Stanleys
Stanleys
2013-02-17 09:44:40
It is odd that all sources seem to agree now that it was William
Stanley's intervention at Bosworth that saved Henry, yet older brother
Thomas gets all the headlines, as it were, and is credited with placing
Richard's battle crown on Henry's head.
Yet records show that Thomas says he didn't meet his step son until two
days later, and Thomas it was who received all the rewards, but was
Henry rewarding his step father's family through his mother's husband,
the elder brother rather than the younger? This is what Thomas Penn
suggests in 'The Winter King"...
'Henry had rewarded the family with political office and a position at
the heart of power - until Warbeck had caused doubt to seep into Sir
William Stanley's mind...' the job of Lord Chamberlain under Henry meant
access to the king was only through him, Sir William, a very powerful
position.
And through all this let us not forget who Thomas' wife was and the
influence she had on her son.
Once Thomas was dead Henry went for the Stanley family with a vengeance,
and tied Thomas' heir down with heavy bonds for his behaviour, even
taking him to court and fining him heavily for keeping a large number of
retainers.
First reward the Stanley family, then punish them.
Paul
Stanley's intervention at Bosworth that saved Henry, yet older brother
Thomas gets all the headlines, as it were, and is credited with placing
Richard's battle crown on Henry's head.
Yet records show that Thomas says he didn't meet his step son until two
days later, and Thomas it was who received all the rewards, but was
Henry rewarding his step father's family through his mother's husband,
the elder brother rather than the younger? This is what Thomas Penn
suggests in 'The Winter King"...
'Henry had rewarded the family with political office and a position at
the heart of power - until Warbeck had caused doubt to seep into Sir
William Stanley's mind...' the job of Lord Chamberlain under Henry meant
access to the king was only through him, Sir William, a very powerful
position.
And through all this let us not forget who Thomas' wife was and the
influence she had on her son.
Once Thomas was dead Henry went for the Stanley family with a vengeance,
and tied Thomas' heir down with heavy bonds for his behaviour, even
taking him to court and fining him heavily for keeping a large number of
retainers.
First reward the Stanley family, then punish them.
Paul
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-17 13:14:39
By the same author:
Stanley, Sir William (c.14351495), administrator and landowner, was the second son of Thomas Stanley, first Baron Stanley (14061459), and Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Goushill and his wife, Elizabeth Fitzalan, dowager duchess of Norfolk. He was probably born about 1435, that is, some two years after his brother, Thomas Stanley, second Lord Stanley. He grew to manhood in the increasingly bitter factional politics of the 1450s, in which his father had balanced his early involvement with the Suffolk regime by collaboration with the duke of York and the Nevilles. In 1459 Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury, crossing from Yorkshire to join with York at Ludlow, sought support from the Stanleys against the Lancastrian regime. While his elder brother, Thomas, refused to commit his troops, William joined Salisbury's standard, took part in the action at Bloreheath (23 September), and probably fled overseas with the Yorkist leaders. In the Coventry
parliament in November Thomas begged the king's pardon, but William was attainted as a traitor.
William Stanley's prospects were wholly transformed by the accession of Edward IV in 1461. On 1 May he was appointed chamberlain of Chester, constable of Flint Castle, and sheriff of Flintshire, offices that he was to hold for some thirty-five years. He was knighted in July, and through summer and autumn he was prominent in the establishment of Yorkist rule in north Wales. In the following years he assisted in the suppression of the Lancastrians in the north, participating in the siege of Alnwick (1462) with 400 archers. After the battle of Hexham (1464) he was rewarded with a grant of the lordship of Skipton, Yorkshire, and other lands forfeited by John, Lord Clifford (d. 1461). In 1465 he married Joan Beaumont, widow of John, Lord Lovell, securing the custody of the Lovell lordship of Longdendale in Cheshire. Despite his connections with the Neville clan, William Stanley did not follow the earl of Warwick when he turned against Edward IV and drove him
from the kingdom in 147071. On Edward's return from exile in 1471, he was among the first to declare himself for the house of York, meeting him at Nottingham with 300 men. Joan Stanley having died in August 1466, her husband's credit at court was presumably instrumental in securing, by the end of the year, Elizabeth Hopton, widow of John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester (d. 1470), as his second wife.
In the 1470s William Stanley was a pillar of the Yorkist regime. When Edward's eldest son became prince of Wales and earl of Chester, he was appointed steward of the prince's household. His position at court, the offices he held in Cheshire and Flintshire, and his activities as a patron and arbiter of disputes helped him to secure a powerful following among the gentry of the region. His ambition was to build up a territorial lordship which would extend the Stanley domination of Lancashire and Cheshire into north Wales. Local power and influence secured a foothold in the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, where he was acting in the capacity of steward from about 1467 and was probably already in residence at Holt Castle. He and his brother successfully resisted efforts by Richard, duke of Gloucester, to extend his power into Lancashire. Indeed, in 1475 William obtained from the duke the lordship of Chirk, immediately south of Bromfield and Yale, in exchange
for that of Skipton. In the same year he led a retinue of two lances and twenty archers in Edward IV's expedition to France.
In 1483 the Stanleys reluctantly acquiesced in the usurpation of Richard III. At the time of the duke of Buckingham's rebellion in October of that year they were with the king in the north, and had little room for manoeuvre. In any event they joined in the suppression of the revolt, and shared in the spoils of victory. William Stanley succeeded Buckingham as chief justice of north Wales, and was granted his lordship of Thornbury in Gloucestershire. In 1484 he finally acquired from the crown the castle of Holt and the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, partly by purchase and partly in exchange for the surrender of Thornbury.
None the less the Stanleys played a pivotal role in the overthrow of Richard III and the accession of Henry Tudor in 1485. Lord Stanley was the stepfather of the Lancastrian pretender, but Sir William may well have been motivated primarily by loyalty to Henry Tudor's proposed bride, Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter and (assuming the deaths of the princes in the Tower) heir of Edward IV. While only the ballad tradition, especially Bosworth Field and the Song of Lady Bessy, offers detail, it seems clear that the Stanleys made undertakings to Henry Tudor before his invasion in 1485. After landing with a small force in south-west Wales, he headed north and then east, evidently relying on assistance from the Stanleys. According to the Song of Lady Bessy, Sir William was stationed at Holt Castle, waiting for the south-westerly wind that would signal the invasion.
