabeth Woodville's many sisters? I know
Buckingham was, but I remember being surprised to learn that Hastings
was also related to the "omnivorous Woodvilles." (I know, I know...I
hould have made notes of where I read everything, but I'm not that
organized.)

And as soon as I sent off the last post, the name came to
me...Christopher Marlowe, of course.

>
> But weren't Hastings and the Woodvilles literally bedmates? Wasn't
> he married to one of Elizabeth Woodville's many sisters? I know
> Buckingham was, but I remember being surprised to learn that
Hastings
> was also related to the "omnivorous Woodvilles." (I know, I
know...I
> hould have made notes of where I read everything, but I'm not that
> organized.)
>
> And as soon as I sent off the last post, the name came to
> me...Christopher Marlowe, of course.

No, Hastings' wife was Warwick's sister. Hastings m. Katherine
Neville, & Buckingham m. Katherine Woodville.
The Tudor sources, if I remember rightly, say that after Edward IV
died Mistress Shore became first Dorset's mistress then Hastings'.
The idea is she may have acted as a go-between, but these two men
hated each other, and had a history of quarrelling over their women,
so perhaps this is not so likely. I don't know. They had sworn to be
friends, though, over Edward's deathbed.

Marie, I agree with what you say, I think the explanation - at least
the only one satisfactory to a self-respecting Ricardian - has to be
Buckingham's influence. I accept the illegitimacy tale re Edward IV,
since Cecily admitted it herself long before 1483, and would indeed
have been more miffed were it untrue. Neverthess, as Jones pointed
out, there was no advantage in dragging your mother's name through
the mud if there was an alternative available, especially if one
were a loving son as Richard's letters to her would indicate. Out of
curiosity I tested the yesterday/last week theory out on students,
and they were almost unanimous that it was a week ago, which is my
own feeling. I admire a challenge to deeply held and not pmore had
she been trying to vindicate Richard!

Catherine asked about Hanham's theory.

It is interesting stuff , and it's a shame her detractors at the time
appeared to be rather dismissive rather than constructive in the tone of
their replies but there's an awfully big but on the letter front.

>her suggested date, and the letter to Sir William Stonor, her key
>evidence, by Simon Stallworth refers to Hastings being executed
>on "Friday last". This letter is contentious evidence, since the
>case rests upon the interpretation of "Friday last".
>

Don't read the letter - look at it. It is clearly written in two parts.
The neat and tidy bit (written by a clerk) has the "Friday last" in it,
the later untidier hand (written by Stallworth himself?) mentions he's
been ill and then carries on with the account. Also if you have a look
at the crossings out it really shows (to my mind) this was written on
two different days. So Friday last could well mean exactly what Hanham
says - only it was written a week earlier than the date of the letter.
Take a look at it, and see if you agree. Why all those so called eminent
historians didn't point this out, I have no idea - it hit me between the
eyes as soon as I saw it. The value of looking at a letter not just
reading the text, maybe?

--
Cheers
Jan Scott
Yorkshire

--- In , Jan Scott
<jscott@s...> wrote:
> Catherine asked about Hanham's theory.
>
> It is interesting stuff , and it's a shame her detractors at the
time
> appeared to be rather dismissive rather than constructive in the
tone of
> their replies but there's an awfully big but on the letter front.
>
> >her suggested date, and the letter to Sir William Stonor, her key
> >evidence, by Simon Stallworth refers to Hastings being executed
> >on "Friday last". This letter is contentious evidence, since the
> >case rests upon the interpretation of "Friday last".
> >
>
> Don't read the letter - look at it. It is clearly written in two
parts.
> The neat and tidy bit (written by a clerk) has the "Friday last" in
it,
> the later untidier hand (written by Stallworth himself?) mentions
he's
> been ill and then carries on with the account. Also if you have a
look
> at the crossings out it really shows (to my mind) this was written
on
> two different days. So Friday last could well mean exactly what
Hanham
> says - only it was written a week earlier than the date of the
letter.
> Take a look at it, and see if you agree. Why all those so called
eminent
> historians didn't point this out, I have no idea - it hit me
between the
> eyes as soon as I saw it. The value of looking at a letter not just
> reading the text, maybe?
>
> --
> Cheers
> Jan Scott
> Yorkshire

There is nothing like original (that is, first-hand) research, is
there? I think your observations re the letter are excellent and
valuable. I'm reminded of the "casket letters" of Mary Queen of
Scots...judging strictly from their text they sound like damning love
letters written during her second marriage to the man who became her
third husband, but when the originals are examined, they turn out to
be a collection of letters in several different hands. They may be
transcriptions of now-lost originals, but they equally well could be
compositions by other people entirely which were gathered up as bogus
evidence to, essentially, frame her.

I've been dismayed at the times it appears that serious historians
don't do original research or examine actual documents and sources,
but instead crib from other earlier writers and historians. The late
science writer Stephen Jay Gould called this "fox terrierism"...he
got curious as to why the eohippus is so often described in textbooks
as being the size of a fox terrier, and he traced the references back
to one very early palentology work which described the beast that
way. Author after author, especially of textbooks where a lot of
information has to be covered, had simply copied a previous one.
That's pretty innocuous when you're talking about the size of a
prehistoric horse, but when historians do it, and they certainly do,
it distorts history. And certain historians seem to develop a
favorite theory and ride that hobbyhorse relentlessly, ignoring any
inconvenient contradictory facts.

----------



concerning:

Catherine,

Concerning the use of "last" meaning yesterday vice a week ago: I have two points to bring up: firstly; I have always understood that 'standard English' really didn't develop until the printing of books (usually in the London/Home Counties dialect) really got underway. And I understood that Caxton didn't set up shop until the early 1470's (I believe he was favored by Edward IV). What I'm really trying to get at is are there other letters by Stallworth to compare to this letter? Secondly, when my mother was diagnosed with cancer on 7 December, 2000, the doctor said he didn't expect her to survive through to "next" Christmas. We assumed he meant Christmas of 2001, but he had meant literally the next Christmas. The doctor was from Asia and not a native speaker. Since he did use the words correctly (just not the way they are usually used), I wondered if the use of "last" for the immediate previous day(s), was known anywhere in England (particularly where Stallworth came from)?

Concerning the chronology of events: is it possible that Hastings' salary was stopped upon his arrest? Although not as permanent as his eventual beheading, he was still unable to carry out his duties.

Concerning the trial (or lack of one): I found the following in "England in the Late Middle Ages" by A.R. Myers (Penguin Edition 1953), page 187: "The famous Court of Star Chanber was nothing more than the King's Council sitting in a judicial capacity, as it had done for generations." Apparently, at that time, the Council was the final arbiter of legal affairs and responsible for the Courts of Chancery, Requests, and Admiralty, as well as Star Chamber. Someone with a greater knowledge of English law might be able to add to this.

Concerning Edward IV's legitimacy: I wish I could find where my notes about that are, but I was definitely under the impression that Edward IV and his son had been confused (probably during the sermon by Dr. Shaw (sp?) at St. Paul's. I may be wrong - or simply outdated.

I don't know if this will help or just further muddy the waters!

Doug Stamate

---
> >
>
> Don't read the letter - look at it.

Good point, so if the first part was written before 21st it makes it
impossible that Friday last could be the 20th. It is interesting that
the changeover takes place mid sentence, and the word "headed"
[beheaded] in relation to Hastings is an additon (although without it
the sentence would make no sense, perhaps both these facts indicate
the atmosphere of uncertainty in which the letter was written.
For benefit of listers who don't have a copy of the original, it
goes as follows (words later crossed out are in square brackets;
words added in are between //). I have modernised spelling for speed
apart from one ambiguous phrase:

1. In clerkly hand:
"Worshipful Sir, I recommend me to you, and for tidings, I hold you
happy that you are out of the press for with us is much trouble and
every man doubts other. As on Friday last was the lord
Chamberlain /headed/ soon upon noon. On Monday last was at
Westminster great plenty of harnessed men there was the deliverance
of the Duke of York to my lord Cardinal, my Lord Chancellor and many
other lords temporal And /with him/ met my Lord of Buckingham in the
middle of the hall of Westminster my Lord Protector receiving him at
the Star Chamber Door with many loving words & so departed with my
Lord Cardinal to the Tower where he is blessed be Jesu merry. The
Lord Lisle is come to my Lord Protector and waits upon him. It is
thought there shall be xx thousand of my Lord Protector and my Lord
Buckingham's men in London this week to what intent I know not but to
keep the peace. My Lord has much business and more than he is content
withal if any other ways would be taken the Lord Archbishop of York
and the Bishop of Ely are yet in the Tower with Master Oliver King [I
suppose they shall come out nevertheless] There are men in their
places for sure keeping And I suppose that there shall be sent men of
my Lord"
"I suppose they shall come out nevertheless" is crossed out in very
black ink, more like the writing in part 2.

