Lincoln's Rebellion and Stoke

This whole subject interests me, but since I'm new to this group I
hesitate to bring it up in case it has been recently discussed. Has
it?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> This whole subject interests me, but since I'm new to this group I
> hesitate to bring it up in case it has been recently discussed.
Has
> it?
>
> Katy

I don't know either, Katy, as I haven't been here that long either,
but I should enjoy this one as I will be teaching it in around 3-4
weeks! I have always been somewhat puzzled as to Lincoln's motives.
Why would he seriously support a fake claimant given his own good
claim umnless a. the claimant was not fake (which is out of the
question) or b. he planned to hijack it if it succeeded and take the
throne himself.
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> ---
>
> I don't know either, Katy, as I haven't been here that long
either,
> but I should enjoy this one as I will be teaching it in around 3-4
> weeks! I have always been somewhat puzzled as to Lincoln's motives.
> Why would he seriously support a fake claimant given his own good
> claim umnless a. the claimant was not fake (which is out of the
> question) or b. he planned to hijack it if it succeeded and take
the
> throne himself.
> Brunhild

That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another puzzlement
is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years old
according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have been
that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and Edward
would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?

(And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be very
surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour used for
baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made up
for its absurdity.)

Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.

Katy

> That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another
puzzlement
> is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
> supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years old
> according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have been
> that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and Edward
> would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
> impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?
>
> (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be very
> surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour used
for
> baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made up
> for its absurdity.)
>
> Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
>
> Katy

I recall reading one report (not sure of the source) that the boy
acclaimed King in Ireland at the start of the 1487 rebellion was
supposed to have been in his teens -- and yet the one produced after
Stoke was very clearly quite young. Does anyone know anything about
the reliability of this information?

-Kellie

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
>
> > That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another
> puzzlement
> > is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
> > supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years
old
> > according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have
been
> > that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and Edward
> > would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
> > impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?
> >
> > (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be very
> > surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> > to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour used
> for
> > baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made
up
> > for its absurdity.)
> >
> > Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
> >
> > Katy
>
> I recall reading one report (not sure of the source) that the boy
> acclaimed King in Ireland at the start of the 1487 rebellion was
> supposed to have been in his teens -- and yet the one produced
after
> Stoke was very clearly quite young. Does anyone know anything about
> the reliability of this information?
>


Good morning all,
Jane Shore favorite mistress of Edward IV, her
maiden name was LAMBERT, another twist ?

Dave

--- In , mowbraynotts
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "meenivettle"
> <meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another
> > puzzlement
> > > is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
> > > supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years
> old
> > > according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have
> been
> > > that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and
Edward
> > > would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
> > > impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?
> > >
> > > (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be
very
> > > surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> > > to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour
used
> > for
> > > baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made
> up
> > > for its absurdity.)
> > >
> > > Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > I recall reading one report (not sure of the source) that the boy
> > acclaimed King in Ireland at the start of the 1487 rebellion was
> > supposed to have been in his teens -- and yet the one produced
> after
> > Stoke was very clearly quite young. Does anyone know anything
about
> > the reliability of this information?
> >
>
>
> Good morning all,
> Jane Shore favorite mistress of Edward IV, her
> maiden name was LAMBERT, another twist ?
>
> Dave

Yes. The name Lambert Simnel is clearly made-up. Some historian has
pointed out that there is no other example of Lambert being used as a
first name in England. I've come across an earlier French example,
and no doubt that explains the surname - and perhaps Henry VII's
willingness to use it. The same historian suggested that the name
Simnel was Henry's joke as he sent the boy off to work in trhe
kitchens. However, surely at root Simnel is a pet form of Simon - and
yes the priest who's supposed to have coached * produced the boy was
called Richard Simon.
Was even that name real? Richard as an allusion to Richard III? Simon
would suggest to people of the time the early Christian alternative
type Simon Magus, famous (or infamous) in medieval lore for conjuring
up spirits. How appropriate! Particularly as I'm sure there was a
famous story to do with Simon Magus and a boy.
As for the discrepancies with age - I don't know much about the
Lambert Simnel rebellion but there was an article in the Ricardian
some few years ago by a man suggesting that the Yorkists actually had
Edward V. It seems all our sources suggesting anything else spring
from the Tudor side. He said all we know for sure is that his name
was supposed to be Edward. I don't know about that, but I do go along
wholeheartedly with his suggestion that the boy Henry VII showed off
was not the one the Yorkists had crowned in Dublin. - hence the
invented identity. This man claimed that on the occasion on
which 'Simnel' was shown to the Earl of Kildare, it sounds as though
Kildare did not recognise him. I'll fish out the article if I get
time.

As regards Lincoln's motives, I don't see that it helps to suggest he
was only pretending to back a child who couldn't decide who he was as
a clever strategy for claiming the throne for himself (an adult and
much more plausible candidate than the child were are told the
Yorkists had). He would surely never have assisted at this child's
coronation. It's worse than one of Baldrick's cunning plans.

There would of course have been two potential Yorkist camps - the
Ricardians wanting to back Richard's intended heir, and the
Edwardians keen to restore one of the Princes if they could be found.

Then there is the interesting business of Elizabeth Woodville's
apparent support of the rebellion.

Marie

--- >
> That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another
puzzlement
> is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
> supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years old
> according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have been
> that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and Edward
> would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
> impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?
>
> (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be very
> surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour used
for
> baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made up
> for its absurdity.)
>
> Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
>
> Katy

I've just done a check of the Mormon genealogy site. There were just
13 Simnels of various spellings on the England & Wales 1881 census,
so it exists now as a surname but is very rare - coming, very
probably, from single common ancestor. So probably not at all
widespread in the 15th century. They may, indeed, all be descendants
of "Lambert Simnel" himself!

I'll go back and have another check and see how many early (16/17 C)
examples I can find on the IGI, and where they were situated.

Marie
I'm still not inclined to believe

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > ---
> >
> > I don't know either, Katy, as I haven't been here that long
> either,
> > but I should enjoy this one as I will be teaching it in around 3-
4
> > weeks! I have always been somewhat puzzled as to Lincoln's
motives.
> > Why would he seriously support a fake claimant given his own good
> > claim umnless a. the claimant was not fake (which is out of the
> > question) or b. he planned to hijack it if it succeeded and take
> the
> > throne himself.
> > Brunhild
>
> That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another
puzzlement
> is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
> supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years old
> according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have been
> that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and Edward
> would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
> impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?
>
> (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be very
> surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour used
for
> baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made up
> for its absurdity.)
>
> Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
>
> Katy


Okay. Checked the IGI. Most of the Simnels of that spelling
were 'Lambert' and his supposed family, which somebody has entered
(these are member submissions, not taken from parish registers). In
addition I found for 1500s & 1600s (and even into 1700s):
23 Simnells ( 25 with 2 repeats)
25 Symnells
Anout 2 Symnels (late)

Of these, almost half were London and Westminster.
The next biggest grouping was Lincolnshire
There were also a few in Essex and a couple of Simnnells in
Cambridgeshire.
A few lone ones - I Durham, 1 Devon and 1 Gloucestershire, who had
probably strayed.
But it does look as though we may have London origin, with members of
the family acquiring country interest in Lincolnshire and the
counties in between.
It would possibly be worth someone's while researching all these back
(bearing in mind, of course, that the IGI isn't a complete record) to
see if they have a common source.
Later Simnel genealogy in London may be complicated by the fact that
in 1753 a baby at the St Pancras Foundling Hospital was christened
Lambert Simnel!

Marie

PS Like Katy I find the whole business puzzling. It certainly smacks
of some sort of almighty cover-up. Perhaps, Brunhild, you could throw
it open to your class to acts a sleuths, depending on their age.

> >
> > (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be
very
> > surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> > to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour
used
> for
> > baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made
up
> > for its absurdity.)

Are there any non-Tudor references to him using this or any other
name which we can say are definitely not tainted?
> >
> > Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
> >
> > Katy
>
>

> Marie
>
> PS Like Katy I find the whole business puzzling. It certainly
smacks
> of some sort of almighty cover-up. Perhaps, Brunhild, you could
throw
> it open to your class to acts a sleuths, depending on their age.

A level, Marie, at start of course. I usually give them the muder of
the Princes as their introduction to 15C sources and detective work,
and don't think I have enough material to give them one on the
Simnel business. However, if anyone has source suggestions I could
use to create a new task I am more than happy to go with it.