On receipt of news of the rebels' advance through Wales William Stanley sent a message to the town of Shrewsbury ordering their admission, and, in co-ordination with Lord Stanley who was advancing in force from Lancashire, he set out at the head of a company about 3000 men strong, attired according to the ballads in red-and-white jackets bearing his insignia of the hart's head. While the Stanleys declined to declare themselves openly until the last moment, Sir William is presented in the ballads as actively assisting the rebels from the outset, meeting with Henry near Stone and at Lichfield, and covering his advance through Staffordshire. At the battle of Bosworth (22 August) it was Sir William who at a critical stage committed his forces against Richard III. Polydore Vergil has William Stanley saving Henry's life, the great chronicle of London has him crowning Henry VII on the battlefield, and an early tradition has him being granted the spoils of the
field by the grateful victor.
On the accession of Henry VII Sir William Stanley was appointed chamberlain of the king's household. He was loyal to the regime during the Lambert Simnel conspiracy of 1487, and he raised a large company in 1489 to assist the king in the suppression of a rising in Yorkshire. He was well rewarded for his support, but seemed to Polydore Vergil more mindful of the favours he had given than of those he had received' (Anglica historia, 77). He was reputedly the richest commoner in England. Common fame had it that he enjoyed a yearly income from land and office of £3000, and had treasure worth 400,000 marks. He may indeed have been disappointed in not being raised to the peerage like his brother, who was rewarded in 1485 with the title of earl of Derby. None the less his arrest, trial, and execution for treason early in 1495, following the earlier arrest of other household men involved in treasonable correspondence with the pretender Perkin Warbeck,
shocked contemporaries as a most spectacular fall from grace.
The charge was that on 14 March 1493 William Stanley discussed with Robert Clifford the claims of Perkin Warbeck to be Richard, younger son of Edward IV, and sent Clifford to Brabant to enter his service and give assurances of support. According to Vergil, Sir William had declared that if Warbeck was indeed the son of Edward IV he would never take arms against him' (Anglica historia, 75). The chief witness was Clifford himself, now turned king's evidence, and it is tempting to suspect that the charges were to some degree manufactured. Henry VII certainly enriched himself and restored discipline in his household by destroying the over-mighty chamberlain. None the less the charge has plausibility. Sir William had demonstrated conspicuous loyalty to Edward IV, and it is significant that the alleged mission to Warbeck followed on news of his reception as her nephew by Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy. His correspondence with the pretender may have
been prompted by considerations of honour as much as by calculation of advantage.
At his trial Stanley confessed the treason, but apparently bore himself very haughtily. He may well have believed that his treason was relatively minor, a past indiscretion rather than a current conspiracy. Polydore Vergil's view that Stanley's sentiments indicated lukewarmness to King Henry rather than treason' (Anglica historia, 75) may have been widely shared, but is somewhat naïve. On 67 February, in a trial at which his brother presided as constable of England, he was found guilty of treason and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. It seems that the king relented to the degree that he was simply beheaded at Tower Hill on the 16th. His lands and goods were seized into the king's hands. Bromfield and Yale, and other lordships confiscated from Stanley, were worth 1000 marks per annum to the crown in 1500. An inventory drawn up at Holt Castle after his death records some £9000 in money and jewels. He was buried at Syon Abbey,
Middlesex, with the costs of the burial at the king's charge.
Michael J. Bennett
Sources M. K. Jones, Sir William Stanley of Holt: politics and family allegiance in the late fifteenth century', Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru, 14 (19889), 122 · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · W. A. J. Archbold, Sir William Stanley and Perkin Warbeck', EngHR, 14 (1899), 52934 · M. J. Bennett, The battle of Bosworth (1985) · M. J. Bennett, Henry VII and the northern rising of 1489', EngHR, 105 (1990), 3459 · W. C. Richardson, Tudor chamber administration, 14851547 (1952) · I. Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck conspiracy, 14911499 (1994) · GEC, Peerage, new edn · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, eds., Bishop Percy's folio manuscript: ballads and romances, 3 (1868) · J. Warkworth, A
chronicle of the first thirteen years of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, CS, old ser., 10 (1839) · The Anglica historia of Polydore Vergil, AD 14851537, ed. and trans. D. Hay, CS, 3rd ser., 74 (1950) · C. L. Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London (1905), 2045 · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · inventory of Stanley's goods at Holt in 1495, TNA: PRO, Exchequer, king's remembrancer, inventories of goods and chattels, E 154/2/5 · JRL, Arley charters, including a letter of William Stanley
Archives JRL, Arley charters
Likenesses portrait; known to be at Wentworth House, Yorkshire, in 1897
Wealth at death approx. 400,000 marks in money, plate, and jewels; annual income of approximately 3000 livres; estimate based on common fame': Kingsford, Chronicles; Richardson, Tudor chamber administration; inventory, TNA: PRO, E 154/2/5
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 9:44
Subject: Stanleys
It is odd that all sources seem to agree now that it was William
Stanley's intervention at Bosworth that saved Henry, yet older brother
Thomas gets all the headlines, as it were, and is credited with placing
Richard's battle crown on Henry's head.
Yet records show that Thomas says he didn't meet his step son until two
days later, and Thomas it was who received all the rewards, but was
Henry rewarding his step father's family through his mother's husband,
the elder brother rather than the younger? This is what Thomas Penn
suggests in 'The Winter King"...
'Henry had rewarded the family with political office and a position at
the heart of power - until Warbeck had caused doubt to seep into Sir
William Stanley's mind...' the job of Lord Chamberlain under Henry meant
access to the king was only through him, Sir William, a very powerful
position.
And through all this let us not forget who Thomas' wife was and the
influence she had on her son.
Once Thomas was dead Henry went for the Stanley family with a vengeance,
and tied Thomas' heir down with heavy bonds for his behaviour, even
taking him to court and fining him heavily for keeping a large number of
retainers.
First reward the Stanley family, then punish them.
Paul
Stanley, Sir William (c.14351495), administrator and landowner, was the second son of Thomas Stanley, first Baron Stanley (14061459), and Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Goushill and his wife, Elizabeth Fitzalan, dowager duchess of Norfolk. He was probably born about 1435, that is, some two years after his brother, Thomas Stanley, second Lord Stanley. He grew to manhood in the increasingly bitter factional politics of the 1450s, in which his father had balanced his early involvement with the Suffolk regime by collaboration with the duke of York and the Nevilles. In 1459 Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury, crossing from Yorkshire to join with York at Ludlow, sought support from the Stanleys against the Lancastrian regime. While his elder brother, Thomas, refused to commit his troops, William joined Salisbury's standard, took part in the action at Bloreheath (23 September), and probably fled overseas with the Yorkist leaders. In the Coventry
parliament in November Thomas begged the king's pardon, but William was attainted as a traitor.