2. In rough hand:
"Protector's to these lords' places in the country. they are not
likely to come out of ward yet. As for Foster 'he is in hold' &
meue/mene Fer hys lyffe' [move for his life/ men fear his life??].
Mistress Shore is in prison what shall happen her I know not I pray
you pardon me of more writing I am so sick that I may not well hold
me pen & Jesu preserve you. From London the xxi day of June by the
hand of your servant"

3. neater and fainter than 2, but perhaps the same hand:
"All the Lord Chamberlain's men be come my Lord of Buckingham's men
Simon Stallworthe"

As for dating: Part 1, since it mentions the events of 16th
as "Monday last" must, I would argue, have been written no earlier
than Wednesday 18th. Part 2 was evidently written on 21st, and Part
3, the postscript and signature, perhaps even later when Stallworthe
was feeling a bit better.

Is this how you see it, Jen?

Marie

--- In , "Doug Stamate"
<destama@k...> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> concerning:
>
> Catherine,
>
> Concerning the use of "last" meaning yesterday vice a week ago: I
have two points to bring up: firstly; I have always understood
that 'standard English' really didn't develop until the printing of
books (usually in the London/Home Counties dialect) really got
underway. And I understood that Caxton didn't set up shop until the
early 1470's (I believe he was favored by Edward IV). What I'm really
trying to get at is are there other letters by Stallworth to compare
to this letter? Secondly, when my mother was diagnosed with cancer on
7 December, 2000, the doctor said he didn't expect her to survive
through to "next" Christmas. We assumed he meant Christmas of 2001,
but he had meant literally the next Christmas. The doctor was from
Asia and not a native speaker. Since he did use the words correctly
(just not the way they are usually used), I wondered if the use
of "last" for the immediate previous day(s), was known anywhere in
England (particularly where Stallworth came from)?

Hi Doug. Very sorry to hear about your mother. I'm aware of the
difference in usage with 'next'. I've been discussing this lately, in
fact. It does seem that next meaning literally next as opposed to the
one in the next week/ year, etc, is the older usage. Which is why
your Indian doctor/ my in-laws confuse us by using it. However, they
would still have used 'tomorow' when they meant the next day!
Similarly, yesterday. The idea that any local vernacular relied on
folk having to refer to days of the week when talk about the
preceeding or following day seems implausible. Last evening for
yesterday evening, yes - that's certainly used in Ireland today and
probably has a long history. The word 'yesterday' is quite archaic in
form anyway.
Marie

Anyway, as Jen points out, the relevant bit of the letter was very
possibly written earlier than 21st.

> Concerning the chronology of events: is it possible that Hastings'
salary was stopped upon his arrest? Although not as permanent as his
eventual beheading, he was still unable to carry out his duties.
>
> Concerning the trial (or lack of one): I found the following
in "England in the Late Middle Ages" by A.R. Myers (Penguin Edition
1953), page 187: "The famous Court of Star Chanber was nothing more
than the King's Council sitting in a judicial capacity, as it had
done for generations." Apparently, at that time, the Council was the
final arbiter of legal affairs and responsible for the Courts of
Chancery, Requests, and Admiralty, as well as Star Chamber. Someone
with a greater knowledge of English law might be able to add to this.

> Given that it was a council meeting, I suppose he could have been
tried by those members of the council not arrested with him, but I
still think that would have to have been the 13th.
Marie
>

> Concerning Edward IV's legitimacy: I wish I could find where my
notes about that are, but I was definitely under the impression that
Edward IV and his son had been confused (probably during the sermon
by Dr. Shaw (sp?) at St. Paul's. I may be wrong - or simply outdated.
>
> I don't know if this will help or just further muddy the waters!



>
> Doug Stamate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Doug Stamate"
> <destama@k...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----------
> >
> >
> >
> > concerning:
> >
> > Catherine,
> >
> > Concerning the use of "last" meaning yesterday vice a week ago:
I
> have two points to bring up: firstly; I have always understood
> that 'standard English' really didn't develop until the printing
of
> books (usually in the London/Home Counties dialect) really got
> underway. And I understood that Caxton didn't set up shop until
the
> early 1470's (I believe he was favored by Edward IV). What I'm
really
> trying to get at is are there other letters by Stallworth to
compare
> to this letter? Secondly, when my mother was diagnosed with cancer
on
> 7 December, 2000, the doctor said he didn't expect her to survive
> through to "next" Christmas. We assumed he meant Christmas of
2001,
> but he had meant literally the next Christmas. The doctor was from
> Asia and not a native speaker. Since he did use the words
correctly
> (just not the way they are usually used), I wondered if the use
> of "last" for the immediate previous day(s), was known anywhere in
> England (particularly where Stallworth came from)?
>
> Hi Doug. Very sorry to hear about your mother. I'm aware of the
> difference in usage with 'next'. I've been discussing this lately,
in
> fact. It does seem that next meaning literally next as opposed to
the
> one in the next week/ year, etc, is the older usage. Which is why
> your Indian doctor/ my in-laws confuse us by using it. However,
they
> would still have used 'tomorow' when they meant the next day!
> Similarly, yesterday. The idea that any local vernacular relied on
> folk having to refer to days of the week when talk about the
> preceeding or following day seems implausible. Last evening for
> yesterday evening, yes - that's certainly used in Ireland today
and
> probably has a long history. The word 'yesterday' is quite archaic
in
> form anyway.
> Marie

Marie, it is a problem. I certainly don't have any other
correspondence, but historians who do have wide access to such
documents seem happy that "Friday last" is the week before. Not
having a standard form does make it difficult, and it is one of the
reasons I raised it, as I thought it mught lead, with luck, to an
interesting discussion. Wolffe says that Bishop Russell uses the
term "yesterday" happily enough, so it must have existed.
>
> Anyway, as Jen points out, the relevant bit of the letter was very
> possibly written earlier than 21st.
>
> > Concerning the chronology of events: is it possible that
Hastings'
> salary was stopped upon his arrest? Although not as permanent as
his
> eventual beheading, he was still unable to carry out his duties.

That is a possibility, but there was alatin reference here which I
cannot get for another 2 days as I lost part of my notes and the
book is at work - while I am not! I am sure one of you will be able
to translate the phrase for us when I find it!
> >
> > Concerning the trial (or lack of one): I found the following
> in "England in the Late Middle Ages" by A.R. Myers (Penguin
Edition
> 1953), page 187: "The famous Court of Star Chanber was nothing
more
> than the King's Council sitting in a judicial capacity, as it had
> done for generations." Apparently, at that time, the Council was
the
> final arbiter of legal affairs and responsible for the Courts of
> Chancery, Requests, and Admiralty, as well as Star Chamber.
Someone
> with a greater knowledge of English law might be able to add to
this.
>
> > Given that it was a council meeting, I suppose he could have
been
> tried by those members of the council not arrested with him, but I
> still think that would have to have been the 13th.
> Marie

Star Chamber came into existence only under Henry VII by Pro Camera
Stellata, 1487, as an ad hoc series of council meetings in the Star
Chamber. It was not a court or a committee of the council, just some
council members meeting in the Star Chamber. Dealt with redress of
wrongs as a court of appeal. It could summon a defendant by Privy
Seal writs but had no mechanism for delivering/enforcing the writs,
plaintiffs usually had to do it. If 2 writs failed to produce a
defendant a writ of attachment could be sent to the sheriff.
It had no jury, could hear witnesses, and cases might be sent to
special commissions for a decision. It worked fast.
59% of known cases were private suits often involving riot cases,
plus some criminal cases, trade disputes and civil suits.
Punishments were fines with occasional imprisonment – usually until
a fine paid. It heard cases of indenture, embracery, livery,
corruption and misconduct of sheriffs. Regular members included the
Chancellor, Privy Seal, chief justices, a lord and a bishop.
Hastings was certainly not tried by Star Chamber since it didn't
exist. The Protector had such powers.