Another thing I have no info on, but you may (you being any reader
here!), is the rumour that the princes (both or one) actually were
alive and either in Suffolk (I hope I have that right) or the
continent. If anyone can suggest anything here source-wise it would
make an interesting additional angle for them to have to consider.
You will be pleased to learn that Richard was found unanimously not
guilty by last year's 13 students! ;-) (And I try SOOOOO hard not to
be biased....<Brunhild lies through teeth....> )
Brunhild

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I don't know either, Katy, as I haven't been here that long
> > either,
> > > but I should enjoy this one as I will be teaching it in around
3-
> 4
> > > weeks! I have always been somewhat puzzled as to Lincoln's
> motives.
> > > Why would he seriously support a fake claimant given his own
good
> > > claim umnless a. the claimant was not fake (which is out of the
> > > question) or b. he planned to hijack it if it succeeded and
take
> > the
> > > throne himself.
> > > Brunhild
> >
> > That, among many other things, bothers me, too. Another
> puzzlement
> > is that the boy later called Lambert Simnel, the one they were
> > supposedly using as the focus of the whole thing, was ten years
old
> > according to what I read. Neither of Edward's sons would have
been
> > that age in 1487.., Richard would have been nearly 14 and Edward
> > would have been almost 17. If the Yorkists wanted to back an
> > impostor, why didn't they find one the correct age?
> >
> > (And then there is that absurd name, Lambert Simnel. I'd be very
> > surprised if there is a Simnel family he could have belong
> > to...simnel is a variety of wheat that produces a fine flour used
> for
> > baking pastries and high-class bread. It smacks of a name made
up
> > for its absurdity.)
> >
> > Actually, everything about the whole thing puzzles me.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Just looked up the Lambert Simnel rebellion on the net. I see he
was supposed to be the son of one Thomas Simnel, a tradesman of
Oxford. But Oxford just isn't in the catchment area for the surname
at all. And it seems Tudor sources can't make up their minds if his
father was a joiner, an organ-maker, a baker or a shoemaker.
So it seems likely that no such Thomas Simnel existed.

It's possible that Lincoln would have thought he'd get more support
claiming to back one of the Princes. And Tudor sources tell us the
boy was initially claimed as Richard Duke of York. However, then, so
we're told, they decided he was Warwick (who, I believe, was
Richard's recognised heir). One source on the net suggests that this
was done because there was a rumour that Henry had had Warwick
killed. But it still begs the question as to why would Lincoln change
the claimed identity if the Princes in the Tower ID had more crowd-
pull and there was then to be yet another change in candidate when HT
was defeated and Lincoln put himself forward?
I still think this plan far too convoluted to be plausible. And I
feel that to say, as historians have tended to do, that Lincoln's
claim was too good for him to back anybody else but not good enough
to put forward seems a bit inconsistent. They, of course, are working
on the assumption that the boy was just the son of an Oxford
tradesman.

There is perhaps some merit in the idea that the boy's claimed ID in
the public mind - ie the version we have - was the result of false
propaganda by the Tudors. I am, for instance unaware of any
manifestoes or such emanating from the Yorkist camp. I think there is
a letter to York but this just names the claimant as "King Edward".

And if Lambert Simnel wasn't the identity of the boy, as it almost
certainly wasn't, then who was he and why did Henry lie? Did he take
the real boy at all? Did he:
a) escape - in which case does he surface again?
b)die at Stoke? - in which case why didn't Henry display his body?
c) get captured indeed, but could not be displayed by Henry because
he didn't want to admit his real identity? In which case what did
Henry do with him?

Of the above, I find a) and c) most likely. Was 'Lambert Simnel' some
poor lad - perhaps an orphan - Henry did a deal with? Play along and
I'll see you rise in my household. . . . This is what the author of
the article I mentioned believes - but he's convinced he was Edward V.

Marie

>
> Marie
>
> PS Like Katy I find the whole business puzzling. It certainly
smacks
> of some sort of almighty cover-up. Perhaps, Brunhild, you could
throw
> it open to your class to acts a sleuths, depending on their age.

Apologies if another version if this shows up later but my original
reply seems to have been lost in the ether! They are a new A level
group, and it would be an interesting exercise I would go with if I
had sufficient resources, but unless anyone can offer/suggest any I
don't have enough for a useful lesson.

I recall rumours/references to the boys (one or both) not being dead
at all - possibly in Suffolk or Burgundy. If anyone has any
suggestions for sources for this it would make an interesting angle
to throw into the pot. Last year's 13 students found Richard
unanimously not guilty! (Not that they had any biased teacher input
you understand..... ;-) )
Brunhild

> And if Lambert Simnel wasn't the identity of the boy, as it almost
> certainly wasn't, then who was he and why did Henry lie? Did he
take
> the real boy at all? Did he:
> a) escape - in which case does he surface again?
> b)die at Stoke? - in which case why didn't Henry display his
body?
> c) get captured indeed, but could not be displayed by Henry
because
> he didn't want to admit his real identity? In which case what did
> Henry do with him?

If he really was one of the princes then it would certainly pay
Henry to make out it was not by some means. It would have been
imperative, I imagine, for Henry to produce someone to dispel
rumours with. However, acting on rumours that Warwick was dead seems
unlikely re Lincoln. He was at the Great Council and surely must
have been aware that Warwick was actually fine? Given the rumours
about the Princes it would be in Henry's interests again to make
sure peole who cunted knew full well that Warwick was alive and in
the Tower. Do we know where these rumours occur and when?
>
> Of the above, I find a) and c) most likely. Was 'Lambert Simnel'
some
> poor lad - perhaps an orphan - Henry did a deal with? Play along
and
> I'll see you rise in my household. . . . This is what the author
of
> the article I mentioned believes - but he's convinced he was
Edward V.
>
> Marie

OK, we are all Ricardians, and as such probably think Richard didn't
do it. Our options are therefore that someone else did it or no-one
did it. If no-one there are again 2 options: they escaped and lived
or died natural deaths in the Tower. Either of these would easily
explain Richard's failure to answer his critics, but the latter
would be the better of the two IMO. While suggesting Simnel was
Warwick was patently impossible it may not be so impossible to
suggest he really was one of the princes, however unlikely that
scenario may be.

And I apologies again - the lost message finally appeared after
writing the second one! Doh!
Brunhild

>
> I recall rumours/references to the boys (one or both) not being
dead
> at all - possibly in Suffolk or Burgundy. If anyone has any
> suggestions for sources for this it would make an interesting angle
> to throw into the pot. Last year's 13 students found Richard
> unanimously not guilty! (Not that they had any biased teacher input
> you understand..... ;-) )
> Brunhild

Have you looked at Audrey Williamson's book on the princes? There's a
section that talks about Warbeck, but which also includes information
about the Simnell rising and Stoke. It's quite readable and is
footnoted. There's also reference to both in the Bertram Fields book -
which, sadly, is not footnoted.

Kellie

> Apologies if another version if this shows up later but my original
> reply seems to have been lost in the ether! They are a new A level
> group, and it would be an interesting exercise I would go with if I
> had sufficient resources, but unless anyone can offer/suggest any I
> don't have enough for a useful lesson.
>
> I recall rumours/references to the boys (one or both) not being
dead
> at all - possibly in Suffolk or Burgundy. If anyone has any
> suggestions for sources for this it would make an interesting angle
> to throw into the pot. Last year's 13 students found Richard
> unanimously not guilty! (Not that they had any biased teacher input
> you understand..... ;-) )
> Brunhild

Another note (sorry to be spammy, but just recalled this): At some
point in Williamson's book, the author recounts an oral tradition
passed down in the Tyrell family that 'the Princes and their mother
Elizabeth Woodville lived at the Hall by the permission of the
Uncle'. The hall would be Gipping Hall in Surrey and the wording of
the tradition is apparently specific and longstanding - going back at
least to the 1790s.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> > And if Lambert Simnel wasn't the identity of the boy, as it
almost
> > certainly wasn't, then who was he and why did Henry lie? Did he
> take
> > the real boy at all? Did he:
> > a) escape - in which case does he surface again?
> > b)die at Stoke? - in which case why didn't Henry display his
> body?
> > c) get captured indeed, but could not be displayed by Henry
> because
> > he didn't want to admit his real identity? In which case what did
> > Henry do with him?
>
> If he really was one of the princes then it would certainly pay
> Henry to make out it was not by some means. It would have been
> imperative, I imagine, for Henry to produce someone to dispel
> rumours with. However, acting on rumours that Warwick was dead
seems
> unlikely re Lincoln. He was at the Great Council and surely must
> have been aware that Warwick was actually fine? Given the rumours
> about the Princes it would be in Henry's interests again to make
> sure peole who cunted knew full well that Warwick was alive and in
> the Tower. Do we know where these rumours occur and when?
> >
> > Of the above, I find a) and c) most likely. Was 'Lambert Simnel'
> some
> > poor lad - perhaps an orphan - Henry did a deal with? Play along
> and
> > I'll see you rise in my household. . . . This is what the author
> of
> > the article I mentioned believes - but he's convinced he was
> Edward V.
> >
> > Marie
>
> OK, we are all Ricardians, and as such probably think Richard
didn't
> do it. Our options are therefore that someone else did it or no-one
> did it. If no-one there are again 2 options: they escaped and lived
> or died natural deaths in the Tower. Either of these would easily
> explain Richard's failure to answer his critics, but the latter
> would be the better of the two IMO. While suggesting Simnel was
> Warwick was patently impossible it may not be so impossible to
> suggest he really was one of the princes, however unlikely that
> scenario may be.
>
> And I apologies again - the lost message finally appeared after
> writing the second one! Doh!
> Brunhild


Hi again. Playing Devil's advocate here. I'm very hazy on events
after Bosworth, but since many Ricardians surmise that Richard may
have got the Princes out of harm's way before Bosworth, is it not
possible that he would have done the same with Warwick???? Is there
any possibility that the Warwick Henry showed off in London was a
fake and Lincoln's was the real one?