William Stanley's prospects were wholly transformed by the accession of Edward IV in 1461. On 1 May he was appointed chamberlain of Chester, constable of Flint Castle, and sheriff of Flintshire, offices that he was to hold for some thirty-five years. He was knighted in July, and through summer and autumn he was prominent in the establishment of Yorkist rule in north Wales. In the following years he assisted in the suppression of the Lancastrians in the north, participating in the siege of Alnwick (1462) with 400 archers. After the battle of Hexham (1464) he was rewarded with a grant of the lordship of Skipton, Yorkshire, and other lands forfeited by John, Lord Clifford (d. 1461). In 1465 he married Joan Beaumont, widow of John, Lord Lovell, securing the custody of the Lovell lordship of Longdendale in Cheshire. Despite his connections with the Neville clan, William Stanley did not follow the earl of Warwick when he turned against Edward IV and drove him
from the kingdom in 147071. On Edward's return from exile in 1471, he was among the first to declare himself for the house of York, meeting him at Nottingham with 300 men. Joan Stanley having died in August 1466, her husband's credit at court was presumably instrumental in securing, by the end of the year, Elizabeth Hopton, widow of John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester (d. 1470), as his second wife.
In the 1470s William Stanley was a pillar of the Yorkist regime. When Edward's eldest son became prince of Wales and earl of Chester, he was appointed steward of the prince's household. His position at court, the offices he held in Cheshire and Flintshire, and his activities as a patron and arbiter of disputes helped him to secure a powerful following among the gentry of the region. His ambition was to build up a territorial lordship which would extend the Stanley domination of Lancashire and Cheshire into north Wales. Local power and influence secured a foothold in the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, where he was acting in the capacity of steward from about 1467 and was probably already in residence at Holt Castle. He and his brother successfully resisted efforts by Richard, duke of Gloucester, to extend his power into Lancashire. Indeed, in 1475 William obtained from the duke the lordship of Chirk, immediately south of Bromfield and Yale, in exchange
for that of Skipton. In the same year he led a retinue of two lances and twenty archers in Edward IV's expedition to France.
In 1483 the Stanleys reluctantly acquiesced in the usurpation of Richard III. At the time of the duke of Buckingham's rebellion in October of that year they were with the king in the north, and had little room for manoeuvre. In any event they joined in the suppression of the revolt, and shared in the spoils of victory. William Stanley succeeded Buckingham as chief justice of north Wales, and was granted his lordship of Thornbury in Gloucestershire. In 1484 he finally acquired from the crown the castle of Holt and the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, partly by purchase and partly in exchange for the surrender of Thornbury.
None the less the Stanleys played a pivotal role in the overthrow of Richard III and the accession of Henry Tudor in 1485. Lord Stanley was the stepfather of the Lancastrian pretender, but Sir William may well have been motivated primarily by loyalty to Henry Tudor's proposed bride, Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter and (assuming the deaths of the princes in the Tower) heir of Edward IV. While only the ballad tradition, especially Bosworth Field and the Song of Lady Bessy, offers detail, it seems clear that the Stanleys made undertakings to Henry Tudor before his invasion in 1485. After landing with a small force in south-west Wales, he headed north and then east, evidently relying on assistance from the Stanleys. According to the Song of Lady Bessy, Sir William was stationed at Holt Castle, waiting for the south-westerly wind that would signal the invasion.
On receipt of news of the rebels' advance through Wales William Stanley sent a message to the town of Shrewsbury ordering their admission, and, in co-ordination with Lord Stanley who was advancing in force from Lancashire, he set out at the head of a company about 3000 men strong, attired according to the ballads in red-and-white jackets bearing his insignia of the hart's head. While the Stanleys declined to declare themselves openly until the last moment, Sir William is presented in the ballads as actively assisting the rebels from the outset, meeting with Henry near Stone and at Lichfield, and covering his advance through Staffordshire. At the battle of Bosworth (22 August) it was Sir William who at a critical stage committed his forces against Richard III. Polydore Vergil has William Stanley saving Henry's life, the great chronicle of London has him crowning Henry VII on the battlefield, and an early tradition has him being granted the spoils of the
field by the grateful victor.
On the accession of Henry VII Sir William Stanley was appointed chamberlain of the king's household. He was loyal to the regime during the Lambert Simnel conspiracy of 1487, and he raised a large company in 1489 to assist the king in the suppression of a rising in Yorkshire. He was well rewarded for his support, but seemed to Polydore Vergil more mindful of the favours he had given than of those he had received' (Anglica historia, 77). He was reputedly the richest commoner in England. Common fame had it that he enjoyed a yearly income from land and office of £3000, and had treasure worth 400,000 marks. He may indeed have been disappointed in not being raised to the peerage like his brother, who was rewarded in 1485 with the title of earl of Derby. None the less his arrest, trial, and execution for treason early in 1495, following the earlier arrest of other household men involved in treasonable correspondence with the pretender Perkin Warbeck,
shocked contemporaries as a most spectacular fall from grace.
The charge was that on 14 March 1493 William Stanley discussed with Robert Clifford the claims of Perkin Warbeck to be Richard, younger son of Edward IV, and sent Clifford to Brabant to enter his service and give assurances of support. According to Vergil, Sir William had declared that if Warbeck was indeed the son of Edward IV he would never take arms against him' (Anglica historia, 75). The chief witness was Clifford himself, now turned king's evidence, and it is tempting to suspect that the charges were to some degree manufactured. Henry VII certainly enriched himself and restored discipline in his household by destroying the over-mighty chamberlain. None the less the charge has plausibility. Sir William had demonstrated conspicuous loyalty to Edward IV, and it is significant that the alleged mission to Warbeck followed on news of his reception as her nephew by Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy. His correspondence with the pretender may have
been prompted by considerations of honour as much as by calculation of advantage.
At his trial Stanley confessed the treason, but apparently bore himself very haughtily. He may well have believed that his treason was relatively minor, a past indiscretion rather than a current conspiracy. Polydore Vergil's view that Stanley's sentiments indicated lukewarmness to King Henry rather than treason' (Anglica historia, 75) may have been widely shared, but is somewhat naïve. On 67 February, in a trial at which his brother presided as constable of England, he was found guilty of treason and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. It seems that the king relented to the degree that he was simply beheaded at Tower Hill on the 16th. His lands and goods were seized into the king's hands. Bromfield and Yale, and other lordships confiscated from Stanley, were worth 1000 marks per annum to the crown in 1500. An inventory drawn up at Holt Castle after his death records some £9000 in money and jewels. He was buried at Syon Abbey,
Middlesex, with the costs of the burial at the king's charge.