> >
>
> > Concerning Edward IV's legitimacy: I wish I could find where my
> notes about that are, but I was definitely under the impression
that
> Edward IV and his son had been confused (probably during the
sermon
> by Dr. Shaw (sp?) at St. Paul's. I may be wrong - or simply
outdated.
> >
> > I don't know if this will help or just further muddy the waters!
>
>

I haven't heard that before. I have some references to the
suggestion of Edward IV's bastardy if anyone wants them. Catherine

>
> >
> > Doug Stamate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "Doug Stamate"
> > <destama@k...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > concerning:
> > >
> > > Catherine,
> > >
> > > Concerning the use of "last" meaning yesterday vice a week ago:
> I
> > have two points to bring up: firstly; I have always understood
> > that 'standard English' really didn't develop until the printing
> of
> > books (usually in the London/Home Counties dialect) really got
> > underway. And I understood that Caxton didn't set up shop until
> the
> > early 1470's (I believe he was favored by Edward IV). What I'm
> really
> > trying to get at is are there other letters by Stallworth to
> compare
> > to this letter? Secondly, when my mother was diagnosed with
cancer
> on
> > 7 December, 2000, the doctor said he didn't expect her to survive
> > through to "next" Christmas. We assumed he meant Christmas of
> 2001,
> > but he had meant literally the next Christmas. The doctor was
from
> > Asia and not a native speaker. Since he did use the words
> correctly
> > (just not the way they are usually used), I wondered if the use
> > of "last" for the immediate previous day(s), was known anywhere
in
> > England (particularly where Stallworth came from)?
> >
> > Hi Doug. Very sorry to hear about your mother. I'm aware of the
> > difference in usage with 'next'. I've been discussing this
lately,
> in
> > fact. It does seem that next meaning literally next as opposed to
> the
> > one in the next week/ year, etc, is the older usage. Which is why
> > your Indian doctor/ my in-laws confuse us by using it. However,
> they
> > would still have used 'tomorow' when they meant the next day!
> > Similarly, yesterday. The idea that any local vernacular relied
on
> > folk having to refer to days of the week when talk about the
> > preceeding or following day seems implausible. Last evening for
> > yesterday evening, yes - that's certainly used in Ireland today
> and
> > probably has a long history. The word 'yesterday' is quite
archaic
> in
> > form anyway.
> > Marie
>
> Marie, it is a problem. I certainly don't have any other
> correspondence, but historians who do have wide access to such
> documents seem happy that "Friday last" is the week before. Not
> having a standard form does make it difficult, and it is one of the
> reasons I raised it, as I thought it mught lead, with luck, to an
> interesting discussion. Wolffe says that Bishop Russell uses the
> term "yesterday" happily enough, so it must have existed.

Yes, it seems, in short, that the problem was that:;
a) old usage would have "Friday last" as the very last Friday that
was; but that
b) when this was the previous day it would have been
called 'yesterday'

So Stallworthe's reference to last Friday should never have been made
on a Saturday! And yet the letter was dated a Saturday.
To my mind Jen has cracked it for us. The two parts of the letter,
one with the ref. to "Friday last", and the other with the date, were
written on different days, which also explains the apparent slight
revision in Stallworthe's view of the situation between the two
sections of the letter.

I'm quite sure the word 'yesterday' existed, as indeed
did 'yesteryear' and 'yestereve'. Certainly by Shakespeare's time he
was able to talk about 'all our yesterdays'. Just try doing without a
word meaning 'yesterday' and see how long you last. All the European
languages I've ever learnt have a word for it.

Marie

The possibility of it having been written over several days was
discarded by Wolffe. He felt it very unlikely that such a short
letter containing such avowed urgent news would have been written
over a protracted period, and that two hands are simply because
Stallworth was ill and used a secretary. I think Wolffe has a point:
the letter was rather garbled in its rush to get across rapid and
confusing developments. Why write with such urgency and then pop it
to one side for a few days? Somehow it doesn't seem likely.

--- In , Jan Scott
<jscott@s...> wrote:
> Catherine asked about Hanham's theory.
>>
> Don't read the letter - look at it. It is clearly written in two
parts.
> The neat and tidy bit (written by a clerk) has the "Friday last"
in it,
> the later untidier hand (written by Stallworth himself?) mentions
he's
> been ill and then carries on with the account. Also if you have a
look
> at the crossings out it really shows (to my mind) this was written
on
> two different days. So Friday last could well mean exactly what
Hanham
> says - only it was written a week earlier than the date of the
letter.
> Take a look at it, and see if you agree. Why all those so called
eminent
> historians didn't point this out, I have no idea - it hit me
between the
> eyes as soon as I saw it. The value of looking at a letter not
just
> reading the text, maybe?
>
> --
> Cheers
> Jan Scott
> Yorkshire

Jean - you couldn't email me a copy of that could you? It sound
svery useful. I know about the crossings out and two hands and so
on, but it's hard to judge on someone else's authority. I am
building up my Richard primary sources for use with the A level
class, and whilset not relevant to the syllabus it would be a great
skill exercise!

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> The possibility of it having been written over several days was
> discarded by Wolffe. He felt it very unlikely that such a short
> letter containing such avowed urgent news would have been written
> over a protracted period, and that two hands are simply because
> Stallworth was ill and used a secretary. I think Wolffe has a
point:
> the letter was rather garbled in its rush to get across rapid and
> confusing developments. Why write with such urgency and then pop it
> to one side for a few days?

Precisely because the developments were so confusing, so it was hard
to know how to express such confusing, probably contradictory, and
politically hot-sensitive news? And also because Stallworthe was ill
and may have been tired out after dictating even that much troubling,
confusing and dangerous stuff in his condition? And the letter
wouldn't need to have been put aside for several days, only
overnight. As I said earlier, Wednesday is, on internal evidence, the
earliest date the first part could have been written. Even there, I
feel Monday might have been referred to as "the day before
yesterday". Which leaves us with Thursday and Friday. And Stallworthe
really does seem to have changed his mind somewhat about the release
of the prisoners between his secretary laying down his pen, and
Stallworthe picking up his own.
To stand Wolffe's objection on its head - why should a sick man stop
his secretary in full flight to take the pen himself when he was, on
his own admission, hardly able to hold it?

There's a photgraphic reproducation of the letter in Sean
Cunningham's Richard II A Royal Enigma.

I've been looking at the copy of George Cely's letter in the same
book. Even more confusing. And very oddly worded (and spelt). And
then, looking at the original, I noticed strange symbols above some
of the words. There is at least one above every line of the letter.
It was written from the Hospital of the Knights of St John. I have
heard they were into slightly gnostic ideas, dualism & symbols, and
Hughes says they were enthusiastic alchemists. So I wondered if we
might not have a code here. It might add nothing to the content of
the letter. And then again. . .
Marie

Thanks Marie, I have that, only recently arrived, not had chance to
plough through it yet so hadn't realised ths letter was there. There
are several questions one can ask about this letter and the answer
is never conclusive. In any case, sadly, it doesn't help us very
much in trying to clear Richard's name. Having said that I am not
convinced by Hanham's suggestion that it was in Morton's interests
to have the date believed to be the 13th to make him look less
guilty, or Richard's either. But I am still pondering that one!

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> Thanks Marie, I have that, only recently arrived, not had chance to
> plough through it yet so hadn't realised ths letter was there.
There
> are several questions one can ask about this letter and the answer
> is never conclusive. In any case, sadly, it doesn't help us very
> much in trying to clear Richard's name. Having said that I am not
> convinced by Hanham's suggestion that it was in Morton's interests
> to have the date believed to be the 13th to make him look less
> guilty, or Richard's either. But I am still pondering that one!

For my money I like the two dates theory because:

a) it makes more sense of the change of hand

b) it makes more sense (according to any interpretation) of the use
of the term "Friday last"

c) It makes more sense of the revision of opinion on the prisoners.

A date of 13th for the execution also makes more sense of the order
of news reported in the letter. The state of play with people in
prison relates specifically to the events in the Tower that led to
Hastings' death. So why interpose the description of the Duke of
York's delivery from sanctuary unless this was actually the
chronological order of events?

There is nothing IN THE LETTER this interpretation makes less sense
of. To my mind Wolffe's objection is hollow.

Also, if you look, there is a slash after the word 'lord', before
Stallworthe's hand takes up. It is in light ink the same as the
clerk's writing. Normally these slashes were used at natural breaks,
where we might now use a full stop or comma. So what is one doing in
between the two words 'lord protector'? Surely the clerk didn't need
to indicate that he'd passed the pen over? That would have been a)
obvious anyway, and b) of no concern to the reader. My contention is
that he put it there to mark the end of a session of writing.

There are besides many items that the Tudor chroniclers routinely
misdate, and to my mind all were done with political motives. One is
Buckingham's rebellion, shunted into the autumn of 1484, thus making
it nearer Henry Tudor's successful invasion (there is actually NO
contemporary documentation regarding Tudor being the intended
beneficiary of Buck's rebellion - in his letter inviting Henry to
come over, Bucki apparently didn't make any such offer) and further
from the disappearance of the Princes. Then there is the date Henry
Tudor set out from Brittany to join it. Given as 9th October by
Vergil (off top of my head), and has to have him driven back and
setting off again, and losing ships and all sorts, whereas it seems
he didn't leave Brittany, or even get money from Duke Francis, until
the very end of the month, two weeks after the date set for the
rebellion to break. It seems likely he never had a grand flotilla of
ships.