Also, as to the Princes being the best bet to get people out to
fight, of course in Ireland that may not have been so. Edward had
blotted his copybook sending over Tiptoft and having Desmond (his
father's protector) executed, and to a large extent the lingering
affection for the house of York was after that transferred to his
brothers, particularly the Irish-born Clarence. I seem to remember
reading recently that Warwick had even spent some time living in
Ireland himself (wish I could remember where I read that).

Certainly I have found it difficult to come up with any reasonable
explanation of Henry's "feigned boy" that doesn't come down to the
real "Edward VI" having been a genuine member of the House of York.

Any ideas anyone?

Marie


PS The Suffolk hiding-place for the Princes I think comes from the
Tyrrell family tradition, related to Audrey Williamson, that they had
lived with their mother at Sir James T's house at Gipping near
Ipswich "by permission of the uncle". It was not, as I understand it,
a rumour that was current in the country after Bosworth.

Yes, we need to start gathering a list of primary sources to see what
can be made of them, don't we?

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > And if Lambert Simnel wasn't the identity of the boy, as it
almost
> certainly wasn't, then who was he and why did Henry lie? Did he
take
> the real boy at all? Did he:
> a) escape - in which case does he surface again?
> b)die at Stoke? - in which case why didn't Henry display his body?
> c) get captured indeed, but could not be displayed by Henry because
> he didn't want to admit his real identity? In which case what did
> Henry do with him?
>
> Of the above, I find a) and c) most likely. Was 'Lambert Simnel'
some
> poor lad - perhaps an orphan - Henry did a deal with? Play along
and
> I'll see you rise in my household. . . . This is what the author of
> the article I mentioned believes - but he's convinced he was Edward
V.
>
> Marie

Well, here's my take on it. The boy captured on the battlefield at
Stoke, the one who was crowned in Dublin and who was with Lincoln's
army, was not the same boy who appeared in London and was called
Lambert Simnel.

Some odd things happened regarding the boy captured at Stoke. You
would expect that the man who captured him would have been rewarded
for getting ahold of the impostor so he could be shown around as an
obvious fake. Instead, the man was promptly taken into custody, held
in close custody (does that mean incommunicado?) and eventually
executed on charges that he had committed rape and mayhem during the
campaign. Sounds suspicious to me.

I also find it odd that the ever-populat John Morton hustled his 67-
year-old bones up to Stoke to personally take charge of the captured
boy. (Anything Morton is involved with begs for close scrutiny.)
Why was it so important that he go up to Stoke for the boy, rather
than waiting in London for the kid to be brought there?

I read that a herald attached to court had gone to Ireland to
question the boy the Yorkists had up there on details of people,
relationships, and events that were composed to be answerable only by
someone very familiar with Edward's court and household. The herald
returned and reported he had answered them all correctly.

According to the Tudor story, that was because this Simnel kid had
been coached by that rogue Oxford priest, Richard Simon. How, then,
did Richard Simon know all those details, since there is no
indication that he was an intimate of Edward's court?

I think it was the old shell game...a boy too young to be any known
Plantagenet scion was substituted for whoever Lincoln actually had
with him, given an absurd name, and displayed in London to undermine
the Yorkists credibility.

So, then, who was the real boy with Lincoln, and what becmae of him?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > > And if Lambert Simnel wasn't the identity of the boy, as it
> almost
> > certainly wasn't, then who was he and why did Henry lie? Did he
> take
> > the real boy at all? Did he:
> > a) escape - in which case does he surface again?
> > b)die at Stoke? - in which case why didn't Henry display his
body?
> > c) get captured indeed, but could not be displayed by Henry
because
> > he didn't want to admit his real identity? In which case what did
> > Henry do with him?
> >
> > Of the above, I find a) and c) most likely. Was 'Lambert Simnel'
> some
> > poor lad - perhaps an orphan - Henry did a deal with? Play along
> and
> > I'll see you rise in my household. . . . This is what the author
of
> > the article I mentioned believes - but he's convinced he was
Edward
> V.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Well, here's my take on it. The boy captured on the battlefield at
> Stoke, the one who was crowned in Dublin and who was with Lincoln's
> army, was not the same boy who appeared in London and was called
> Lambert Simnel.
>
> Some odd things happened regarding the boy captured at Stoke. You
> would expect that the man who captured him would have been rewarded
> for getting ahold of the impostor so he could be shown around as an
> obvious fake. Instead, the man was promptly taken into custody,
held
> in close custody (does that mean incommunicado?) and eventually
> executed on charges that he had committed rape and mayhem during
the
> campaign. Sounds suspicious to me.
>
> I also find it odd that the ever-populat John Morton hustled his 67-
> year-old bones up to Stoke to personally take charge of the
captured
> boy. (Anything Morton is involved with begs for close scrutiny.)
> Why was it so important that he go up to Stoke for the boy, rather
> than waiting in London for the kid to be brought there?
>
> I read that a herald attached to court had gone to Ireland to
> question the boy the Yorkists had up there on details of people,
> relationships, and events that were composed to be answerable only
by
> someone very familiar with Edward's court and household. The
herald
> returned and reported he had answered them all correctly.
>
> According to the Tudor story, that was because this Simnel kid had
> been coached by that rogue Oxford priest, Richard Simon. How,
then,
> did Richard Simon know all those details, since there is no
> indication that he was an intimate of Edward's court?
>
> I think it was the old shell game...a boy too young to be any known
> Plantagenet scion was substituted for whoever Lincoln actually had
> with him, given an absurd name, and displayed in London to
undermine
> the Yorkists credibility.
>
> So, then, who was the real boy with Lincoln, and what becmae of him?
>
> Katy

Eggzackly! So from what you say it sounds as though Henry captured a
real Yorkist boy and had him either killed or secretly shut away (IF
he was the real Warwick, of course, he would simply have been
substituted for the fake one in the Tower).

What became of Richard Simon, by the way?

Marie

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
>
> > Apologies if another version if this shows up later but my
original
> > reply seems to have been lost in the ether! They are a new A
level
> > group, and it would be an interesting exercise I would go with
if I
> > had sufficient resources, but unless anyone can offer/suggest
any I
> > don't have enough for a useful lesson.
> >
> > I recall rumours/references to the boys (one or both) not being
> dead
> > at all - possibly in Suffolk or Burgundy. If anyone has any
> > suggestions for sources for this it would make an interesting
angle
> > to throw into the pot. Last year's 13 students found Richard
> > unanimously not guilty! (Not that they had any biased teacher
input
> > you understand..... ;-) )
> > Brunhild
>
> Another note (sorry to be spammy, but just recalled this): At some
> point in Williamson's book, the author recounts an oral tradition
> passed down in the Tyrell family that 'the Princes and their
mother
> Elizabeth Woodville lived at the Hall by the permission of the
> Uncle'. The hall would be Gipping Hall in Surrey and the wording
of
> the tradition is apparently specific and longstanding - going back
at


Thanks. It's one book I don't have. You couldn't post me three or
four lines with tis ref in could you to use as a secondary source?
Cheers
Brunhild

>
> Hi again. Playing Devil's advocate here. I'm very hazy on events
> after Bosworth, but since many Ricardians surmise that Richard may
> have got the Princes out of harm's way before Bosworth, is it not
> possible that he would have done the same with Warwick???? Is
there
> any possibility that the Warwick Henry showed off in London was a
> fake and Lincoln's was the real one?

Worth exploring. Have no historians given that serious
consideration? I can't say I have come across any such suggestion in
my reading, which is extensive but doesn't include the Ricardian
recently.

>>
> Marie
>
>
> PS The Suffolk hiding-place for the Princes I think comes from the
> Tyrrell family tradition, related to Audrey Williamson, that they
had
> lived with their mother at Sir James T's house at Gipping near
> Ipswich "by permission of the uncle". It was not, as I understand
it,
> a rumour that was current in the country after Bosworth.
>
> Yes, we need to start gathering a list of primary sources to see
what
> can be made of them, don't we?

Yes please! ;-)
Brunhild

>
> Some odd things happened regarding the boy captured at Stoke. You
> would expect that the man who captured him would have been
rewarded
> for getting ahold of the impostor so he could be shown around as
an
> obvious fake. Instead, the man was promptly taken into custody,
held
> in close custody (does that mean incommunicado?) and eventually
> executed on charges that he had committed rape and mayhem during
the
> campaign. Sounds suspicious to me.

That's very interesting indeed. What is the source for that?
>
> I also find it odd that the ever-populat John Morton hustled his
67-
> year-old bones up to Stoke to personally take charge of the
captured
> boy. (Anything Morton is involved with begs for close scrutiny.)
> Why was it so important that he go up to Stoke for the boy, rather
> than waiting in London for the kid to be brought there?

Indeed.
>
> I read that a herald attached to court had gone to Ireland to
> question the boy the Yorkists had up there on details of people,
> relationships, and events that were composed to be answerable only
by
> someone very familiar with Edward's court and household. The
herald
> returned and reported he had answered them all correctly.

Again very interesting. What's the source for that one?
>
> According to the Tudor story, that was because this Simnel kid had
> been coached by that rogue Oxford priest, Richard Simon. How,
then,
> did Richard Simon know all those details, since there is no
> indication that he was an intimate of Edward's court?