Michael J. Bennett
Sources M. K. Jones, Sir William Stanley of Holt: politics and family allegiance in the late fifteenth century', Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru, 14 (19889), 122 · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · W. A. J. Archbold, Sir William Stanley and Perkin Warbeck', EngHR, 14 (1899), 52934 · M. J. Bennett, The battle of Bosworth (1985) · M. J. Bennett, Henry VII and the northern rising of 1489', EngHR, 105 (1990), 3459 · W. C. Richardson, Tudor chamber administration, 14851547 (1952) · I. Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck conspiracy, 14911499 (1994) · GEC, Peerage, new edn · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, eds., Bishop Percy's folio manuscript: ballads and romances, 3 (1868) · J. Warkworth, A
chronicle of the first thirteen years of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, CS, old ser., 10 (1839) · The Anglica historia of Polydore Vergil, AD 14851537, ed. and trans. D. Hay, CS, 3rd ser., 74 (1950) · C. L. Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London (1905), 2045 · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · inventory of Stanley's goods at Holt in 1495, TNA: PRO, Exchequer, king's remembrancer, inventories of goods and chattels, E 154/2/5 · JRL, Arley charters, including a letter of William Stanley
Archives JRL, Arley charters
Likenesses portrait; known to be at Wentworth House, Yorkshire, in 1897
Wealth at death approx. 400,000 marks in money, plate, and jewels; annual income of approximately 3000 livres; estimate based on common fame': Kingsford, Chronicles; Richardson, Tudor chamber administration; inventory, TNA: PRO, E 154/2/5
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 9:44
Subject: Stanleys
It is odd that all sources seem to agree now that it was William
Stanley's intervention at Bosworth that saved Henry, yet older brother
Thomas gets all the headlines, as it were, and is credited with placing
Richard's battle crown on Henry's head.
Yet records show that Thomas says he didn't meet his step son until two
days later, and Thomas it was who received all the rewards, but was
Henry rewarding his step father's family through his mother's husband,
the elder brother rather than the younger? This is what Thomas Penn
suggests in 'The Winter King"...
'Henry had rewarded the family with political office and a position at
the heart of power - until Warbeck had caused doubt to seep into Sir
William Stanley's mind...' the job of Lord Chamberlain under Henry meant
access to the king was only through him, Sir William, a very powerful
position.
And through all this let us not forget who Thomas' wife was and the
influence she had on her son.
Once Thomas was dead Henry went for the Stanley family with a vengeance,
and tied Thomas' heir down with heavy bonds for his behaviour, even
taking him to court and fining him heavily for keeping a large number of
retainers.
First reward the Stanley family, then punish them.
Paul
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-17 14:55:58
With quotes [page 18] & paraphrasing from 'The Wars of the Roses' by Wise & Embleton (1983, 1991). Concerning Bosworth Field & Richard, Duke of Gloucester "whom Edward IV had intended should be regent". At Bosworth in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485 the two main forces drew up facing each other, both looking "anxiously for support from the forces of...Sir William Stanley [north-west] and...Lord Stanley to the south-east". Richard had relied on the Earl of Northumberland to actively secure his rear however the earl remained stationary and inactive, awaiting the movement of the Stanleys. As the armies of Richard III and Henry Tudor advanced to close both Stanley contingents attacked Richard on left and right flanks at once. "Richard mounted...and rode into the centre of the enemy, intent on killing Henry Tudor or dying like a king...was soon overwhelmed by superior numbers and killed."
PG
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> By the same author...
>
> ... the Stanleys played a pivotal role in the overthrow of Richard III and the accession of Henry Tudor in 1485. Lord Stanley was the stepfather of the Lancastrian pretender, but Sir William may well have been motivated primarily by loyalty to Henry Tudor's proposed bride, Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter and (assuming the deaths of the princes in the Tower) heir of Edward IV. While only the ballad tradition, especially Bosworth Field and the Song of Lady Bessy, offers detail, it seems clear that the Stanleys made undertakings to Henry Tudor before his invasion in 1485. After landing with a small force in south-west Wales, he headed north and then east, evidently relying on assistance from the Stanleys. According to the Song of Lady Bessy, Sir William was stationed at Holt Castle, waiting for the south-westerly wind that would signal the invasion.
>
> On receipt of news of the rebels' advance through Wales William Stanley sent a message to the town of Shrewsbury ordering their admission, and, in co-ordination with Lord Stanley who was advancing in force from Lancashire, he set out at the head of a company about 3000 men strong, attired according to the ballads in red-and-white jackets bearing his insignia of the hart's head. While the Stanleys declined to declare themselves openly until the last moment, Sir William is presented in the ballads as actively assisting the rebels from the outset, meeting with Henry near Stone and at Lichfield, and covering his advance through Staffordshire. At the battle of Bosworth (22 August) it was Sir William who at a critical stage committed his forces against Richard III. Polydore Vergil has William Stanley saving Henry's life, the great chronicle of London has him crowning Henry VII on the battlefield, and an early tradition has him being granted the spoils of the
> field by the grateful victor.
>
> On the accession of Henry VII Sir William Stanley was appointed chamberlain of the king's household. He was loyal to the regime during the Lambert Simnel conspiracy of 1487, and he raised a large company in 1489 to assist the king in the suppression of a rising in Yorkshire. He was well rewarded for his support, but seemed to Polydore Vergil ‘more mindful of the favours he had given than of those he had received’ (Anglica historia, 77). He was reputedly the richest commoner in England. Common fame had it that he enjoyed a yearly income from land and office of £3000, and had treasure worth 400,000 marks. He may indeed have been disappointed in not being raised to the peerage like his brother, who was rewarded in 1485 with the title of earl of Derby. None the less his arrest, trial, and execution for treason early in 1495, following the earlier arrest of other household men involved in treasonable correspondence with the pretender Perkin Warbeck,
> shocked contemporaries as a most spectacular fall from grace.
>
> The charge was that on 14 March 1493 William Stanley discussed with Robert Clifford the claims of Perkin Warbeck to be Richard, younger son of Edward IV, and sent Clifford to Brabant to enter his service and give assurances of support. According to Vergil, Sir William had declared that if Warbeck was indeed the son of Edward IV ‘he would never take arms against him’ (Anglica historia, 75). The chief witness was Clifford himself, now turned king's evidence, and it is tempting to suspect that the charges were to some degree manufactured. Henry VII certainly enriched himself and restored discipline in his household by destroying the over-mighty chamberlain. None the less the charge has plausibility. Sir William had demonstrated conspicuous loyalty to Edward IV, and it is significant that the alleged mission to Warbeck followed on news of his reception as her nephew by Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy. His correspondence with the pretender may have
> been prompted by considerations of honour as much as by calculation of advantage.