The difference with this one is that the misdating of Hastings' death
comes as early as Mancini, writing 6 months later during Richard's
reign. But a) this could already have been the official version
amongst English dissidents abroad, and b) there is a natural human
tendency to reorganise memories to fit the logic of hindsight. For
instance, I think it is well understood now that the Belgrano was
sunk BEFORE we declared war on Argentina, but that is because there
was a big political storm over it a few years afterwards. In between
times (1982) I had an discussion in the office over exactly that
issue. I (with my elephant's memory) was alone in recalling that
order of events. My three office mates were ALL adamant we were
already at war when it happened.

Unfortunately, some on both sides in the argument are now keen to
prove that 20th was the date of execution, traditionalists because
the arrest & summary execution taking place after Richard had got
hold of the Duke of York allows them to argue for a calculated plot
to take the throne (I think Hanham was scraping the barrel with her
Morton argument), and revisionists because it allows them to argue
for a week's grace between arrest and execution for the proper
procedures to be followed. Alas, it seems to me that both these
positions are illusionary.
I think our aim has to be to get at the truth, whatever it turns out
to be.

Marie

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:59:20 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Hastings
>
> Cunningham's Richard II A Royal Enigma.
Richard the Second eh? :-)
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:59:20 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Hastings
> >
> > Cunningham's Richard II A Royal Enigma.
> Richard the Second eh? :-)
> Paul

I think you know what I mean. Just pretend it's medieval shorthand.

Marie

PS. Re the George Cely letter. I do find this puzzling. I don't know
if anyone can get to view the original, but several things are odd:

1) Cunningham does not state who it was sent to, and the letter
itself doesn't say.

2) As photographed, there is no signature either, so how do we know
it was written by George Cely? Could someone get to view the Cely
papers & see if there is a signature, or compare the handwriting with
other examples?

3) If I didn't know better, the spelling would tend to make me think
it was written by a Scotsman trying to sound English! But wasn't Cely
a southerner? There is, of course, a reference to the Scots in it:
viz "the Scott[es] hav done grett yn ynglond" (there is actually one
of these strange symbols over the space between the words 'have'
& 'done').

4) All we get at the end is "De Monsieur St John's". I interpreted
this as meaning it was written at St John Priory in Clerkenwell. Or
perhaps from the Prior's house? But could it equally be written at
the house of someone called Mr. St. John. Or is this the writer? The
Prior of St John's? Or what? Didn't the Celys have their own town
house, in Mart Lane near the Tower, anyway?

5) These symbols really are very odd. They bear a vague resemblance
to examples of alchemical symbols I have, but none are actually the
same. But apparently there were literally hundreds of these symbols,
which were being changed all the time to preserve secrecy.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:59:20 -0000
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Hastings
> > >
> > > Cunningham's Richard II A Royal Enigma.
> > Richard the Second eh? :-)
> > Paul
>
> I think you know what I mean. Just pretend it's medieval shorthand.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Re the George Cely letter. I do find this puzzling. I don't
know
> if anyone can get to view the original, but several things are odd:
>
> 1) Cunningham does not state who it was sent to, and the letter
> itself doesn't say.
>
> 2) As photographed, there is no signature either, so how do we know
> it was written by George Cely? Could someone get to view the Cely
> papers & see if there is a signature, or compare the handwriting
with
> other examples?
>
> 3) If I didn't know better, the spelling would tend to make me
think
> it was written by a Scotsman trying to sound English! But wasn't
Cely
> a southerner? There is, of course, a reference to the Scots in it:
> viz "the Scott[es] hav done grett yn ynglond" (there is actually
one
> of these strange symbols over the space between the words 'have'
> & 'done').
>
> 4) All we get at the end is "De Monsieur St John's". I interpreted
> this as meaning it was written at St John Priory in Clerkenwell. Or
> perhaps from the Prior's house? But could it equally be written at
> the house of someone called Mr. St. John. Or is this the writer?
The
> Prior of St John's? Or what? Didn't the Celys have their own town
> house, in Mart Lane near the Tower, anyway?
>
> 5) These symbols really are very odd. They bear a vague resemblance
> to examples of alchemical symbols I have, but none are actually the
> same. But apparently there were literally hundreds of these
symbols,
> which were being changed all the time to preserve secrecy.

Regarding the Cely letter, from its syntax it has always struck me as
not being letter, proper, at all. It looks more like a memorandum or
a list. There are many sentence fragments beginning with "if...."
Maybe Cely was writing down things he had heard, rumors, the latest
news in London and so on, intending to convey it all in a letter
later.

>
> Regarding the Cely letter, from its syntax it has always struck me
as
> not being letter, proper, at all. It looks more like a memorandum
or
> a list. There are many sentence fragments beginning
with "if...."
> Maybe Cely was writing down things he had heard, rumors, the
latest
> news in London and so on, intending to convey it all in a letter
> later.

That was Wolffe's contention too, that it was a scribbled jotting on
a folio of other information unrelated to it.

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Regarding the Cely letter, from its syntax it has always struck
me
> as
> > not being letter, proper, at all. It looks more like a
memorandum
> or
> > a list. There are many sentence fragments beginning
> with "if...."
> > Maybe Cely was writing down things he had heard, rumors, the
> latest
> > news in London and so on, intending to convey it all in a letter
> > later.
>
> That was Wolffe's contention too, that it was a scribbled jotting
on
> a folio of other information unrelated to it.

Do you know what else is supposed to be on the folio? The photo in
the PRO book appears to show the whole folio, and it is otherwise
blank (except for a single word at the bottom).
It did, however, look to me as if it might have been the last page of
a longer letter.
What do others with the book think? (It's at beginning of Chapter
5, 'Rumour in the Realm')

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Regarding the Cely letter, from its syntax it has always struck
me
> as
> > not being letter, proper, at all. It looks more like a
memorandum
> or
> > a list. There are many sentence fragments beginning
> with "if...."
> > Maybe Cely was writing down things he had heard, rumors, the
> latest
> > news in London and so on, intending to convey it all in a letter
> > later.
>
> That was Wolffe's contention too, that it was a scribbled jotting
on
> a folio of other information unrelated to it.


I've found an edition of the Cely papers on the American site.
Transcripts only, of course.

Basically, two members of the Cely family share the same odd spelling
conventions: viz the brothers George Cely & Richard Cely the Younger.
Blame their teacher! So I would say the author of the June 83 letter
must have been one of these. The editor of this edition (Henry Elliot
Malden) says the handwriting matches George's.
The other material is apparently on the back of the folio. However,
it is the same sort of accounting information that accompanies many
of the letters.

Monsieur de St John's is definitely the Prior of St John's. I thought
afterwards, anyway, that it couldn't be a Mr. St John as 'Monsieur'
was still only an aristocratic form of address at that time: ie my
Lord. So it is "My Lord of St John's".
Apparently the Prior of St John's in question was John Weston. In
1480 George and Richard's late father, Richard Cely the Elder, had
accompanied him & Thomas Langton on their embassy to France to chivvy
Louis along with regard to Princess Elizabeth's marriage to the
Dauphin. He pops up again in a letter of November 1483, where cousin
William Cely writes to George & Richard from Calais that "I sent unto
your masterships at the host's [his lodgings licensed by the Staple,
run by one Thomas Graunger]by George Reed, servant with my Lord of St
John's, 2 letters, one directed to Master Richard, the tother to your
mastership, the which I understand. . . that the said letters at that
time were not received, whereof I marvel greatly, etc."

As regards the strange marks - I obviously haven't seen other Cely
letters, but though a book of mine on alchemy says everybody was at
it at the time, I would have thought if they are alchemical they are
more likely to have been added by the Prior or his messenger. The
alchemists of Edward's court discussed by Hughes had links with the
Order, and Hughes says "some of the priors of the order may have had
similar alchemical interests". Or perhaps they'd got the Celys at it
too.

Incidentally, re Michael Jones' recent work, I thought listers might
be interested in this from HE Maldon's introduction, a verdict
evidently drawn from the perspective he gained from studying the Cely
material, with its strong continental and diplomatic perspective:

"Richard III had far too much trouble on his own hands at home to
care to make war abroad. But France was hostile to him in fact,
fearing him as a warlike king, honourably distinguished above other
Englishmen as having never been bought by French money. Indeed,
France overthrew Richard by supplying the means by which Henry VII
could invade England."