I have wondered that myself. Is there any infformation about just
who this guy was and what his contacts were?
>
>>
> So, then, who was the real boy with Lincoln, and what becmae of
him?
>
> Katy

The $64,000 question!
If you could give me the references for the 2 points above - primary
or secondary - I will give them to the students and see what they
make of it. I should be very grateful if you could. I was rather
hoping we might have some boys this year from next door but sadly
not. I thought a male slant might make for more interesting
discussions on Richard.
Brunhild

> > Another note (sorry to be spammy, but just recalled this): At
some
> > point in Williamson's book, the author recounts an oral tradition
> > passed down in the Tyrell family that 'the Princes and their
> mother
> > Elizabeth Woodville lived at the Hall by the permission of the
> > Uncle'. The hall would be Gipping Hall in Surrey and the wording
> of
> > the tradition is apparently specific and longstanding - going
back
> at
>
>
> Thanks. It's one book I don't have. You couldn't post me three or
> four lines with tis ref in could you to use as a secondary source?
> Cheers
> Brunhild

This is from pp 115-116 of the 1981 edition by Sutton Publishing:

"At this stage, it seems more likely, assuming they were still alive,
that the princes lived with Elizbeth their mother when she came out
of sanctuary. So where did she live? I come here to the long-standing
and specifically worded tradition in the Tyrell family, going back
well before the eighteenth century, and handed down from generation
to generation This was (and I quote Kathleen Margaret Drewe) 'that
the princes and their mother Elizabeth Woodville lived in the hal by
permission of the uncle'. The reference is to Gipping Hall near
Stowmarket, Suffolk, which Sir James Tyrell rebuilt in 1474 as a
gift, it would seem, to his bdie, and which remained the home of the
Tyrells until it was finally pulled down early in the twentieth
century."

Hope this helps.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Eggzackly! So from what you say it sounds as though Henry captured
a
> real Yorkist boy and had him either killed or secretly shut away
(IF
> he was the real Warwick, of course, he would simply have been
> substituted for the fake one in the Tower).
>
> What became of Richard Simon, by the way?
>
> Marie

Was there ever such a person as a priest named Richard Simon in the
first place?

>
> This is from pp 115-116 of the 1981 edition by Sutton Publishing:
>
> "At this stage, it seems more likely, assuming they were still
alive,
> that the princes lived with Elizbeth their mother when she came
out
> of sanctuary. So where did she live? I come here to the long-
standing
> and specifically worded tradition in the Tyrell family, going back
> well before the eighteenth century, and handed down from
generation
> to generation This was (and I quote Kathleen Margaret Drewe) 'that
> the princes and their mother Elizabeth Woodville lived in the hal
by
> permission of the uncle'. The reference is to Gipping Hall near
> Stowmarket, Suffolk, which Sir James Tyrell rebuilt in 1474 as a
> gift, it would seem, to his bdie, and which remained the home of
the
> Tyrells until it was finally pulled down early in the twentieth
> century."
>
> Hope this helps.

Thanks - I will add it to the exercise!
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Some odd things happened regarding the boy captured at Stoke.
You
> > would expect that the man who captured him would have been
> rewarded
> > for getting ahold of the impostor so he could be shown around as
> an
> > obvious fake. Instead, the man was promptly taken into custody,
> held
> > in close custody (does that mean incommunicado?) and eventually
> > executed on charges that he had committed rape and mayhem during
> the
> > campaign. Sounds suspicious to me.
>
> That's very interesting indeed. What is the source for that?
> >
> > I also find it odd that the ever-populat John Morton hustled his
> 67-
> > year-old bones up to Stoke to personally take charge of the
> captured
> > boy. (Anything Morton is involved with begs for close
scrutiny.)
> > Why was it so important that he go up to Stoke for the boy,
rather
> > than waiting in London for the kid to be brought there?
>
> Indeed.
> >
> > I read that a herald attached to court had gone to Ireland to
> > question the boy the Yorkists had up there on details of people,
> > relationships, and events that were composed to be answerable
only
> by
> > someone very familiar with Edward's court and household. The
> herald
> > returned and reported he had answered them all correctly.
>
> Again very interesting. What's the source for that one?
> >
> > According to the Tudor story, that was because this Simnel kid
had
> > been coached by that rogue Oxford priest, Richard Simon. How,
> then,
> > did Richard Simon know all those details, since there is no
> > indication that he was an intimate of Edward's court?
>
> I have wondered that myself. Is there any infformation about just
> who this guy was and what his contacts were?
> >
> >>
> > So, then, who was the real boy with Lincoln, and what becmae of
> him?
> >
> > Katy
>
> The $64,000 question!
> If you could give me the references for the 2 points above -
primary
> or secondary - I will give them to the students and see what they
> make of it. I should be very grateful if you could. I was rather
> hoping we might have some boys this year from next door but sadly
> not. I thought a male slant might make for more interesting
> discussions on Richard.
> Brunhild

Hopefully I can after next week. I was fascinated with this subject
10-11 years ago and I did take lots of notes on my reading -- can't
really call it research because I did not have the opportunity go to
original documents. However I have moved three times since and all
that stuff is Around Here Someplace. No that I'm re-fascinated with
the subject, I have next week off and plan to do some major burrowing
and ferreting-out and reorganizing. With luck I'll turn up my notes
early on and that will get me out of the rst of the project, as I
reread them.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Some odd things happened regarding the boy captured at Stoke.
> You
> > > would expect that the man who captured him would have been
> > rewarded
> > > for getting ahold of the impostor so he could be shown around
as
> > an
> > > obvious fake. Instead, the man was promptly taken into
custody,
> > held
> > > in close custody (does that mean incommunicado?) and eventually
> > > executed on charges that he had committed rape and mayhem
during
> > the
> > > campaign. Sounds suspicious to me.
> >
> > That's very interesting indeed. What is the source for that?

I've just found the article in the Ricardian I was talking sbout
('Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin', Gordon Smith, Ricardian
vol Xx no 135, Dec 1996). Actually, that's not exactly Smith's take
on it. According to the account of Henry VII's herald, as transcribed
by Leland, the name of the man was Robert Bellingham. According to
Smith, Bellingham did commit mayhem AFTER Stoke, abducting the
heiress Margery Beaufitz on 2 September 1487. He was imprisoned for a
while, but later climbed in Henry's favour. I suppose it depends
whether you think Margery's abduction was a charge trumped up by
Henry to get him arrested and silenced (at least temporarily) or the
reckless action of a man who thought the King was so pleased with him
he could do what he wanted.

Now this is going to be a long message. I've been through the article
and weeded out the following information:

1) Hard evidence - ie things we have contemporary documentation for:

Edward IV's Act of Attainder against Clarence accused him of trying
to substitute an imposter for his son, and send the real Edward
abroad.
April-May 1486 at the time of Humphrey Stafford's rebellion - rumours
were heard of Warwick's escape. At least escape is the word Smith
uses. He cites an article by CH Williams in the English Historical
Review vol 43, pp181-9 (esp. p183). It would be crucial to know
whether the original source(s)actually specified his having escaped
from Henry's custody or whether they just suggested he was on the
loose or in Yorkist hands.
29 November 1486 - Thomas Betanson wrote from London: "Also here is
but little speech . . . of the Earl of Warwick now, but after
Christmas they say there will be more speech of. Also, there be many
enemies on the sea, and diverse ships taken, and there be many taken
of the King's house for thieves."
Before Christmas - writs were issued for the King's Council and
convocation to meet in February.

17 February 1487 - A 28-year-old priest, William Simons, confessed
before Convocation at St Paul's that "he himself abducted and carried
across to places in Ireland the son of a certain organ-maker of the
university of Oxford; and this boy was there reputed to be the Earl
of Warwick. Since then Simons "himself was with Lord Lovell in
Furness Fells".
[Would Morton have been behind this??]

19 February - According to Wendy Moorhen's article in the Soc
Festschrift, there is a note in Morton's register recording Warwick's
public appearance. However, she does not quote or explain the nature
of this register, and there is no other contemporary mention of
Warwick's exxhibition.

7 March - Henry wrote to the city of Oxford ordering them to give up
Bishop Stillington, who had taken refuge there. They gave him up and
he was imprisoned.

May - Apparently after a coronation in Dublin, a parliament was held
by the new king in Drogheda. However, there is no surviving record as
its' acts were annulled by a parliament of 1494 and all copies
ordered to be destroyed.

May - new coins were minted in Ireland bearing the name "Edwardus"
but no number.

8 June - the city of York recorded the receipt of a letter
from "Edward VI", written at Masham.

The city also recorded an unsuccessful assault by the 2 Lords Scrope
of Bolton & Masham (note this official record is at variance with
Molinet's claim below).

16 June - The Battle of Stoke.

After the battle - Smith says it appears Henry wrote to the Pope
saying the boy was illegitimate.

November 1487 - Parliament described the pretender as Lambert Simnel,
10 years old, the son of Thomas Simnel, late of Oxford, joiner.

Aftermath: No Irish documents from later in the reign ever picked up
the name Lambert Simnel. They simply referred to him as a "lad".

Some years later Henry VII was entertaining Kildare and the other
Irish lords at dinner. They were TOLD, apparently, that their "new
king Lambert Simnel brought them wine to drink, and drank to them
all." The only one to rise to this was Lord Howth, a relative of
Henry's who had stayed loyal to him and acted as informant during the
rebellion. Even his words were ambiguous - he drank "for the wine's
sake, declaring that Lambert Simnel was a poor innocent".