>
> At his trial Stanley confessed the treason, but apparently bore himself very haughtily. He may well have believed that his treason was relatively minor, a past indiscretion rather than a current conspiracy. Polydore Vergil's view that Stanley's sentiments indicated ‘lukewarmness to King Henry rather than treason’ (Anglica historia, 75) may have been widely shared, but is somewhat naïve. On 6â€"7 February, in a trial at which his brother presided as constable of England, he was found guilty of treason and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. It seems that the king relented to the degree that he was simply beheaded at Tower Hill on the 16th. His lands and goods were seized into the king's hands. Bromfield and Yale, and other lordships confiscated from Stanley, were worth 1000 marks per annum to the crown in 1500. An inventory drawn up at Holt Castle after his death records some £9000 in money and jewels. He was buried at Syon Abbey,
> Middlesex, with the costs of the burial at the king's charge.
>
> Michael J. Bennett
> Sources   M. K. Jones, ‘Sir William Stanley of Holt: politics and family allegiance in the late fifteenth century’, Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru, 14 (1988â€"9), 1â€"22 · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · W. A. J. Archbold, ‘Sir William Stanley and Perkin Warbeck’, EngHR, 14 (1899), 529â€"34 · M. J. Bennett, The battle of Bosworth (1985) · M. J. Bennett, ‘Henry VII and the northern rising of 1489’, EngHR, 105 (1990), 34â€"59 · W. C. Richardson, Tudor chamber administration, 1485â€"1547 (1952) · I. Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck conspiracy, 1491â€"1499 (1994) · GEC, Peerage, new edn · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, eds., Bishop Percy's folio manuscript: ballads and romances, 3 (1868) · J. Warkworth, A
> chronicle of the first thirteen years of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, CS, old ser., 10 (1839) · The Anglica historia of Polydore Vergil, AD 1485â€"1537, ed. and trans. D. Hay, CS, 3rd ser., 74 (1950) · C. L. Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London (1905), 204â€"5 · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · inventory of Stanley's goods at Holt in 1495, TNA: PRO, Exchequer, king's remembrancer, inventories of goods and chattels, E 154/2/5 · JRL, Arley charters, including a letter of William Stanley
> Archives   JRL, Arley chartersÂ
> Likenesses   portrait; known to be at Wentworth House, Yorkshire, in 1897
> Wealth at death   approx. 400,000 marks in money, plate, and jewels; annual income of approximately 3000 livres; estimate based on ‘common fame’: Kingsford, Chronicles; Richardson, Tudor chamber administration; inventory, TNA: PRO, E 154/2/5
[edit]
PG
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> By the same author...
>
> ... the Stanleys played a pivotal role in the overthrow of Richard III and the accession of Henry Tudor in 1485. Lord Stanley was the stepfather of the Lancastrian pretender, but Sir William may well have been motivated primarily by loyalty to Henry Tudor's proposed bride, Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter and (assuming the deaths of the princes in the Tower) heir of Edward IV. While only the ballad tradition, especially Bosworth Field and the Song of Lady Bessy, offers detail, it seems clear that the Stanleys made undertakings to Henry Tudor before his invasion in 1485. After landing with a small force in south-west Wales, he headed north and then east, evidently relying on assistance from the Stanleys. According to the Song of Lady Bessy, Sir William was stationed at Holt Castle, waiting for the south-westerly wind that would signal the invasion.
>
> On receipt of news of the rebels' advance through Wales William Stanley sent a message to the town of Shrewsbury ordering their admission, and, in co-ordination with Lord Stanley who was advancing in force from Lancashire, he set out at the head of a company about 3000 men strong, attired according to the ballads in red-and-white jackets bearing his insignia of the hart's head. While the Stanleys declined to declare themselves openly until the last moment, Sir William is presented in the ballads as actively assisting the rebels from the outset, meeting with Henry near Stone and at Lichfield, and covering his advance through Staffordshire. At the battle of Bosworth (22 August) it was Sir William who at a critical stage committed his forces against Richard III. Polydore Vergil has William Stanley saving Henry's life, the great chronicle of London has him crowning Henry VII on the battlefield, and an early tradition has him being granted the spoils of the
> field by the grateful victor.
>
> On the accession of Henry VII Sir William Stanley was appointed chamberlain of the king's household. He was loyal to the regime during the Lambert Simnel conspiracy of 1487, and he raised a large company in 1489 to assist the king in the suppression of a rising in Yorkshire. He was well rewarded for his support, but seemed to Polydore Vergil ‘more mindful of the favours he had given than of those he had received’ (Anglica historia, 77). He was reputedly the richest commoner in England. Common fame had it that he enjoyed a yearly income from land and office of £3000, and had treasure worth 400,000 marks. He may indeed have been disappointed in not being raised to the peerage like his brother, who was rewarded in 1485 with the title of earl of Derby. None the less his arrest, trial, and execution for treason early in 1495, following the earlier arrest of other household men involved in treasonable correspondence with the pretender Perkin Warbeck,
> shocked contemporaries as a most spectacular fall from grace.
>
> The charge was that on 14 March 1493 William Stanley discussed with Robert Clifford the claims of Perkin Warbeck to be Richard, younger son of Edward IV, and sent Clifford to Brabant to enter his service and give assurances of support. According to Vergil, Sir William had declared that if Warbeck was indeed the son of Edward IV ‘he would never take arms against him’ (Anglica historia, 75). The chief witness was Clifford himself, now turned king's evidence, and it is tempting to suspect that the charges were to some degree manufactured. Henry VII certainly enriched himself and restored discipline in his household by destroying the over-mighty chamberlain. None the less the charge has plausibility. Sir William had demonstrated conspicuous loyalty to Edward IV, and it is significant that the alleged mission to Warbeck followed on news of his reception as her nephew by Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy. His correspondence with the pretender may have
> been prompted by considerations of honour as much as by calculation of advantage.
>
> At his trial Stanley confessed the treason, but apparently bore himself very haughtily. He may well have believed that his treason was relatively minor, a past indiscretion rather than a current conspiracy. Polydore Vergil's view that Stanley's sentiments indicated ‘lukewarmness to King Henry rather than treason’ (Anglica historia, 75) may have been widely shared, but is somewhat naïve. On 6â€"7 February, in a trial at which his brother presided as constable of England, he was found guilty of treason and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. It seems that the king relented to the degree that he was simply beheaded at Tower Hill on the 16th. His lands and goods were seized into the king's hands. Bromfield and Yale, and other lordships confiscated from Stanley, were worth 1000 marks per annum to the crown in 1500. An inventory drawn up at Holt Castle after his death records some £9000 in money and jewels. He was buried at Syon Abbey,
> Middlesex, with the costs of the burial at the king's charge.