And this is from a man who, by the way, absolutely assumes Richard's
guilt of the Princes' murder.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Brunhild"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Regarding the Cely letter, from its syntax it has always struck
> me
> > as
> > > not being letter, proper, at all. It looks more like a
> memorandum
> > or
> > > a list. There are many sentence fragments beginning
> > with "if...."
> > > Maybe Cely was writing down things he had heard, rumors, the
> > latest
> > > news in London and so on, intending to convey it all in a
letter
> > > later.
> >
> > That was Wolffe's contention too, that it was a scribbled jotting
> on
> > a folio of other information unrelated to it.
>
>
> I've found an edition of the Cely papers on the American site.
> Transcripts only, of course.
>
> Basically, two members of the Cely family share the same odd
spelling
> conventions: viz the brothers George Cely & Richard Cely the
Younger.
> Blame their teacher! So I would say the author of the June 83
letter
> must have been one of these. The editor of this edition (Henry
Elliot
> Malden) says the handwriting matches George's.
> The other material is apparently on the back of the folio. However,
> it is the same sort of accounting information that accompanies many
> of the letters.
>
> Monsieur de St John's is definitely the Prior of St John's. I
thought
> afterwards, anyway, that it couldn't be a Mr. St John as 'Monsieur'
> was still only an aristocratic form of address at that time: ie my
> Lord. So it is "My Lord of St John's".
> Apparently the Prior of St John's in question was John Weston. In
> 1480 George and Richard's late father, Richard Cely the Elder, had
> accompanied him & Thomas Langton on their embassy to France to
chivvy
> Louis along with regard to Princess Elizabeth's marriage to the
> Dauphin. He pops up again in a letter of November 1483, where
cousin
> William Cely writes to George & Richard from Calais that "I sent
unto
> your masterships at the host's [his lodgings licensed by the
Staple,
> run by one Thomas Graunger]by George Reed, servant with my Lord of
St
> John's, 2 letters, one directed to Master Richard, the tother to
your
> mastership, the which I understand. . . that the said letters at
that
> time were not received, whereof I marvel greatly, etc."
>
> As regards the strange marks - I obviously haven't seen other Cely
> letters, but though a book of mine on alchemy says everybody was at
> it at the time, I would have thought if they are alchemical they
are
> more likely to have been added by the Prior or his messenger. The
> alchemists of Edward's court discussed by Hughes had links with the
> Order, and Hughes says "some of the priors of the order may have
had
> similar alchemical interests". Or perhaps they'd got the Celys at
it
> too.
>
> Incidentally, re Michael Jones' recent work, I thought listers
might
> be interested in this from HE Maldon's introduction, a verdict
> evidently drawn from the perspective he gained from studying the
Cely
> material, with its strong continental and diplomatic perspective:
>
> "Richard III had far too much trouble on his own hands at home to
> care to make war abroad. But France was hostile to him in fact,
> fearing him as a warlike king, honourably distinguished above other
> Englishmen as having never been bought by French money. Indeed,
> France overthrew Richard by supplying the means by which Henry VII
> could invade England."
>
> And this is from a man who, by the way, absolutely assumes
Richard's
> guilt of the Princes' murder.

Maybe the strange symbols were Cely's code or private cypher, and he
had put them into his notes or whatever they were preparatory to
composing a message to someone. He may have felt that the
information he was gathering was something to keep private, suitable
for encryting, either because it was danerous or because it could be
turned to advantage,

>
> Maybe the strange symbols were Cely's code or private cypher, and
he
> had put them into his notes or whatever they were preparatory to
> composing a message to someone. He may have felt that the
> information he was gathering was something to keep private,
suitable
> for encryting, either because it was danerous or because it could
be
> turned to advantage,


Well, yes, I've certainly been wondering if these signs were there to
convey opinions that it would be dangerous to write down in the
ordinary way. I wonder if there's anyone now who could interpret them.

Congratulations

You may well have discovered a key by which to solve many mysteries and unanswered questions.

I shouldn't think it would be hard for someone who has made a study of codes to crack it !

While they are about it, may I suggest that they peruse all the writings of Dr Argenti, who obviously knew the fate of the young King Edward V and his brother York.

Lomond Handley




---------------------------------
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!Messenger

According to Wolffe, the termination of Hastings' employment as
Lieutenant of Calais was "terminus ad quem", if that helps at all,
and the record shows he "vacated the office" on "de xiii die Junii
ultimo preterito...quo die dictus Willelmus Hastynges diem clausit
extremum."

On the Cely paper reference he says nothing about the folio on whch
the jotted note appears, I think that must have been Hanham, so I
will have to look that up on MOnday if I get chance. He does think
the story came from the prior of St John.

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> According to Wolffe, the termination of Hastings' employment as
> Lieutenant of Calais was "terminus ad quem", if that helps at all,
> and the record shows he "vacated the office" on "de xiii die Junii
> ultimo preterito...quo die dictus Willelmus Hastynges diem clausit
> extremum."

Writs of diem clausit extremum are to do with establishing death for
purposes of inheritance, aren't they? So this would be the date
Hastings died.
>
> On the Cely paper reference he says nothing about the folio on whch
> the jotted note appears, I think that must have been Hanham, so I
> will have to look that up on Monday if I get chance. He does think
> the story came from the prior of St John.

Yes, I've been thinking the same. In fact, I wonder if this wasn't
written from Calais, passing on info sent out from the Prior of St
John's - perhaps a less inflammatory precis of the Prior's original
letter (which presumably was destroyed)? The other letters I've now
read confirm that George Cely's London home was in Mart/ Mark Lane
near the Tower (where the wool mart was). So if he was writing this
from London why wuold he be at the Prior of St John's house? And why
was his info so much vaguer than Stallworthe's? Also, the phrase
about the Scots says they have done great "in England", as if perhaps
he was noting this down from abroad? The news of Hastings' death
would of course have been extremely sensitive in Calais. In fact,
would the info have been smuggled out? and were these marks perhaps
on the Prior's original, and copied over by Cely? So again, perhaps
he wasn't as confused as this note appears but only dared keep a
very oblique written record.
Which doesn't tell us anything about his feelings, of course, as at
that time no one knew which side was going to emerge on top, and
everyone had avoid offending both sides.
Unfortunately, there are no other letters written around that time,
from which one could ascertain where George Cely was.
Well, that's my current thoughts.
Marie

The Cely note is written on a commercial memorandum spare leaf which
was at least one year old when the note was made. Hanham says Cely
appears to have copied it from some form of communication from Sir
John Weston, prior of St John. It includes false rumours such as a
Scottish invasion and execution of Morton. The reference to
Gloucester's life being in danger is also there. There is no
suggestion that the two princes are in danger from Richard, though
another of its rumours is that the young king is dead.

--- In , "Brunhild"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> The Cely note is written on a commercial memorandum spare leaf
which
> was at least one year old when the note was made. Hanham says Cely
> appears to have copied it from some form of communication from Sir
> John Weston, prior of St John. It includes false rumours such as a
> Scottish invasion and execution of Morton. The reference to
> Gloucester's life being in danger is also there. There is no
> suggestion that the two princes are in danger from Richard, though
> another of its rumours is that the young king is dead.

Thanks for that. So my idea that he'd copied it from a letter from
the Prior is the same as Hanham's - and she's probably right to
say 'communication' since it could have been a verbal message. It
would appear more likely to be a safer version of a letter received,
therefore, than a draft of a letter he was comnposing himself.

I'm pretty sure the Priors of St John's were generally members of the
King's council. But I don't know whether they would often have
attended. Also, there were two separate council meetings that morning.

The rumour that the King is dead isn't of the same order as Hastings
and Morton. Essentially, the note starts with a statement about the
Scots' incursion, then says Hastings is dead, Rotherham disgraced and
Morton dead.
Those are the only clear statements. After that every item starts
with the word "if" and has a subjunctive verb: eg not "the King is
deseased" but: "if the King, God save his life were deceased". So at
this point he seems to be wondering. These queries include whether
Northumberland were dead or Lord Howard slain, and whether the young
Duke of York were 'troubled' or Gloucester were in any peril.