In 1493 - Henry's envoy to Burgundy, Dr Warham, remarked to Margaret
in the presence of Perking Warbeck, that she had given birth to two
princes aged 180 months [ie 15 years]. Was this remark, referring to
months, a joke about a 15year pregnancy producing a prince out of the
blue?

May 1525 - A "Lambert Simnel, yeoman", attended the funeral of Sir
Thomas Lovell.

2) Leland's transcription of the account of Henry's herald.
This is obviously from one side, but is the closest to a proper
contemporary account. Unfortunately, it's not much cited by Smith.
However, he does give the following:

Lincoln was "noising in that country [Flanders] that the Earl of
Warwick should be in Ireland, which he himself knew, and daily spoke
with him at Sheen afore his departing."
Moorhen interprets this to mean that Warwick was brought to Sheen for
a while after being shown in London, but there is no other evidence
for this. I find this statement ambiguous anyway. The first half
seems to be Lincoln saying he knows the boy's in Ireland; the second,
that he saw him every day at Sheen before he left. Is the herald
suggesting that Lincoln was telling people Warwick had escaped to
Ireland AFTER being shown in London?

He records the capture of the boy after Stoke thus: "And there was
taken the lad the rebels call King Edward, whose name was indeed
John, by a valiant and gentle squire of the King's house called
Robert Bellingham."

3) Molinet.
I'm grateful to Katy for the background to this source, which
apparently forms part of a history he wrote for Margaret of Burgundy.
He never visited England but clearly had some inside knowledge of
events from the Yorkist side. Like the herald, he wrote with a bias.

He claims that the pretender was indeed the Earl of Warwick.

Smith says Molinet says Warwick was nearly full grown and in the
flower of manhood (though both can't be true - Smith is anxious to
demonstrate that the pretender was too old to be Warwick).

He says Schwartz and his company arrived in Ireland to find "the Duke
of Clarence" with Lincoln, Kildare and the other Irish nobles

He gives the date of the Irish coronationas as Ascension Day (24 May)
1487, and mentions the Drogheda parliament and the minting of the new
coinage

He describes the army landing in North Lancs, near Furness Fells, and
describes them crossing the Pennines into Yorkshire.
He says they pushed back Edward Woodville's forces, and that the city
of York declared for King Edward. He also says that in London the
houses of Henry's supporters were ransacked.
He says that only 200 of the rebel army escaped Stoke. Henry VII
hanged the captured English and Irish, only returning the continental
prisoners.

3) The Annals of Ulster. The author of these was under the impression
that the pretender was a son of the Duke of York. Smith interprets
this as an error for actually the Duke of York younger of the
Princes, and uses it in favour of his argument that the pretender was
in fact his brother Edward V. However, given the Gaelic Irish
context, I think the Duke of York referred to is surely the father of
Edward IV and Richard III. Edward V and his brother, and Warwick,
were all of course his grandsons.

4) Vergil.
Came to England in 1502. First manuscript dates from 1512-13.

This is where we start getting all the fine detail that has been
accepted since but has no contempoary backing.

It is Vergil who says that after Bosworth Henry brought Elizabeth of
York and "Edward, the fifteen-year-old Earl of Warwick, sole survivor
of the late duke of Clarence" to Henry. The ingrained belief that he
was brought to Henry from Sheriff Hutton seems to rest entirely on
this, as far as I can make out at present.

He says the pretender was Lambert Simnel, pupil of Richard Simons, a
priest of Oxford, and that he claimed to be Clarence's son. He does
not give the name or occupation of Lambert's father, or the boy's age.

He says that letters were sent from Ireland to known supporters of
Richard III in England, and to Margaret of Burgundy.

He says three decisions were made at the Council at Sheen: to
proclaim a general pardon; to exhibit Warwick; and to confiscate
Elizabeth Woodville's property because she had made peace with
Richard III.

He describes Warwick's day out, giving the date as Sunday 18th Feb, a
day before the date in Morton's register. He says W. was taken from
the Tower to St Paul's for a service, after which he "spoke with many
important people, and especially with those of whom the King was
suspicious". [Barrie Williams has apparently questioned whether this
happened at all since there is no contemporary source, but as I said
above, Wendy Moorhen cites Morton's own register. It is an
interesting probability that Morton was behind both the confession of
the priest William Simons (of whom no more is heard) at St Pauls on
17 Feb, and Warwick's exhibition there on 18th or 19th. ]

He agress with Molinet that the Yorkist army landed near the Furness
Fells. He gives date of 4th June.

He relates how after Stoke Lambert Simnel and his mentor Richard
Simon were captured. They were both granted their lives - Simnel
because he was too young to be held responsible, and Simon because he
was a priest. Simon was "heard of no more, the king loving to seal up
his own dangers".
He says Simnel was still alive when he wrote.

4) Bernard Andre.
Written after Vergil's first manuscript.

He says the pretender claimed to be Richard Duke of York, Edward IV's
second son, but that he was really the son of a baker or a shoemaker
set up by seditious men.
However, later he says the pretender confessed he had been forced
into becoming an imposter by "certain men of his own shameless sort"
and that his parents were common "and in lowly occupations, unworthy
of being inserted into this history".
He does not mention any names, and does not mention any priest.

It is Andre who says Henry sent a herald across to Ireland, who
failed to trap the pretender when he questioned him on his knowledge
of the times of King Edward.

5) Vergil 2.
In the second version of Vergil's history, which was written after
Bernard Andre, he claimed that the pretender first claimed to be
Richard Duke of York, then changed it to Warwick. He was evidently
trying to square his account with Andre's.
----------------------



About the name, Smith says the following:
"The surname of Simnel seems otherwise unknown before this time in
England or abroad, but echoes the surnames of Simons, the imposter's
mentor, and of Fitzsimons, the archbishop who crowned the
boy. 'Simnel' means light grain, and simnel cakes were eaten during
Lent. Hence, Andre's occupation of baker for the imposter's father
might be seen as a corroboration of the surname. Lambert was a very
rare Christian name in England, St. Lambert was buried at Liege, an
area well known for the making of organs close to Burgundy. The name
Lambert could thus be linked to the occupation of the imposter's
father, and to the Duchess Margaret. On the other hand, Bennett
pointed out that the maiden name of Edward IV's mistress Elizabeth
Shore, better known as Jane Shore, was Elizabeth Lambert. A new
interpretation of the name Lambert could therefore be that it was a
reference to a bastard of that king and Jane. Henry VII left Sheen
early in Lent after the council there, and a Lenten pretender
(Simnel) who was Edward IV's bastard (Lambert) might have been
Henry's explanation for the continuing rumour that the Dublin
claimant was the Yorkist king's son. Hence 'Lambert Simnel' might
have been a pseudonym not used by the conspirators, as Bennett
thought, but by the English government, and the pseudonym may have
been retained for consistency in the act of attainder."

Food for thought. This Lambert Simnel stuff is dynamite!

Marie

>
> Food for thought. This Lambert Simnel stuff is dynamite!
>
> Marie

Thanks for that Marie - something really to get the little grey
cells going! I shall throw it into my evidence pot and really run
the year 12s ragged! Talk about baptism of fire! I am going to enjoy
myself!
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Food for thought. This Lambert Simnel stuff is dynamite!
> >
> > Marie
>
> Thanks for that Marie - something really to get the little grey
> cells going! I shall throw it into my evidence pot and really run
> the year 12s ragged! Talk about baptism of fire! I am going to
enjoy
> myself!
> Brunhild

Brunhild, you couldn't dig out for me the source for Elizabeth of
york and Warwick being brought south from Sheriff Hutton after
Bosworth? My bookshelves have nothing on Henry VII! All I've found in
a couple of books so far is the statement that Henry sent Sir Robert
Willoughby to Sheriff hutton to fetch them, but these give no source.
I've looked in the York House Books, as the party would probably have
passed through York on the way south, but there's no mention. Perhaps
the city was regarded as risky and was bypassed.
It would seem to be important to demonstrate whether Henry ever did
take into his custody the Earl of Warwick (or at least someone who
appeared to be the Earl).

By the by, Margaret Weightman's book on Margaret of York says the
rumours earlier in 1486, at the time of the Staffords' rebellion,
were claiming that Warwick had escaped to the Channel Islands.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Food for thought. This Lambert Simnel stuff is dynamite!
> > >
> > > Marie
> >
> > Thanks for that Marie - something really to get the little grey
> > cells going! I shall throw it into my evidence pot and really run
> > the year 12s ragged! Talk about baptism of fire! I am going to
> enjoy
> > myself!
> > Brunhild
>
> Brunhild, you couldn't dig out for me the source for Elizabeth of
> york and Warwick being brought south from Sheriff Hutton after
> Bosworth? My bookshelves have nothing on Henry VII! All I've found
in
> a couple of books so far is the statement that Henry sent Sir
Robert
> Willoughby to Sheriff hutton to fetch them, but these give no
source.
> I've looked in the York House Books, as the party would probably
have
> passed through York on the way south, but there's no mention.
Perhaps
> the city was regarded as risky and was bypassed.
> It would seem to be important to demonstrate whether Henry ever did
> take into his custody the Earl of Warwick (or at least someone who
> appeared to be the Earl).
>

>
> Marie

Didn't York shut its gates to Henry Tudor after Bosworth, and
petition Parliament as to whether the city had to accept him as
king? If so maybe Henry avoided York because two years hd not made
him any more popular there.

