Margaret of York, Cecily and plotting

Sorry Carol had to start new topic, Yahoo driving me mad by losing posts.

I have two versions of Weightman, 1987 and 2009. On page 161 of the 2009 Diabolical Duchess she refers to C's will which leaves money to Richard Lessey, Dean of her chapel to pay fines to H7 for probably plotting with the Yorkists. Also left money are the Boyviles, who had been with Margaret in Burgundy for years. Weightman suggests they could have been agents between Margaret and Cecily plotting and tracking the Yorkist cause.

In the next para she goes on to suggest that the famous piety of C and M could also have been a cover for the Church's involvement in Yorkist plots.

Fruit for more research, methinks. H.

Hilary wrote:
>
> Sorry Carol had to start new topic, Yahoo driving me mad by losing posts.
>
> I have two versions of Weightman, 1987 and 2009. On page 161 of the 2009 Diabolical Duchess she refers to C's will which leaves money to Richard Lessey, Dean of her chapel to pay fines to H7 for probably plotting with the Yorkists. Also left money are the Boyviles, who had been with Margaret in Burgundy for years. Weightman suggests they could have been agents between Margaret and Cecily plotting and tracking the Yorkist cause.
>
> In the next para she goes on to suggest that the famous piety of C and M could also have been a cover for the Church's involvement in Yorkist plots.
>
> Fruit for more research, methinks. H.

Carol responds:

I agree (though Weightman thinks that Richard killed his nephews and Margaret somehow supported him, anyway! She also states that Margaret's step son-in-law, Maximillian, supported Richard because he wanted a strong enemy of France on the throne). I think that all this secret correspondence between Margaret and both her brother and mother suggests that all three of them were involved in getting the boys to Burgundy (with help from Tyrrell and/or Brampton). But I can't imagine either Margaret or Cecily wanting one of Edward's sons on the throne given the distinct possibility (or fact) of illegitimacy. They would have preferred Edward of Warwick as a candidate. However, both she and Margaret may have given up on that idea and supported Perkin/Richard of York instead knowing that Titulus Regius had been reversed and that the people of England would have preferred him to the poor young man locked in the Tower all those years.

They would both, of course, have been much happier if Richard had won Bosworth!

At any rate, yes. We need to find out all that we can about Cecily and Margaret after Bosworth and destroy the misconception that Cecily preferred her son's murderer to the supposed murderer of her illegitimate grandsons.

Carol

Carol

Yes I don't think Weightman likes Richard but to be fair he is but someone who passes through her work.

What I was saying when I started this off and Yahoo got it muddled is that I could, perhaps, see Margaret and even EW, espousing any cause which gave hope to the House of York generally, but I can't see Cis doing the same unless they came from a legitimate blood line (ie Warwick without the attainder or the Princes re-legitmised). The Queen by Right would only have endorsed a King by Right. To me, it gives a lot more credence to the Perkin Warbeck story - Lessy was apparently involved there. Personally, I'd always had Perkin as an illegitimate son of Edward.

Perhaps this is something that has been tossed too easily aside when considering the possible survival of the Princes? Author Susan Higginbotham in her blog does just that.

By the way, I've always had Cis as supporting Richard. They were both the youngest children of large families, he featured his father, and was probably more frail as well. I would have thought if she'd fallen out with anyone by the end it would have been Edward, who became more and more beyond her control. All speculation of course.

More digging to do. H.



--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Carol had to start new topic, Yahoo driving me mad by losing posts.
>
> I have two versions of Weightman, 1987 and 2009. On page 161 of the 2009 Diabolical Duchess she refers to C's will which leaves money to Richard Lessey, Dean of her chapel to pay fines to H7 for probably plotting with the Yorkists. Also left money are the Boyviles, who had been with Margaret in Burgundy for years. Weightman suggests they could have been agents between Margaret and Cecily plotting and tracking the Yorkist cause.
>
> In the next para she goes on to suggest that the famous piety of C and M could also have been a cover for the Church's involvement in Yorkist plots.
>
> Fruit for more research, methinks. H.
>

From: ARK Records Enquiries <enquiry@...>
To: "'hjnatdat@...'" <hjnatdat@...>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:03
Subject: MEMRIS - SC Cecily Neville on Citizenship site (General enquiries)





Dear Ms Jones

Thank you for your enquiry.



Do you mean the section on Cecily Neville on our Citizenship website? If so, that was a collaboration between several staff (some of whom have now left). I think the text was based heavily on work on late medieval elite women, principally by Joanna Laynesmith (which subsequently emerged as her Last Medieval Queens book in 2004) and Anne Crawford (such as Letters of the Queens of England, and Letters of Medieval Noblewomen). I remember doing some of the work myself, and at the time was probably most interested in Cecily because of conversations with Mike Jones's in preparation of his book Bosworth 1485 which took a revisionist view of Cecily's role in Yorkist politics.



Yours sincerely

Sean Cunningham

Medieval and Early Modern Records

Ouch (Climb under desk)!