I've run the copy past the eye of an expert in alchemy. Don't know if
I can quote him yet, but he thinks the marks are not alchemical but
could well be a coded message just the same - something like a
diplomatic cipher - and that the placing of the symbols relative to
the text is possibly significant. If this is the case, it may not be
possible to judge the meaning of the letter and how confused the
information is without understanding the cipher.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "Brunhild"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > The Cely note is written on a commercial memorandum spare leaf
> which
> > was at least one year old when the note was made. Hanham says
Cely
> > appears to have copied it from some form of communication from
Sir
> > John Weston, prior of St John. It includes false rumours such as
a
> > Scottish invasion and execution of Morton. The reference to
> > Gloucester's life being in danger is also there. There is no
> > suggestion that the two princes are in danger from Richard,
though
> > another of its rumours is that the young king is dead.
>
> Thanks for that. So my idea that he'd copied it from a letter from
> the Prior is the same as Hanham's - and she's probably right to
> say 'communication' since it could have been a verbal message. It
> would appear more likely to be a safer version of a letter
received,
> therefore, than a draft of a letter he was comnposing himself.
>
> I'm pretty sure the Priors of St John's were generally members of
the
> King's council. But I don't know whether they would often have
> attended. Also, there were two separate council meetings that
morning.
>
> The rumour that the King is dead isn't of the same order as
Hastings
> and Morton. Essentially, the note starts with a statement about the
> Scots' incursion, then says Hastings is dead, Rotherham disgraced
and
> Morton dead.
> Those are the only clear statements. After that every item starts
> with the word "if" and has a subjunctive verb: eg not "the King is
> deseased" but: "if the King, God save his life were deceased". So
at
> this point he seems to be wondering. These queries include whether
> Northumberland were dead or Lord Howard slain, and whether the
young
> Duke of York were 'troubled' or Gloucester were in any peril.
>
> I've run the copy past the eye of an expert in alchemy. Don't know
if
> I can quote him yet, but he thinks the marks are not alchemical but
> could well be a coded message just the same - something like a
> diplomatic cipher - and that the placing of the symbols relative to
> the text is possibly significant. If this is the case, it may not
be
> possible to judge the meaning of the letter and how confused the
> information is without understanding the cipher.
>
> Marie

Further complications would include whether the symbols were the
Prior of St John's (assuming the information originated with him) and
Cely translated them to Engish (is he likely to have been privy to
the prior's private code?), or whether someone else decyphered the
prior's encoded information and passed it on to Cely and Cely
included the code symbols in his notes for some reason, or whether
the symbols are Cely's own code and he was encyphering the
information to send along somewhere. Maybe one can tell whether the
symbols came first or the words did by looking at the original
document...the spacing of the words might reveal whether they were
annotated below the symbols or the symbols were inserted above the
words.

I read with interest the post by "fayrerose" and wanted to add my
two cents here.
In the Volume XVI 2006 of "The Ricardian" is an article
beginning on page 59 entitled "The Moneyers of the Tower of London
and William Lord Hastings in 1472." The article is about the guild
who coined the money in the Tower of London during the reign of
Edward IV. It seems one of the lucrative posts granted to Hastings
by Edward was the master-worker ( what we woud think of as CEO) of
this group. Hastings held this post until sometime between February
and April of 1483, when he was replaced by goldsmith Bartholomew
Read. (see footnote #7 on page 60) No reason was given for his
dismissal and this occurred just before the death of Edward IV in
May. Was there funny business going on down at the Mint? Was
Hastings involved? Did Richard of Gloucester find out that Hastings
had his hand in the till? Will we ever know? Just more to think
about.
Then there is always that story by Dumas about Hastings
poisoning Edward IV on behalf of Louis the Spider-King of
France........

L.M.L.,
Janet Trimbath

thank you for the heads up regarding hastings and mint.

but, richard also appointed hastings to the position of the master of the mint in may 1483.
ergo, there was something going on, but it must have been satisfactorially cleared up so that hastings regained his appointment.

do you know in what book dumas wrote about hastings having poisoned e4?

as i was reading about e4's death in holinshed, i had wondered if e4 had been a victim of poisoning. his death occurs shortly after the dolphin breaks his betrothal to e of y. holinshed's rendition of the event is at this url. http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1945

most interestingly holinshed provides two deathbed speechs from edward. one on the importance of education for the princes and nobility....begins at the above url, the second one a few pages later. citing the more famous one of..lets everyone get along now.

roslyn

Janet <forevere@...> wrote:
I read with interest the post by "fayrerose" and wanted to add my
two cents here.
In the Volume XVI 2006 of "The Ricardian" is an article
beginning on page 59 entitled "The Moneyers of the Tower of London
and William Lord Hastings in 1472." The article is about the guild
who coined the money in the Tower of London during the reign of
Edward IV. It seems one of the lucrative posts granted to Hastings
by Edward was the master-worker ( what we woud think of as CEO) of
this group. Hastings held this post until sometime between February
and April of 1483, when he was replaced by goldsmith Bartholomew
Read. (see footnote #7 on page 60) No reason was given for his
dismissal and this occurred just before the death of Edward IV in
May. Was there funny business going on down at the Mint? Was
Hastings involved? Did Richard of Gloucester find out that Hastings
had his hand in the till? Will we ever know? Just more to think
about.
Then there is always that story by Dumas about Hastings
poisoning Edward IV on behalf of Louis the Spider-King of
France........

L.M.L.,
Janet Trimbath





SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------

A recurring tale, but poison really wasn't Louis style. Talk them
into submission yes!
Paul

On 2 Jun 2006, at 20:42, Janet wrote:

> Then there is always that story by Dumas about Hastings
> poisoning Edward IV on behalf of Louis the Spider-King of
> France........

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

Thanks for the link to Wendy's article, Roslyn.

Just a few thoughts.

It's certainly true that Hastings relied heavily on offices. His
father, Sir Leonard Hastings, was only of county gentry status, and
it was Hastings' position in government - as Lord Chamberlain,
Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - that gave him his
influence and most of his income. However, the family went back a
long way with the house of York. As Wendy points out, Hastings'
maternal grandmother was a Mortimer, and so he was a cousin of sorts
of the York brothers. His father had been an officer of Richard Duke
of York.

Hastings' lack of prominence in the period leading up to Edward IV's
assumption of power is, I think, explicable. Firstly, the evidence
points to his having been placed in York's household in Ludlow with
his eldest sons. This would explain why he was absent from Wakefield
but fought at Mortimer's Cross, and why he was so rapidly promoted
after Edward became king. That he came to terms with the Lancastrians
during the Yorkist exile of 1459-60 is inevitable - even the Duchess
of York went on her knees and successfully pleaded her innocence of
any involvement in her husband's treason. They were biding their time.

As regards Wendy's article, my antennae always buzz when I see words
like 'conundrum' used to describe historical events or characters -
always makes me suspect there's something wrong with
our 'information'.

Vitellius A XVI (London city chronicle) was not written up until
1496, and is thus infected with all sorts of Tudor 're-education'.

I haven't looked at 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen'. Does
anybody know whether it was written contemporaneously with the events
it describes, or what it actually says about Hastings' death?

It is interesting that the Tudor sources have written in Stanley as a
conspirator, though he appears to have been completely uninvolved.
Chimes in with my earlier post about Margaret Beaufort as a possible
source of some of the Tudor version. This stuff simply can't be taken
at face value.

Catesby's role as an informer, however, is indeed quite likely. He
had carried out legal work for both Buckingham and Hastings, and
since his wife was closely related to Margaret Beaufort she may have
been trying to draw him into any plot. He had not previously been
much involved with Gloucester, but from this time became one of his
closest advisors.
Catesby remembers Buckingham's widow in his will (written before his
execution, still in hope of last-minute reprieve), but not Hastings,
though this may have been only because he believed Katherine
Woodville would now be in a position of influence and could, if not
save his own life, then protect the interests of his widow and
children.


Mancini's version of Hastings' death (in Armstrong's translation) is:-
Richard "had sounded their [Rotherham's, Morton's and Hastings']
loyalty through the Duke of Buckingham. One day these three and
several others came to the Tower about ten o' clock to salute* the
protector, as was their custom. When they had been admitted to the
innermost quarters, the protector, as pre-arranged, cried out that an
ambush had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms,
that they might be first to open the attack. Thereupon the soldiers,
who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the duke
of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason;
they arrested the others, whose life, it was presumed, was spared out
of respect for religion and holy orders."
* 'greet' might have been a better translation.

Mancini is interesting in that the first half of his account is pro-
Richard and quite detailed. Then he turns very hostile and his
information starts to get quite hazy. He says he stayed in England
until shortly after the coronation, but I think he must have left
London before that and become reliant on a different set of
informants (he spoke no English and was reliant on well educated
Latin speakers). He misdates Hastings' death to after York's removal
from sanctury.

Further on Armstrong's translation does refer to 'Hastings'
execution', but Mancini's Latin merely has 'necis' from the verb to
kill or slay. Armstrong was a devil for tweaking his translation to
suit the received view of events, starting with the title - for
Mancini's 'De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Ricardum Tercium' ('Of the
Occupation of the Realm of England by Richard III') he has 'The
Usurpation of Richard III'.

Wendy, like most other writers, posits that any plot was sparked by
Stillington's revelation and a desire to stop Richard making use of
it. That far i agree the circumstantial evidence is all in favour. It
is true that she also suggests Hastings may have known of the
precontract before Stillington's revelation, but such a theory seems
to me wholly unnecessary. In fact, had this been the case, he would
surely have been hostile to Richard right from the time of Edward's
death. In fact, it was Hastings who informed Richard of Edward's
death and helped get him to London. Also, surely he would have moved
to silence Stillington rather than risk trying to bring down the
Protector.