Katy

>
> Brunhild, you couldn't dig out for me the source for Elizabeth of
> york and Warwick being brought south from Sheriff Hutton after
> Bosworth? My bookshelves have nothing on Henry VII! All I've found
in
> a couple of books so far is the statement that Henry sent Sir
Robert
> Willoughby to Sheriff hutton to fetch them, but these give no
source.
> I've looked in the York House Books, as the party would probably
have
> passed through York on the way south, but there's no mention.
Perhaps
> the city was regarded as risky and was bypassed.
> It would seem to be important to demonstrate whether Henry ever
did
> take into his custody the Earl of Warwick (or at least someone who
> appeared to be the Earl).
>
> By the by, Margaret Weightman's book on Margaret of York says the
> rumours earlier in 1486, at the time of the Staffords' rebellion,
> were claiming that Warwick had escaped to the Channel Islands.
>
> Marie

Sorry Marie, I have come up with the same as you. I will, however,
check my primary source collection at work but am pretty sure there
is nothing there. I did notice whilst rummaging that Storey (1968)
refers to Lincoln as Richard's "declared heir". I have now forgotten
who it was (Kendall?) originally believed to have started this
belief, but I wondered what that date was?
Brunhild

> >
> I did notice whilst rummaging that Storey (1968)
> refers to Lincoln as Richard's "declared heir". I have now
forgotten
> who it was (Kendall?) originally believed to have started this
> belief, but I wondered what that date was?
> Brunhild

I think it was Kendall too. Certainly he writes as if it is his own
idea. His RIII dates to 1955. What I do know is that the argument for
it is based entirely on Lincoln's having been made Lieutenant of
Ireland, Kendall (and others following him) claiming this was the
prerogative of the Yorkist heir. But as I observed in a recent
message, this assertion is untrue (and it shows you how lazy
historians can be in that they've quoted this on without giving it
any thought), so the whole argument falls down.
Marie

> I think it was Kendall too. Certainly he writes as if it is his
own
> idea. His RIII dates to 1955. What I do know is that the argument
for
> it is based entirely on Lincoln's having been made Lieutenant of
> Ireland, Kendall (and others following him) claiming this was the
> prerogative of the Yorkist heir. But as I observed in a recent
> message, this assertion is untrue (and it shows you how lazy
> historians can be in that they've quoted this on without giving it
> any thought), so the whole argument falls down.
> Marie

Thanks, just wanted to establish if Storey was following Kendall or
came up with it independently, given I had no date for the original
idea. Kendall is one of the few books I don't have.
Brunhild

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Food for thought. This Lambert Simnel stuff is dynamite!
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > >
> > > Thanks for that Marie - something really to get the little grey
> > > cells going! I shall throw it into my evidence pot and really
run
> > > the year 12s ragged! Talk about baptism of fire! I am going to
> > enjoy
> > > myself!
> > > Brunhild
> >
> > Brunhild, you couldn't dig out for me the source for Elizabeth of
> > york and Warwick being brought south from Sheriff Hutton after
> > Bosworth? My bookshelves have nothing on Henry VII! All I've
found
> in
> > a couple of books so far is the statement that Henry sent Sir
> Robert
> > Willoughby to Sheriff hutton to fetch them, but these give no
> source.
> > I've looked in the York House Books, as the party would probably
> have
> > passed through York on the way south, but there's no mention.
> Perhaps
> > the city was regarded as risky and was bypassed.
> > It would seem to be important to demonstrate whether Henry ever
did
> > take into his custody the Earl of Warwick (or at least someone
who
> > appeared to be the Earl).
> >
>
> >
> > Marie


>
> Didn't York shut its gates to Henry Tudor after Bosworth, and
> petition Parliament as to whether the city had to accept him as
> king? If so maybe Henry avoided York because two years hd not made
> him any more popular there.
>
> Katy


Yes, actually what I'm trying to find out is what our source is for
Henry bringing Elizabeth and York from Sheriff Hutton in 1485, after
Bosworth. But of course the same argument applies, that he would have
been wise not to have them brought through York and that is probably
why there is no mention in the city records.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > I did notice whilst rummaging that Storey (1968)
> > refers to Lincoln as Richard's "declared heir". I have now
> forgotten
> > who it was (Kendall?) originally believed to have started this
> > belief, but I wondered what that date was?
> > Brunhild
>
> I think it was Kendall too. Certainly he writes as if it is his own
> idea. His RIII dates to 1955. What I do know is that the argument
for
> it is based entirely on Lincoln's having been made Lieutenant of
> Ireland, Kendall (and others following him) claiming this was the
> prerogative of the Yorkist heir. But as I observed in a recent
> message, this assertion is untrue (and it shows you how lazy
> historians can be in that they've quoted this on without giving it
> any thought), so the whole argument falls down.
> Marie

The Fox Terrier Syndrome again.

Katy

2nd-hand copy of Michael Bennett's book just arrived from Amazon.

He doesn't give a source for Henry sending Willoughby to fetch
Elizabeth & Warwick either. And he actually writes that he sent him
to fetch Elizabeth from Sheriff Hutton. And then later that he had
put Warwick safely in the Tower. I suspect these historians are all
copying earlier books rather than basing on the original source. You
would maybe need to look in something quite old - perhaps Chrimes
Henry VII or something - to find the start of it all.

Anyhow, he does have a section at the end with a few primary sources
quoted. This one is interesting. It's the record of William Symonds'
confession from the proceedings of the convocation of Canterbury held
in February 1487, apparently in St Paul'. Bennett takes it from the
published Latin text in "Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae,
A.D. 466-1718, vol III, p.618, and but gives in his own English
translation. Morton was, of course, in charge of this convocation as
Archbishop of Canterbury, and this was apparently written up by his
clerk:
"There was brought forward a certain Sir William Simonds, priest,
twenty-eight years of age, as he asserted, who there in the presence
of the said lords and prelates and the clerk, as well as the mayor,
aldermen and sheriffs of the city of London, publicly admitted and
confessed that he himself abducted and carried across to places in
Ireland the son of a certain organ-maker of the university of Oxford,
and this boy was there reputed to be the Earl of Warwick; and that
afterwards he himself was with Lord Lovell in Furness Fells. On those
and other things being confessed by him, the said reverend father in
God asked the said mayor and sheriffs to lead the said Sir William
Simonds to the Tower of London, there to be imprisoned on his behalf,
because the said most reverend father in God held another of the
company of Sir William, and was only able to hold one person in his
mansion at Lambeth."

"Sir" is, of course, here just the normal honorary title for a priest
and doesn't mean Simonds was a knight.
I need hardly point out that this reveals the entire thing to have
been stage-managed by Morton. Nor that if Simonds was locked in the
Tower in February he can hardly have been captured at Stoke in June.
The excuse about not having room for two prisoners at Lambeth Palace
sounds pathetic to me. Marching this man to the Tower was no doubt
deemed to be a good publicity stunt - and a warning to the city. But
if the Mayor and Aldermen were present (and it seems they must have
been) why do we read nothing about it in the London Chronicles? Was
the whole thing just too embarrassingly unbelievable?

By the by, it seems there may have been at least one contemporary
song about Stoke, as Nicholas Orme tells in his 'Medieval Children'
mentions amongst a set of nursery verses from a later play the
couplet:

"Martin Swart and his man, sodledum, sodledum,
Martin Swart and his man, sodledum bell."

Now, I recognised this, because back in the old days at the folk club
I used to frequent we sang a song called "Martin Said to his Man".
Most of it's a typical nonsense song (eg "I saw a flea heave a tree/
Twenty miles out to sea", and I won't repeat the one about the maid
and the bull), but the first verse always bugged me a little, both
because I couldn't quite make out what the context was supposed to
be, and, ironically, because it always reminded me that Richard III
had a fool called Martin. Said first verse runs:

"Martin said to his man
Fie, man, fie.
Martin said to his man
Who's the fool now?
Martin said to his man
Fill thou the cup and I the can
Thou hast well drunken, man.
Who's the fool now?"

I searched last night, and I see that the full text is up on the
living history website, and it is "Referenced at 1580, may be
earlier".


Marie

More sources for the rebellion. These are from the York House Books.

1) 15 May 1487:
"Tuesday the 15th day of May, the king's letters was read in the
Guildhall before the commonalty as ensueth:

To our trusty and wellbeloved the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty of
our city of York.

By the King

Trusty and wellbeloved, we greet you well, and have understood by
manifold reports made unto us the effectual devoir and great business
that ye put you in for the good provision and preparation of victual
and other stuff for such men of worship and their retinues as we late
commanded to go thither for the surety and defence of our city there,
if our rebels had arrived nigh those parts;, for the which, as we for
as many other causes have done, we thank you heartily, and thus by
your truths and good minds daily to us continued ye have assured the
favour of our good grace unto you, like as ye shall find in effect in
such pursuits as ye shall make unto us hereafter, letting you wit
that, seeing our rebels, as we be ascertained, be departed westwards
[sic], we have licensed such persons as we commanded to make their
repair thither to depart thence for a season and to resort to you
again in the case shall so require; and also our cousin the Earl of
Northumberland intendeth hastily to be in the country nigh unto you,
which we doubt not will gladly assist and strength you at all times
if ye desire him so to be. Given under our signet at our castle of
Kenilworth the 8th day of May"

2)6 June 1487:

"Copy of a letter from the Earl of Northumberland to the Mayor, etc,
as ensueth:

...