>
> Michael J. Bennett
> Sources   M. K. Jones, ‘Sir William Stanley of Holt: politics and family allegiance in the late fifteenth century’, Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru, 14 (1988â€"9), 1â€"22 · F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French expedition of 1475: the leaders and their badges (1925) · W. A. J. Archbold, ‘Sir William Stanley and Perkin Warbeck’, EngHR, 14 (1899), 529â€"34 · M. J. Bennett, The battle of Bosworth (1985) · M. J. Bennett, ‘Henry VII and the northern rising of 1489’, EngHR, 105 (1990), 34â€"59 · W. C. Richardson, Tudor chamber administration, 1485â€"1547 (1952) · I. Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck conspiracy, 1491â€"1499 (1994) · GEC, Peerage, new edn · R. Horrox, Richard III, a study of service, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 11 (1989) · Chancery records · J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall, eds., Bishop Percy's folio manuscript: ballads and romances, 3 (1868) · J. Warkworth, A
> chronicle of the first thirteen years of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, CS, old ser., 10 (1839) · The Anglica historia of Polydore Vergil, AD 1485â€"1537, ed. and trans. D. Hay, CS, 3rd ser., 74 (1950) · C. L. Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London (1905), 204â€"5 · A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, eds., The great chronicle of London (1938) · inventory of Stanley's goods at Holt in 1495, TNA: PRO, Exchequer, king's remembrancer, inventories of goods and chattels, E 154/2/5 · JRL, Arley charters, including a letter of William Stanley
> Archives   JRL, Arley chartersÂ
> Likenesses   portrait; known to be at Wentworth House, Yorkshire, in 1897
> Wealth at death   approx. 400,000 marks in money, plate, and jewels; annual income of approximately 3000 livres; estimate based on ‘common fame’: Kingsford, Chronicles; Richardson, Tudor chamber administration; inventory, TNA: PRO, E 154/2/5
[edit]
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-17 18:05:09
--- In , "Phaeton G" <phaetongraph@...> wrote:
>
> With quotes [page 18] & paraphrasing from 'The Wars of the Roses' by Wise & Embleton (1983, 1991). Concerning Bosworth Field & Richard, Duke of Gloucester "whom Edward IV had intended should be regent". At Bosworth in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485 the two main forces drew up facing each other, both looking "anxiously for support from the forces of...Sir William Stanley [north-west] and...Lord Stanley to the south-east". Richard had relied on the Earl of Northumberland to actively secure his rear however the earl remained stationary and inactive, awaiting the movement of the Stanleys. As the armies of Richard III and Henry Tudor advanced to close both Stanley contingents attacked Richard on left and right flanks at once. "Richard mounted...and rode into the centre of the enemy, intent on killing Henry Tudor or dying like a king...was soon overwhelmed by superior numbers and killed."
>
> PG
Carol responds:
Sorry, but I'm confused by this post. *Who* is saying that both Stanley contingents attacked? Bennett? (I thought that he was American, but the quotation uses British spelling.) Can you please clarify whom you're quoting and whether you view it as accurate? No contemporary or near-contemporary source that I know of has Lord Stanley attacking, only Sir William.
BTW, around here we use "PG" to mean Philippa Gregory, so if you find someone referring to "PG" in a less than flattering way, it's Philippa Gregory they're criticizing, not you.
Carol
>
> With quotes [page 18] & paraphrasing from 'The Wars of the Roses' by Wise & Embleton (1983, 1991). Concerning Bosworth Field & Richard, Duke of Gloucester "whom Edward IV had intended should be regent". At Bosworth in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485 the two main forces drew up facing each other, both looking "anxiously for support from the forces of...Sir William Stanley [north-west] and...Lord Stanley to the south-east". Richard had relied on the Earl of Northumberland to actively secure his rear however the earl remained stationary and inactive, awaiting the movement of the Stanleys. As the armies of Richard III and Henry Tudor advanced to close both Stanley contingents attacked Richard on left and right flanks at once. "Richard mounted...and rode into the centre of the enemy, intent on killing Henry Tudor or dying like a king...was soon overwhelmed by superior numbers and killed."
>
> PG
Carol responds:
Sorry, but I'm confused by this post. *Who* is saying that both Stanley contingents attacked? Bennett? (I thought that he was American, but the quotation uses British spelling.) Can you please clarify whom you're quoting and whether you view it as accurate? No contemporary or near-contemporary source that I know of has Lord Stanley attacking, only Sir William.
BTW, around here we use "PG" to mean Philippa Gregory, so if you find someone referring to "PG" in a less than flattering way, it's Philippa Gregory they're criticizing, not you.
Carol
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-24 13:43:01
I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good behaviour.
However the BOTH the 1st & 3rd Earls are buried in Ormskirk Church,
[Translated from nearby Burscough Priory @ it's dissolution & Well Worth a Look!!]
The 2nd Earl is buried in London.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>Cc: paul.bale@...
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 9:44
>Subject: Stanleys
>
>
>
>It is odd that all sources seem to agree now that it was William
>Stanley's intervention at Bosworth that saved Henry, yet older brother
>Thomas gets all the headlines, as it were, and is credited with placing
>Richard's battle crown on Henry's head.
>Yet records show that Thomas says he didn't meet his step son until two
>days later, and Thomas it was who received all the rewards, but was
>Henry rewarding his step father's family through his mother's husband,
>the elder brother rather than the younger? This is what Thomas Penn
>suggests in 'The Winter King"...
>'Henry had rewarded the family with political office and a position at
>the heart of power - until Warbeck had caused doubt to seep into Sir
>William Stanley's mind...' the job of Lord Chamberlain under Henry meant
>access to the king was only through him, Sir William, a very powerful
>position.
>And through all this let us not forget who Thomas' wife was and the
>influence she had on her son.
>Once Thomas was dead Henry went for the Stanley family with a vengeance,
>and tied Thomas' heir down with heavy bonds for his behaviour, even
>taking him to court and fining him heavily for keeping a large number of
>retainers.
>First reward the Stanley family, then punish them.
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
However the BOTH the 1st & 3rd Earls are buried in Ormskirk Church,
[Translated from nearby Burscough Priory @ it's dissolution & Well Worth a Look!!]
The 2nd Earl is buried in London.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>Cc: paul.bale@...
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 9:44
>Subject: Stanleys
>
>
>
>It is odd that all sources seem to agree now that it was William
>Stanley's intervention at Bosworth that saved Henry, yet older brother
>Thomas gets all the headlines, as it were, and is credited with placing
>Richard's battle crown on Henry's head.
>Yet records show that Thomas says he didn't meet his step son until two
>days later, and Thomas it was who received all the rewards, but was
>Henry rewarding his step father's family through his mother's husband,
>the elder brother rather than the younger? This is what Thomas Penn
>suggests in 'The Winter King"...
>'Henry had rewarded the family with political office and a position at
>the heart of power - until Warbeck had caused doubt to seep into Sir
>William Stanley's mind...' the job of Lord Chamberlain under Henry meant
>access to the king was only through him, Sir William, a very powerful
>position.