I'm alway reluctant to rush to tie up all the loose ends too quickly,
and I think there's so much we don't know on this one.

Marie

Does anyone have a complete list of Hastings' estates? Slingsby in
Yorkshire is usually referred to as the original seat (although this
was originally a Mowbray property). They then seem to have moved into
the midlands, with Burton Hastings in Warwicks becoming the main
ome. They then aquired Kirby Muxloe by marriage to the Hurle
heiress, and from hereon Leicestershire becomes the centre of
Hastings "Country".
Edward IV had a policy of building up magnates to control certain
regions, with Hastings being showered with estates and honours in the
north midlands forfeited by Lancastrians. He even gave Hastings the
Duchy of Lancaster stronghold of Tutbury which had previously been
given to Clarence. Another example of Edward's folly in giving lands
away which powerful magnates regarded as their own.
Belvoir was forfeited by Lord Roos (although I don't think Hastings
got the northern Roos barony of Helmsley). Hastings had the castle
stipped of stone and lead roofing to build his new pile at Kirby, and
Belvoir was in ruins when the Roos attainder was reversed by Henry
VII.
The Beaumont estates are somewhat elusive; the seat was Folkingham in
Lincs, but "Beaumanoir" in Leicesters is sometimes referred to as the
original home, I can't locate this on a modern map.
The fact that these estates had been granted to so powerful a friend
of the king may well explain why the Roos, Beaumont and Butler
families never regained their lands during the Yorkist period,
despite more dangerous characters such as Somerset being restored.

What's interesting regarding Hasting's fall is that, although Richard
never attainted the family, and they subsequently rose to eminence in
Tudor England being created Earls of Huntingdon, the new castle at
Kirby was never finished; even today there is little more than the
square foundations and a few walls.
Maybe the family never obtained the sort of wealth Edward's favourite
wenching chum aquired, or perhaps castle building had gone completely
out of fashion by the time they got back in the big time?




--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:

>
> It's certainly true that Hastings relied heavily on offices. His
> father, Sir Leonard Hastings, was only of county gentry status, and
> it was Hastings' position in government - as Lord Chamberlain,
> Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - that gave him his
> influence and most of his income. However, the family went back a
> long way with the house of York. As Wendy points out, Hastings'
> maternal grandmother was a Mortimer, and so he was a cousin of
sorts
> of the York brothers. His father had been an officer of Richard
Duke
> of York.

> Marie
>

I can recommend a fantastic source. Henry (1536-95) was the 3rd and
greatest of the Earls of Huntingdon. "The Puritan Earl" is Claire
Cross' biography of him. During his later years, he was regularly
selling estates and a whole chapter is devoted to the ones he
inherited and those he was able to leave to the next Earl.

PS: His parents (Catherine Pole and Francis, 2nd Earl) married in
1532. Her sister Winifred married his brother (Sir Thomas) in 1534. I
have no evidence of a dispensation being required. This backs up the
excellent article in the latest Ricardian Bulletin, refuting Hicks'
claim that Richard's marriage to Anne was "incestuous" because of the
earlier union between Clarence and Isabel.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a complete list of Hastings' estates? Slingsby in
> Yorkshire is usually referred to as the original seat (although
this
> was originally a Mowbray property). They then seem to have moved
into
> the midlands, with Burton Hastings in Warwicks becoming the main
> ome. They then aquired Kirby Muxloe by marriage to the Hurle
> heiress, and from hereon Leicestershire becomes the centre of
> Hastings "Country".
> Edward IV had a policy of building up magnates to control certain
> regions, with Hastings being showered with estates and honours in
the
> north midlands forfeited by Lancastrians. He even gave Hastings
the
> Duchy of Lancaster stronghold of Tutbury which had previously been
> given to Clarence. Another example of Edward's folly in giving
lands
> away which powerful magnates regarded as their own.
> Belvoir was forfeited by Lord Roos (although I don't think Hastings
> got the northern Roos barony of Helmsley). Hastings had the castle
> stipped of stone and lead roofing to build his new pile at Kirby,
and
> Belvoir was in ruins when the Roos attainder was reversed by Henry
> VII.
> The Beaumont estates are somewhat elusive; the seat was Folkingham
in
> Lincs, but "Beaumanoir" in Leicesters is sometimes referred to as
the
> original home, I can't locate this on a modern map.
> The fact that these estates had been granted to so powerful a
friend
> of the king may well explain why the Roos, Beaumont and Butler
> families never regained their lands during the Yorkist period,
> despite more dangerous characters such as Somerset being restored.
>
> What's interesting regarding Hasting's fall is that, although
Richard
> never attainted the family, and they subsequently rose to eminence
in
> Tudor England being created Earls of Huntingdon, the new castle at
> Kirby was never finished; even today there is little more than the
> square foundations and a few walls.
> Maybe the family never obtained the sort of wealth Edward's
favourite
> wenching chum aquired, or perhaps castle building had gone
completely
> out of fashion by the time they got back in the big time?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
>
> >
> > It's certainly true that Hastings relied heavily on offices. His
> > father, Sir Leonard Hastings, was only of county gentry status,
and
> > it was Hastings' position in government - as Lord Chamberlain,
> > Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - that gave him his
> > influence and most of his income. However, the family went back a
> > long way with the house of York. As Wendy points out, Hastings'
> > maternal grandmother was a Mortimer, and so he was a cousin of
> sorts
> > of the York brothers. His father had been an officer of Richard
> Duke
> > of York.
>
> > Marie
> >
>

sorry to refute your comment stephen, but by 15C standards, richard and anne's marriage would have been considered incestuous, albeit, not outrageous...it was a breach of canon law vs moral code. ergo the need for the papal dispensation.

had ric iii and e of y married..it would have been a breach of canon and moral restrictions.

a 15thC marriage was a union of more than just the two people exchanging vows. it was the union of two families.

if hicks did not clearly state this in his recent work, then everyone definitely has the right to be riled. i haven't read his book. so, i can't offer an truely informed opinion. if someone could post the appropriate passage, it would certainly assist in my understanding of the ire of hick's comment regarding anne and richard's marriage.

although, i've not followed 16thC rules/regs regarding marriage in england.

this thought occurs to me:

with one hastings marriage occuring in 1532 and the other in 1534. the timing of the marriage could be the reason for it not being considered an "incestuous" marriage, or at least the reason it did not require a papal dispensation.

h8 broke away from the catholic church in 1532/3. ergo the possibility of new rules governing who could marry who as long as the king and new english church consented/approved of the union.

roslyn


Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
I can recommend a fantastic source. Henry (1536-95) was the 3rd and
greatest of the Earls of Huntingdon. "The Puritan Earl" is Claire
Cross' biography of him. During his later years, he was regularly
selling estates and a whole chapter is devoted to the ones he
inherited and those he was able to leave to the next Earl.

PS: His parents (Catherine Pole and Francis, 2nd Earl) married in
1532. Her sister Winifred married his brother (Sir Thomas) in 1534. I
have no evidence of a dispensation being required. This backs up the
excellent article in the latest Ricardian Bulletin, refuting Hicks'
claim that Richard's marriage to Anne was "incestuous" because of the
earlier union between Clarence and Isabel.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a complete list of Hastings' estates? Slingsby in
> Yorkshire is usually referred to as the original seat (although
this
> was originally a Mowbray property). They then seem to have moved
into
> the midlands, with Burton Hastings in Warwicks becoming the main
> ome. They then aquired Kirby Muxloe by marriage to the Hurle
> heiress, and from hereon Leicestershire becomes the centre of
> Hastings "Country".
> Edward IV had a policy of building up magnates to control certain
> regions, with Hastings being showered with estates and honours in
the
> north midlands forfeited by Lancastrians. He even gave Hastings
the
> Duchy of Lancaster stronghold of Tutbury which had previously been
> given to Clarence. Another example of Edward's folly in giving
lands
> away which powerful magnates regarded as their own.
> Belvoir was forfeited by Lord Roos (although I don't think Hastings
> got the northern Roos barony of Helmsley). Hastings had the castle
> stipped of stone and lead roofing to build his new pile at Kirby,
and
> Belvoir was in ruins when the Roos attainder was reversed by Henry
> VII.
> The Beaumont estates are somewhat elusive; the seat was Folkingham
in
> Lincs, but "Beaumanoir" in Leicesters is sometimes referred to as
the
> original home, I can't locate this on a modern map.
> The fact that these estates had been granted to so powerful a
friend
> of the king may well explain why the Roos, Beaumont and Butler
> families never regained their lands during the Yorkist period,
> despite more dangerous characters such as Somerset being restored.
>
> What's interesting regarding Hasting's fall is that, although
Richard
> never attainted the family, and they subsequently rose to eminence
in
> Tudor England being created Earls of Huntingdon, the new castle at
> Kirby was never finished; even today there is little more than the
> square foundations and a few walls.
> Maybe the family never obtained the sort of wealth Edward's
favourite
> wenching chum aquired, or perhaps castle building had gone
completely
> out of fashion by the time they got back in the big time?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
>
> >
> > It's certainly true that Hastings relied heavily on offices. His
> > father, Sir Leonard Hastings, was only of county gentry status,
and
> > it was Hastings' position in government - as Lord Chamberlain,
> > Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - that gave him his
> > influence and most of his income. However, the family went back a
> > long way with the house of York. As Wendy points out, Hastings'
> > maternal grandmother was a Mortimer, and so he was a cousin of
> sorts
> > of the York brothers. His father had been an officer of Richard
> Duke
> > of York.
>
> > Marie
> >
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> sorry to refute your comment stephen, but by 15C standards, richard
and anne's marriage would have been considered incestuous, albeit,
not outrageous...it was a breach of canon law vs moral code. ergo the
need for the papal dispensation.