Right worshipful and my right heartily beloved friend and right
wellbeloved friends, I commend me unto you, and thank you for the
constant loving dispositions that I have founden in you, wherein I
pray you to persevere, and whereas the King our sovereign lord's
rebels be landed in Furness at the pile of Fowdray upon Monday last
past, which God helping I intend to resist, and for the same intent
will be in the city of York toward them upon Sunday next coming.
Therefore I desire and pray you to cause provision of victual to be
ready against that time for such people as shall come and be there
with me; also that ye, incontinent after the sight hereof, will
provide for the sure keeping and safeguard of the said city, and that
such persons as ye goodly may forbear, the city kept, if it will
please you, they may accompany me in their best and most defensible
array to do the King service for the intent aforesaid. And I pray you
to give credence unto my right trusty servant Richard Burgh, squire,
concering the premises; and to do thing that may be for your wells I
will be as glad as any man doing to my power, that knoweth the
blessed Trinity, whom I beseech to send you all good fortunes.
Written in my manor of Leconfield the 6th day of June.

Your loving friend H. Northumberland

Which letter was openly read before the Mayor, aldermen and common
council of the city of York, first in the council chamber within the
Guildhall and after before all the commons of the said city in the
said Guildhall there assembled, where and when, as well the said
mayor, aldermen and common council aforesaid as the said commons was
agreed either to other, holding up their hands, that they would keep
this city with their bodies and goods to the uttermost of their
powers to the behove of our sovereign lord the King against any his
rebels intending to enter the same."

3) 8th June 1487:

"Copy of a letter direct to the Mayor, etc, from the lords of
Lincoln, Lovell and other late landed in Furness in the name of their
king calling himself Edward the VIth

By the King

To our trusty and wellbeloved the Mayor and his brethren and
commonalty of our city of York

Trusty and wellbeloved, we greet you well, and for as much as we be
comen within this our realm not only by God's grace to attain our
right of the same but also for the relief and well of our said realm,
you and all other our true subjects which hath been greatly injured
and oppressed in default of non-administration of good rules and
justice, desire therefore and in our right heartily wise pray you
that in this behalf ye will show unto us your good aids and favours
and, where we and such power as we have brought with us by means of
travel of the sea and upon the land be greatly wearied and laboured,
it will like you that we may have relief and ease of lodging and
victuals within our city there, and so to depart and truly pay for
that at we shall take; and in your so doing ye shall do unto us of
right acceptable pleasure, and for the same find us your good and
sovereign lord at all times hereafter. And of your dispositions to
ascertain us by this bringer. Given under our signet at Masham the 8
day of June.

The copy of which letter was immediately sent to the Earl of
Northumberland for to see, and a copy of the same was sent to Sir
Richard Tunstall and another delivered to Master Payne to show it to
the King's grace. And forthwith the Mayor, aldermen, sheriffs and
common council of the city of York, assembled in council in the
council chamber within the Guildhall, departed from the council and
commanded, as was agreed, that every warden should be in harness and
raise his ward and keep due watch that no person should have entry
into the said city but such as be true liegemen unto our sovereign
lord the King, Henry the Seventh. And the said mayor incontinently,
by the advice of his brethren aldermen, sheriffs and common council
foresaid, sent in message unto the said lords of Lincoln and Lovell 3
of the chamberlains, giving them theme in commandment to show unto
the said lords that my Lord the Mayor, my masters his brethren
aldermen, the sheriffs, common council, with the whole community of
the city of York, be finally determined that he which the said lords
called their king, they, nor none of their retinue or company
intending to approach the city should have any entry into the same,
but to withstand them with their bodies and goods if they would
attempt so to do.

And the aame day a letter was direct from the Earl of Northumberland
unto the Mayor, etc, as hereafter followeth:"

Whereof, chaps, the rest followeth tomorrow.
arie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> More sources for the rebellion. These are from the York House Books.
>
> > Whereof, chaps, the rest followeth tomorrow.
> arie

As I've said before, I admire your research and especially how
quickly yor find cogent sources.

Would you paraphrase these and give us the meat of what they say,
though, please? It's been a long day and I got lost in the syntax
and ornate phrasings.

Thanks, Katy

Herewith followeth the remainder of the stuff from the York House
Books. I'll quote in full, Katy, for Brunhild's sprogs, then precis
in next message for the convenience of the general public.

This, then picks up with Northumberland's letter to the city of 8th
June:

"Right worshipful and right heartily beloved friend and right trusty
and wellbeloved friends, I commend me unto you, and not only thank
you for your loving dispositions perseverantly showed unto me but
specially for the faithful guiding and true dispositions showed for
your provident and sure ordering of the King our sovereign's lord's
city under your rule, for the surety and conservation of the same, to
his most high pleasure, praying you as effectually as I can therein
to show your faithful eneavours with all diligence as ye have done;
and, if the case require that occasion be to the contrary thereof, I
thereof certified, with God helping, will be at Pocklington tomorrow
at even, shall not rest but be with you the same night, like as
worshipful these bearers, chaplains unto the King's Highness, can
show unto you, to whom I pray you to give credence; and upon Sunday
next coming I will not fail to be with you at the farthest - and
tofore if ye think it requisite - that knoweth Our Father celestial,
whom I beseech to be your everlasting protector. Written in my manor
of Leconfield the 8th day of June."

5) City's account of the rebellion, 8-17 June 1487:

"The process of the battle beside Newark in the third year of the
reign of King Henry the VIIth:
Saturday the 8th of June [apparently 8th was actually a Friday] the
year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the Seventh, at
afternoon of the same day, the chamberlains (sent in message unto the
lords of Lincoln and Lovell and other herebefore named) came in at
Micklegate Bar and there showed unto my Lord the Mayor and other his
brethren being present how the said lords and their retinue was
departed over Brugh Bridge [the bridge at Boroughbridge, which lies
between Masham and York?] and so straight southward, not intending to
come nigh this city to do any prejudice or hurt unto the same. And,
incontinently after their coming, the Lord Clifford sent word unto my
Lord Mayor that he might come in with his folks ans retinue for to
assist and support the Mayor and the commonalty of this city if any
of the King's enemies would approach unto the same; whereunto the
Mayor consented and granted that he should so have his entry, and
caused all the street of Micklegate to be garnished with men in
harness to the number of 600 persons and more. And within the space
of an hour after, received the said Lord Clifford at Micklegate Bar
with 400 persons of footmen and horsemen into the said city, and sent
unto him a present of wine and [blank] according to his honour.

And upon Trinity Sunday at noon my Lord of Northumberland, with many
knights and lords of this country, came to this city. And the same
day at afternoon the Lord Clifford took his journey towards the
King's enemies lying upon Bramham Moor, and lodged himself that night
at Tadcaster; but the same night the King's enemies lying nigh to the
same town came upon the said Lord Clifford's folks and made a great
skirmish there, into so much that he, with such folks as he might
get, returned to the city again. And at that same skirmish were slain
and maimed diverse of the said town [ie Tadcaster], and the
inhabitants thereof were spoiled and robbed. And the 'gardewyans' and
trussing coffers of the Lord Clifford were taken off the bridge by
misfortune and had unto the other party.

Also ,upon the Tuesday after that, the Earl of Northumberland, Lord
Clifford and many other nobles, accompanied with 6,000 numbered,
departed southward toward the King's Grace at 11 of the clock. And
anon after his departure the lords Scropes of Bolton and Upsall,
constrained as it was said by their folks, came on horseback to
Bootham Bar, and there cried 'King Edward' and made assault at the
gates; but the commons being watchmen there well and manly defended
them and put them to flight. And, incontinently, the Mayor, upon
knowledge threupon, accompanied with a 100 persons in harness, made
his proclamation throughout the city in the name of King Henry the
Seventh, charging all manner of franchised men and other resident
within this city forthwith to be in harness and attend upon the
wardens, and that every warden should keep his ward at his jeopardy,
and that all manner of strangers in harness should depart forth of
the city at the south gate, under pain of forfeiture of his harness
and his body to prison. The Earl of Northumberland having knowledge
thereof, being within 6 miles of the city, sent in message unto the
Mayor and desired him that he might come and enter the city again for
diverse considerations and causes him moving. Whereupon the Mayor, by
the advice of his brethren, sent Master Vavasour, Recorder, and 3 of
his brethren aldermen with other of the council of this city,
accompanied with 12 horse, in message unto the said earl, showing how
he should be welcome to the said city and as many as he would
undertake were the king's true liegemen, and caused all the street of
Micklegate to be garnished with men in harness to the number of 4,000.

And, incontinently thereupon, the said earl, the Lord Clifford and
other many nobles, accompanied with 4,000 men and more, was
thankfully received unto the said city and there continued to
Thursday, Corpus Christi Day, and the same day at noon hastily the
said lords took their journey towards the north parts.

Proclamation of the deferring of Corpus Christi play. Upon Corpus
Christi Eve proclamation was made through the city that the play of
the same. . . should be deferred unto the Sunday next after the feast
of St Thomas of Canterebury, and then after,it was deferred to the
Sunday next after the feast of St Peter called ad Vincula [1st
August] because of the king's coming hither.