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Carol had to start new topic, Yahoo driving me mad by losing posts.
> >
> > I have two versions of Weightman, 1987 and 2009. On page 161 of the 2009 Diabolical Duchess she refers to C's will which leaves money to Richard Lessey, Dean of her chapel to pay fines to H7 for probably plotting with the Yorkists. Also left money are the Boyviles, who had been with Margaret in Burgundy for years. Weightman suggests they could have been agents between Margaret and Cecily plotting and tracking the Yorkist cause.
> >
> > In the next para she goes on to suggest that the famous piety of C and M could also have been a cover for the Church's involvement in Yorkist plots.
> >
> > Fruit for more research, methinks. H.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree (though Weightman thinks that Richard killed his nephews and Margaret somehow supported him, anyway! She also states that Margaret's step son-in-law, Maximillian, supported Richard because he wanted a strong enemy of France on the throne). I think that all this secret correspondence between Margaret and both her brother and mother suggests that all three of them were involved in getting the boys to Burgundy (with help from Tyrrell and/or Brampton). But I can't imagine either Margaret or Cecily wanting one of Edward's sons on the throne given the distinct possibility (or fact) of illegitimacy. They would have preferred Edward of Warwick as a candidate. However, both she and Margaret may have given up on that idea and supported Perkin/Richard of York instead knowing that Titulus Regius had been reversed and that the people of England would have preferred him to the poor young man locked in the Tower all those years.
>
> They would both, of course, have been much happier if Richard had won Bosworth!
>
> At any rate, yes. We need to find out all that we can about Cecily and Margaret after Bosworth and destroy the misconception that Cecily preferred her son's murderer to the supposed murderer of her illegitimate grandsons.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

I realised afterwards I've got her book. It's very dense, like Wilkinson but even worse for wondering and thus for trying to find anything. Poorly indexed as well - could have been a Ph.D project.

She has EW retreating to Bermondsey because of the loss of three murdered sons, and Cecily doing the same after the violent death of her last son.

She leans heavily on Ross (and Malory - comparisons with Guinevere retreating to a nunnery).

So not Laynesmith. H.

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> From: ARK Records Enquiries <enquiry@...>
> To: "'hjnatdat@...'" <hjnatdat@...>
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 15:03
> Subject: MEMRIS - SC Cecily Neville on Citizenship site (General enquiries)
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Ms Jones
>
> Thank you for your enquiry.
>
>
>
> Do you mean the section on Cecily Neville on our Citizenship website? If so, that was a collaboration between several staff (some of whom have now left). I think the text was based heavily on work on late medieval elite women, principally by Joanna Laynesmith (which subsequently emerged as her Last Medieval Queens book in 2004) and Anne Crawford (such as Letters of the Queens of England, and Letters of Medieval Noblewomen). I remember doing some of the work myself, and at the time was probably most interested in Cecily because of conversations with Mike Jones's in preparation of his book Bosworth 1485 which took a revisionist view of Cecily's role in Yorkist politics.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sean Cunningham
>
> Medieval and Early Modern Records
>
> Ouch (Climb under desk)!
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Carol had to start new topic, Yahoo driving me mad by losing posts.
> > >
> > > I have two versions of Weightman, 1987 and 2009. On page 161 of the 2009 Diabolical Duchess she refers to C's will which leaves money to Richard Lessey, Dean of her chapel to pay fines to H7 for probably plotting with the Yorkists. Also left money are the Boyviles, who had been with Margaret in Burgundy for years. Weightman suggests they could have been agents between Margaret and Cecily plotting and tracking the Yorkist cause.
> > >
> > > In the next para she goes on to suggest that the famous piety of C and M could also have been a cover for the Church's involvement in Yorkist plots.
> > >
> > > Fruit for more research, methinks. H.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree (though Weightman thinks that Richard killed his nephews and Margaret somehow supported him, anyway! She also states that Margaret's step son-in-law, Maximillian, supported Richard because he wanted a strong enemy of France on the throne). I think that all this secret correspondence between Margaret and both her brother and mother suggests that all three of them were involved in getting the boys to Burgundy (with help from Tyrrell and/or Brampton). But I can't imagine either Margaret or Cecily wanting one of Edward's sons on the throne given the distinct possibility (or fact) of illegitimacy. They would have preferred Edward of Warwick as a candidate. However, both she and Margaret may have given up on that idea and supported Perkin/Richard of York instead knowing that Titulus Regius had been reversed and that the people of England would have preferred him to the poor young man locked in the Tower all those years.
> >
> > They would both, of course, have been much happier if Richard had won Bosworth!
> >
> > At any rate, yes. We need to find out all that we can about Cecily and Margaret after Bosworth and destroy the misconception that Cecily preferred her son's murderer to the supposed murderer of her illegitimate grandsons.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> I realised afterwards I've got her book. It's very dense, like Wilkinson but even worse for wondering and thus for trying to find anything. Poorly indexed as well - could have been a Ph.D project.
>
> She has EW retreating to Bermondsey because of the loss of three murdered sons, and Cecily doing the same after the violent death of her last son.
>
> She leans heavily on Ross (and Malory - comparisons with Guinevere retreating to a nunnery).
>
> So not Laynesmith. H.

Carol responds:

Definitely not! How very odd, though, that she contributed to an article which suggests that Cecily supported Richard's kingship. Well, one down. Good luck with your other sources.

BTW, do you have Anne Easter Smith's novel about Cecily? Maybe she has a bibliography that would be useful. I checked Cynthia Sally Haggard's sources (Weir, Ross, etc.), which unfortunately are of no use whatever.

One thing that may be of interest. Audrey Williamson says that Richard had his mother's musicians with him on his progress and suggests that she may have been there herself. Even if she wasn't, would she lend her musicians to a son whose kingship she disapproved of for his use in the installation of his son (her grandson) as Prince of Wales? It seems unlikely in the extreme.

Carol