a 15thC marriage was a union of more than just the two people
exchanging vows. it was the union of two families.
>
> if hicks did not clearly state this in his recent work, then
everyone definitely has the right to be riled. i haven't read his
book. so, i can't offer an truely informed opinion. if someone could
post the appropriate passage, it would certainly assist in my
understanding of the ire of hick's comment regarding anne and
richard's marriage.

I'm sorry, Roslyn, but I have to come in on Stephen's side here. The
article Stephen is referring to deals only with Richard's marriage to
Anne. Everyone accepts that Richard and Anne were cousins and needed
a papal dispensation to marry. It is also true that the word 'incest'
was used as a legal term to describe marriages within the canonically
forbidden degrees. It is less clear that all such unions were thought
of as incestuous in the way that we use the term today.

One dispensation has recently been found for Richard and Anne, but it
does not cover all the impediments. Hicks asserts categorically that
no other dispensation ever existed, even though absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence, one cannot prove a negative, etc.
But, to cut to the crunch, Hicks is now claiming that, as well as
being cousins, Richard and Anne were canoncially brother and sister
because of George's marriage to Isabel: he claims this constituted
affinity in the first degree, that first-degree impediments were not
dispensable and this was why Richard put in for an incomplete
dispensation. This is the keystone of his 'incest' argument, and it
is simply totally fallacious. George's marriage to Isabel did not
affect Richard's canonical relationship to Anne in any way. Joanne's
post explains the rules absolutely accurately.

Hicks then goes on to use the supposed incestuousness of Richard's
marriage to bolster his claim that Richard really did go on to try to
marry his niece. This makes him, in Hicks' phrase, a 'serial
incestor'.

Marie


>
> had ric iii and e of y married..it would have been a breach of
canon and moral restrictions.
>
>>
> although, i've not followed 16thC rules/regs regarding marriage
in england.
>
> this thought occurs to me:
>
> with one hastings marriage occuring in 1532 and the other in
1534. the timing of the marriage could be the reason for it not being
considered an "incestuous" marriage, or at least the reason it did
not require a papal dispensation.


> h8 broke away from the catholic church in 1532/3. ergo the
possibility of new rules governing who could marry who as long as the
king and new english church consented/approved of the union.

Post-reformation England did not revise the rules on marital
impediments until the reign of Elizabeth. The rules that applied in
the 15th century are quite clear, and had been set out by the Fourth
Council of Lateran. They still apply to Catholics today. Many double
marriages of this kind took place in the fifteenth century too, and
in Catholic countries in more recent times. No dispensations apply to
these marriages.

Marie

Stephen wrote: ...(Catherine Pole and Francis, 2nd
Earl) married in 1532. Her sister Winifred married his
brother (Sir Thomas) in 1534. I have no evidence of a
dispensation being required. This backs up the
excellent article in the latest Ricardian Bulletin,
refuting Hicks' claim that Richard's marriage to Anne
was "incestuous" because of the earlier union between
Clarence and Isabel.

****

I've read about a late 14th century marriage agreement
in which a brother and sister married a sister and
brother.


In 1385, Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, married
his oldest son, John [later John the Fearless] and his
daughter, Margaret, to a daughter and son of Duke
Aubert of Bavaria. These marriages were made to
prevent Wenceslas of Luxemburg from disinheriting
Joan, Duchess of Brabant, and Philip the Bold's wife,
Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy. They definitely
concentrated Philip the Bold's power as Duke of
Burgundy. This is described in "The Golden Age of
Burgundy," by Joseph Calmette, who doesn't give any
information about dispensations or objections to the
marriage.

This sounds similar to the marriages of John of Gaunt
and his brother Edmund's to the Castillian sisters.

Michael Hicks wrote: For the match of Anne and Richard
encountered another problem: already third, second,
and first cousins once removed, related in the second,
third and fourth degrees, they were also brother- and
sister-in-law, related in the closest degree of
affinity. Unable to contract a legal marriage, Richard
took the essential precaution of securing a
dispensation from the pope – but one that covered only
two impediments in the third and the fourth degrees of
affinity. 1

Does anyone know if the rules changed between the time
that 1)JOG and Edmund married the Castillian sisters;
and 2) Philip the Bold arranged the marriages of John
the Fearless and his sister to the Bavarian sister and
brother?

Does anyone know how common, or uncommon, such
marriages were?

I don't know enough about marriage rules in the 14th
and 15th century to know how seriously JOG/Philip the
Bold/Clarence/Gloucester were bending them. But I
doubt that Richard was bending the rules any more than
these earlier marriages did.

Marion


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Does anyone know if the rules changed between the time
> that 1)JOG and Edmund married the Castillian sisters;
> and 2) Philip the Bold arranged the marriages of John
> the Fearless and his sister to the Bavarian sister and
> brother?
>
> Does anyone know how common, or uncommon, such
> marriages were?
>
> I don't know enough about marriage rules in the 14th
> and 15th century to know how seriously JOG/Philip the
> Bold/Clarence/Gloucester were bending them. But I
> doubt that Richard was bending the rules any more than
> these earlier marriages did.
>
> Marion


The rules on affinity were codified in 1215, and the Catholic church
hasn't changed them since. They render a person a relative of any
sexual partner, so that they are then barred from marrying that
person's relatives over 4 generations just as if they were a blood
relative. But they do not drag THEIR relatives into the relationship.
I'm surprised Hicks managed to miss the implication of Anne's
maternal uncle Henry Duke of Warwick having been married to her aunt
Cecily Neville (her father's sister) since he mentions this marriage
in his own book!
From what he says himself, Hicks didn't know about Richard & Anne's
dispensation at all until just before the book went to press, and he
had to retrieve it and do a hasty rewrite. Too hasty, it would appear.

I have similar marriages amongst Catholics on my mother's side (much
later, of course) and can bear witness to the lack of dispensations
in the relevant column of the marriage register.

Marie wrote: The rules on affinity were codified in
1215, and the Catholic church hasn't changed them
since.

****

So the same rules applied to Phillip the Good and John
of Gaunt and Richard III. If the 14th century
marriages were valid, so was Richard III's with Anne
Neville.

****

They render a person a relative of any sexual partner,
so that they are then barred from marrying that
person's relatives over 4 generations just as if they
were a blood relative. But they do not drag THEIR
relatives into the relationship.

****

I'm surprised Hicks managed to miss the implication of
Anne's maternal uncle Henry Duke of Warwick having
been married to her aunt Cecily Neville (her father's
sister) since he mentions this marriage in his own
book!

****

I haven't read his book, and I have trouble
remembering genealogy charts. So I'll need to do some
re-reading about Henry, Duke of Warwick and his wife,
Cecily Neville.

****

From what he says himself, Hicks didn't know about
Richard & Anne's dispensation at all until just before
the book went to press, and he had to retrieve it and
do a hasty rewrite. Too hasty, it would appear.

****

Apparently his anti-Richard bias made him forget what
he'd written himself.

****

I have similar marriages amongst Catholics on my
mother's side (much later, of course) and can bear
witness to the lack of dispensations in the relevant
column of the marriage register.

****

Then Richard and Anne's marriage is as valid as
everyone else's. Hicks is just biased.


Marion





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Katy,

Exactly! This happens more than we would expect. Recently a
mathematical treatise by Archimedes was found and

a document on chess from the Renaissance by "The Father of Accountancy",
Luca Pacioli, illustrated by Leonardo de

Vinci. This little book was discovered in an Italian Count's 22,000 volume
library in 2006. So, wonders never cease!



I know parchment was often recycled and sometimes used in bindings to
stiffen book covers once the new printing press

made books more numerous.



Janet