>And through all this let us not forget who Thomas' wife was and the
>influence she had on her son.
>Once Thomas was dead Henry went for the Stanley family with a vengeance,
>and tied Thomas' heir down with heavy bonds for his behaviour, even
>taking him to court and fining him heavily for keeping a large number of
>retainers.
>First reward the Stanley family, then punish them.
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-24 14:04:28
From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Stanleys
> I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the
> time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly
> said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good
> behaviour.
I've seen people reconstruct Strange as a terrified boy in Richard's hands,
but he was a grown man and a very dodgy one, and keeping him under wraps was
a wise move whether he was a hostage or not. Iirc, during the Buckingham
rebellion there were three armies in the field, Richard's, Buckingham's and
Strange's, and Strange wouldn't tell anybody which side he was supporting.
I've always understood "I have other sons" to mean "My wife on the other
hand only has the one child, and he's precious to her." The Stanleys don't
seem to have moved until it looked as if Henry might actually be killed, as
opposed to driven back into exile.
There was a very strange TV film in the 1980s, called A Bus to Bosworth,
about a group of Welsh schoolchildren going to mark the 500th anniversay of
the battle. As the bus travelled, Mediaeval time-slips kept intruding, so
that e.g. we saw a 15th C barge sail under the bridge the bus had just
driven over. There were two memebrs of staff with the children, a woman who
was strongly anti-Richard, and a man who was prepared to consider the
possibility that he wasn't a villain, and would occasionally bleat "Well,
some people think that..."
Very little was really said in Richard's favour, but the story of him taking
Strange hostage was told, and then right at the end as they were packing to
leave, one little girl turned to the male teacher and said "And did Richard
kill Lord Stanley's son?" and he replied "Good girl! No, he did not." This
was somehow all that needed to be said, especially as it was clear that the
"Good girl!" was for having an enquiring mind and not buying into the Tudor
version blindly.
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Stanleys
> I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the
> time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly
> said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good
> behaviour.
I've seen people reconstruct Strange as a terrified boy in Richard's hands,
but he was a grown man and a very dodgy one, and keeping him under wraps was
a wise move whether he was a hostage or not. Iirc, during the Buckingham
rebellion there were three armies in the field, Richard's, Buckingham's and
Strange's, and Strange wouldn't tell anybody which side he was supporting.
I've always understood "I have other sons" to mean "My wife on the other
hand only has the one child, and he's precious to her." The Stanleys don't
seem to have moved until it looked as if Henry might actually be killed, as
opposed to driven back into exile.
There was a very strange TV film in the 1980s, called A Bus to Bosworth,
about a group of Welsh schoolchildren going to mark the 500th anniversay of
the battle. As the bus travelled, Mediaeval time-slips kept intruding, so
that e.g. we saw a 15th C barge sail under the bridge the bus had just
driven over. There were two memebrs of staff with the children, a woman who
was strongly anti-Richard, and a man who was prepared to consider the
possibility that he wasn't a villain, and would occasionally bleat "Well,
some people think that..."
Very little was really said in Richard's favour, but the story of him taking
Strange hostage was told, and then right at the end as they were packing to
leave, one little girl turned to the male teacher and said "And did Richard
kill Lord Stanley's son?" and he replied "Good girl! No, he did not." This
was somehow all that needed to be said, especially as it was clear that the
"Good girl!" was for having an enquiring mind and not buying into the Tudor
version blindly.
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-24 14:41:58
It is interesting to make the conjecture that the senior branch of the Stanley family benefited even more that the Tudors, for,
As Earls of Derby, they are STILL in possession of the Earldom, it's lands, & having left the original family seat @ Lathom for Knowsley where they still reside, [Complete with a 'Safari Park!!'] they have 'Outlasted' the Tudors as a 'Dynasty'..
They lead the Lancashire contingent with distinction @ Flodden Field together with the Molyneux families head Sir William.
[An EXCEPTIONAL Brass showing captured Scots Banners can be seen at Sefton Church, on Merseyside.] The Molyneux family later became Earls of Sefton, but are, due to losses at Jutland, Extinct as an Earldom.
Despite their lack of loyalty at Bosworth, Loyalty to the King's cause cost James, 7th Earl of Derby - 1627 - 1651, his life following a Court Martial under the Commonwealth.
His 'Severed Head' Lies buried in the Family Vault @ Ormskirk Church in it's own separate coffin.
The family featured very prominently in the Victorian Era and are still recorded annually in the famous horse race 'The Derby'.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 14:15
>Subject: Re: Stanleys
>
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Stanleys
>
>> I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the
>> time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly
>> said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good
>> behaviour.
>
>I've seen people reconstruct Strange as a terrified boy in Richard's hands,
>but he was a grown man and a very dodgy one, and keeping him under wraps was
>a wise move whether he was a hostage or not. Iirc, during the Buckingham
>rebellion there were three armies in the field, Richard's, Buckingham's and
>Strange's, and Strange wouldn't tell anybody which side he was supporting.
>
>I've always understood "I have other sons" to mean "My wife on the other
>hand only has the one child, and he's precious to her." The Stanleys don't
>seem to have moved until it looked as if Henry might actually be killed, as
>opposed to driven back into exile.
>
>There was a very strange TV film in the 1980s, called A Bus to Bosworth,
>about a group of Welsh schoolchildren going to mark the 500th anniversay of
>the battle. As the bus travelled, Mediaeval time-slips kept intruding, so
>that e.g. we saw a 15th C barge sail under the bridge the bus had just
>driven over. There were two memebrs of staff with the children, a woman who
>was strongly anti-Richard, and a man who was prepared to consider the
>possibility that he wasn't a villain, and would occasionally bleat "Well,
>some people think that..."
>
>Very little was really said in Richard's favour, but the story of him taking
>Strange hostage was told, and then right at the end as they were packing to
>leave, one little girl turned to the male teacher and said "And did Richard
>kill Lord Stanley's son?" and he replied "Good girl! No, he did not." This
>was somehow all that needed to be said, especially as it was clear that the
>"Good girl!" was for having an enquiring mind and not buying into the Tudor
>version blindly.
>
>
>
>
>
As Earls of Derby, they are STILL in possession of the Earldom, it's lands, & having left the original family seat @ Lathom for Knowsley where they still reside, [Complete with a 'Safari Park!!'] they have 'Outlasted' the Tudors as a 'Dynasty'..
They lead the Lancashire contingent with distinction @ Flodden Field together with the Molyneux families head Sir William.
[An EXCEPTIONAL Brass showing captured Scots Banners can be seen at Sefton Church, on Merseyside.] The Molyneux family later became Earls of Sefton, but are, due to losses at Jutland, Extinct as an Earldom.
Despite their lack of loyalty at Bosworth, Loyalty to the King's cause cost James, 7th Earl of Derby - 1627 - 1651, his life following a Court Martial under the Commonwealth.
His 'Severed Head' Lies buried in the Family Vault @ Ormskirk Church in it's own separate coffin.
The family featured very prominently in the Victorian Era and are still recorded annually in the famous horse race 'The Derby'.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 14:15
>Subject: Re: Stanleys
>
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Stanleys
>
>> I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the
>> time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly
>> said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good
>> behaviour.
>
>I've seen people reconstruct Strange as a terrified boy in Richard's hands,
>but he was a grown man and a very dodgy one, and keeping him under wraps was
>a wise move whether he was a hostage or not. Iirc, during the Buckingham
>rebellion there were three armies in the field, Richard's, Buckingham's and
>Strange's, and Strange wouldn't tell anybody which side he was supporting.
>
>I've always understood "I have other sons" to mean "My wife on the other
>hand only has the one child, and he's precious to her." The Stanleys don't
>seem to have moved until it looked as if Henry might actually be killed, as
>opposed to driven back into exile.
>
>There was a very strange TV film in the 1980s, called A Bus to Bosworth,
>about a group of Welsh schoolchildren going to mark the 500th anniversay of
>the battle. As the bus travelled, Mediaeval time-slips kept intruding, so
>that e.g. we saw a 15th C barge sail under the bridge the bus had just
>driven over. There were two memebrs of staff with the children, a woman who
>was strongly anti-Richard, and a man who was prepared to consider the
>possibility that he wasn't a villain, and would occasionally bleat "Well,
>some people think that..."
>
>Very little was really said in Richard's favour, but the story of him taking
>Strange hostage was told, and then right at the end as they were packing to
>leave, one little girl turned to the male teacher and said "And did Richard
>kill Lord Stanley's son?" and he replied "Good girl! No, he did not." This
>was somehow all that needed to be said, especially as it was clear that the
>"Good girl!" was for having an enquiring mind and not buying into the Tudor
>version blindly.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Stanleys
2013-02-24 18:45:34
Arthur wrote:
>
> Â I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good behaviour. [snip]
Carol responds:
Although both the Croyland Chronicle and Vergil have Thomas Stanley giving his son George, Lord Strange (as someone else has pointed out, a grown man and confessed traitor) into Richard's hands as a pledge for his good behavior and the story that Richard "cruelly" ordered Strange's execution before the battle but no one carried it out originates with the chronicler (who wasn't present, had only Tudor sources, possibly Morton or Margaret Beaufort for his highly questionable accounts of the battle), neither has the "I have other sons" quotation, which appears to originate with Hall's Chronicle. (It appears again, naturally, in Shakespeare's play.) In other words, we can safely regard it as apocryphal.
Carol
>
> Â I DO NOT know where the 2nd Earl of Derby [George, Lord Strange at the time of Bosworth - His Father's 'I have other Sons' [Quote??] Reputedly said to be in Richard's hands as a surety for his father's support/good behaviour. [snip]
Carol responds:
Although both the Croyland Chronicle and Vergil have Thomas Stanley giving his son George, Lord Strange (as someone else has pointed out, a grown man and confessed traitor) into Richard's hands as a pledge for his good behavior and the story that Richard "cruelly" ordered Strange's execution before the battle but no one carried it out originates with the chronicler (who wasn't present, had only Tudor sources, possibly Morton or Margaret Beaufort for his highly questionable accounts of the battle), neither has the "I have other sons" quotation, which appears to originate with Hall's Chronicle. (It appears again, naturally, in Shakespeare's play.) In other words, we can safely regard it as apocryphal.
Carol
Re: Stanleys
2013-03-07 12:34:53
>>>Claire I might agree with you except the Stanleys were notorious for blowing with the wind and changing sides, often at the last minute, so this was par for the course. For that reason alone I can't for the life of me understand why Richard trusted them.<<<
Oh, lor', and here's me with a daughter married to one!
Sandra
Oh, lor', and here's me with a daughter married to one!
Sandra
Re: Stanleys
2013-03-07 13:51:53
I had an uncle Stanley ....
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 12:34
Subject: Re: Stanleys
>>>Claire I might agree with you except the Stanleys were notorious for blowing with the wind and changing sides, often at the last minute, so this was par for the course. For that reason alone I can't for the life of me understand why Richard trusted them.<<<
Oh, lor', and here's me with a daughter married to one!
Sandra
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 12:34
Subject: Re: Stanleys
>>>Claire I might agree with you except the Stanleys were notorious for blowing with the wind and changing sides, often at the last minute, so this was par for the course. For that reason alone I can't for the life of me understand why Richard trusted them.<<<
Oh, lor', and here's me with a daughter married to one!
Sandra
Re: Stanleys
2013-03-07 14:09:44
>>> Liz said: I had an uncle Stanley ....<<<
That name sneaks everywhere. Nothing new there, eh?
Sandra
That name sneaks everywhere. Nothing new there, eh?
Sandra
Stanleys
2015-02-23 19:41:07
Back to Richard himself, I have just read an article about the Stanleys,
that reminded me that when attacking the Household it was not just King
Richard the Stanleys were looking for, and succeeded in killing, as
amongst those most loyal to the king, and charging with him were James
and Robert Harrington, and we all know what the deaths of the
Harringtons would mean to the Stanleys in terms of land.
Not just traitors, but greedy self interested ones too!
Paul
that reminded me that when attacking the Household it was not just King
Richard the Stanleys were looking for, and succeeded in killing, as
amongst those most loyal to the king, and charging with him were James
and Robert Harrington, and we all know what the deaths of the
Harringtons would mean to the Stanleys in terms of land.
Not just traitors, but greedy self interested ones too!
Paul
Re: Stanleys
2015-02-23 21:28:38
Jan again.In Arthurson's book I came across a reference to a bastard son of Sir William Stanley, called Thomas, who was taken in 1494 & held in the Tower until after the death of H7. I think his father was executed on 14th Feb 1495. Arthurson suggests he may have supported his father in his treasonable support for P Warbeck. Now it isn't clear where this information comes from; there are 2 other people mentioned in the following lines who are mentioned in the calendars of patent & close rolls. Has anyone met this Thomas Stanley before?
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Back to Richard himself, I have just read an article about the Stanleys,
that reminded me that when attacking the Household it was not just King
Richard the Stanleys were looking for, and succeeded in killing, as
amongst those most loyal to the king, and charging with him were James
and Robert Harrington, and we all know what the deaths of the
Harringtons would mean to the Stanleys in terms of land.
Not just traitors, but greedy self interested ones too!
Paul
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.