The Saturday next after the feast of Corpus Christi, the King, lying
with a great power divided in three hosts beyond Newark the wayward
of the same, in the which the Earl of Oxford, the Lord Strange, Sir
John Cheyney, the Earl of Shrewsbury and many other, to the number of
10,000, met with the lords of Lincoln and Lovell with other many
nobles, as well of Englishmen as Irishmen and other, to the number of
20,000 of the more beyond Newark, and there was a sore battle, in the
which the Earl of Lincoln and many other, as well Englishmen as
Irish, to the number of 5,000, were slain and murdered. The Lord
Lovell was discomfited, and fled with Sir Thomas Broughton and many
other; and the child which they called their king was taken and
brought unto the King's Grace; and many other in great number, which
was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc.

And upon Sunday by 3 of the clock in the morning tidings came to my
Lord Mayor from the field, how Almighty God had sent the King victory
of his enemies and rebels, and thereupon my Lord Mayor, taking with
him his brother aldermen with the whole council of this city, upon
certain knowledge of the victory foresaid, showed by the mouth of a
servant of Master Recorder coming straight from the said field, came
to the cathedral church of York and there caused all the ministers of
the same to make lovings to Our Saviour for the triumph and victory
foresaid, singing solemnly in the high choir of the said church the
psalm of Te Deum Laudamus with other suffragies."

I think there's an interesting sub-text to all this. There are
several notices in the books of arrests and bonds to keep the peace
in June of 1487, and also a copy of a letter from Henry VII ordering
the city to organise that thanksgiving service, complete
with "lovings".

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Herewith followeth the remainder of the stuff from the York House
> Books. > Marie

Methinks you, same as I, haveth been immersed in quaint and antique
words and phrases in full sufficiency of time and more to sorely
affect our speech.

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Herewith followeth the remainder of the stuff from the York House
> Books. I'll quote in full, Katy, for Brunhild's sprogs, then
precis
> in next message for the convenience of the general public.
>
> This, then picks up with Northumberland's letter to the city of
8th
> June:
>
> "Right worshipful and right heartily beloved friend and right
trusty
> and wellbeloved friends, I commend me unto you, and not only thank
> you for your loving dispositions perseverantly showed unto me but
> specially for the faithful guiding and true dispositions showed
for
> your provident and sure ordering of the King our sovereign's
lord's
> city under your rule, for the surety and conservation of the same,
to
> his most high pleasure, praying you as effectually as I can
therein
> to show your faithful eneavours with all diligence as ye have
done;
> and, if the case require that occasion be to the contrary thereof,
I
> thereof certified, with God helping, will be at Pocklington
tomorrow
> at even, shall not rest but be with you the same night, like as
> worshipful these bearers, chaplains unto the King's Highness, can
> show unto you, to whom I pray you to give credence; and upon
Sunday
> next coming I will not fail to be with you at the farthest - and
> tofore if ye think it requisite - that knoweth Our Father
celestial,
> whom I beseech to be your everlasting protector. Written in my
manor
> of Leconfield the 8th day of June."
>
> 5) City's account of the rebellion, 8-17 June 1487:
>
> "The process of the battle beside Newark in the third year of the
> reign of King Henry the VIIth:
> Saturday the 8th of June [apparently 8th was actually a Friday]
the
> year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the Seventh, at
> afternoon of the same day, the chamberlains (sent in message unto
the
> lords of Lincoln and Lovell and other herebefore named) came in at
> Micklegate Bar and there showed unto my Lord the Mayor and other
his
> brethren being present how the said lords and their retinue was
> departed over Brugh Bridge [the bridge at Boroughbridge, which
lies
> between Masham and York?] and so straight southward, not intending
to
> come nigh this city to do any prejudice or hurt unto the same.
And,
> incontinently after their coming, the Lord Clifford sent word unto
my
> Lord Mayor that he might come in with his folks ans retinue for to
> assist and support the Mayor and the commonalty of this city if
any
> of the King's enemies would approach unto the same; whereunto the
> Mayor consented and granted that he should so have his entry, and
> caused all the street of Micklegate to be garnished with men in
> harness to the number of 600 persons and more. And within the
space
> of an hour after, received the said Lord Clifford at Micklegate
Bar
> with 400 persons of footmen and horsemen into the said city, and
sent
> unto him a present of wine and [blank] according to his honour.
>
> And upon Trinity Sunday at noon my Lord of Northumberland, with
many
> knights and lords of this country, came to this city. And the same
> day at afternoon the Lord Clifford took his journey towards the
> King's enemies lying upon Bramham Moor, and lodged himself that
night
> at Tadcaster; but the same night the King's enemies lying nigh to
the
> same town came upon the said Lord Clifford's folks and made a
great
> skirmish there, into so much that he, with such folks as he might
> get, returned to the city again. And at that same skirmish were
slain
> and maimed diverse of the said town [ie Tadcaster], and the
> inhabitants thereof were spoiled and robbed. And the 'gardewyans'
and
> trussing coffers of the Lord Clifford were taken off the bridge by
> misfortune and had unto the other party.
>
> Also ,upon the Tuesday after that, the Earl of Northumberland,
Lord
> Clifford and many other nobles, accompanied with 6,000 numbered,
> departed southward toward the King's Grace at 11 of the clock. And
> anon after his departure the lords Scropes of Bolton and Upsall,
> constrained as it was said by their folks, came on horseback to
> Bootham Bar, and there cried 'King Edward' and made assault at the
> gates; but the commons being watchmen there well and manly
defended
> them and put them to flight. And, incontinently, the Mayor, upon
> knowledge threupon, accompanied with a 100 persons in harness,
made
> his proclamation throughout the city in the name of King Henry the
> Seventh, charging all manner of franchised men and other resident
> within this city forthwith to be in harness and attend upon the
> wardens, and that every warden should keep his ward at his
jeopardy,
> and that all manner of strangers in harness should depart forth of
> the city at the south gate, under pain of forfeiture of his
harness
> and his body to prison. The Earl of Northumberland having
knowledge
> thereof, being within 6 miles of the city, sent in message unto
the
> Mayor and desired him that he might come and enter the city again
for
> diverse considerations and causes him moving. Whereupon the Mayor,
by
> the advice of his brethren, sent Master Vavasour, Recorder, and 3
of
> his brethren aldermen with other of the council of this city,
> accompanied with 12 horse, in message unto the said earl, showing
how
> he should be welcome to the said city and as many as he would
> undertake were the king's true liegemen, and caused all the street
of
> Micklegate to be garnished with men in harness to the number of
4,000.
>
> And, incontinently thereupon, the said earl, the Lord Clifford and
> other many nobles, accompanied with 4,000 men and more, was
> thankfully received unto the said city and there continued to
> Thursday, Corpus Christi Day, and the same day at noon hastily the
> said lords took their journey towards the north parts.
>
> Proclamation of the deferring of Corpus Christi play. Upon Corpus
> Christi Eve proclamation was made through the city that the play
of
> the same. . . should be deferred unto the Sunday next after the
feast
> of St Thomas of Canterebury, and then after,it was deferred to the
> Sunday next after the feast of St Peter called ad Vincula [1st
> August] because of the king's coming hither.
>
> The Saturday next after the feast of Corpus Christi, the King,
lying
> with a great power divided in three hosts beyond Newark the
wayward
> of the same, in the which the Earl of Oxford, the Lord Strange,
Sir
> John Cheyney, the Earl of Shrewsbury and many other, to the number
of
> 10,000, met with the lords of Lincoln and Lovell with other many
> nobles, as well of Englishmen as Irishmen and other, to the number
of
> 20,000 of the more beyond Newark, and there was a sore battle, in
the
> which the Earl of Lincoln and many other, as well Englishmen as
> Irish, to the number of 5,000, were slain and murdered. The Lord
> Lovell was discomfited, and fled with Sir Thomas Broughton and
many
> other; and the child which they called their king was taken and
> brought unto the King's Grace; and many other in great number,
which
> was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc.
>
> And upon Sunday by 3 of the clock in the morning tidings came to
my
> Lord Mayor from the field, how Almighty God had sent the King
victory
> of his enemies and rebels, and thereupon my Lord Mayor, taking
with
> him his brother aldermen with the whole council of this city, upon
> certain knowledge of the victory foresaid, showed by the mouth of
a
> servant of Master Recorder coming straight from the said field,
came
> to the cathedral church of York and there caused all the ministers
of
> the same to make lovings to Our Saviour for the triumph and
victory
> foresaid, singing solemnly in the high choir of the said church
the
> psalm of Te Deum Laudamus with other suffragies."
>
> I think there's an interesting sub-text to all this. There are
> several notices in the books of arrests and bonds to keep the
peace
> in June of 1487, and also a copy of a letter from Henry VII
ordering
> the city to organise that thanksgiving service, complete
> with "lovings".
>
> Marie

Crikey Marie! I got a bit lost between which bits were the documents
and which bits were your blurb between! You seem to have some blurb
within speech marks and in "medieval speak" or have I got that
wrong? I am trying to separate them into individual sources for the
aforementioned sprogs!
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > Herewith followeth the remainder of the stuff from the York House
> > Books. I'll quote in full, Katy, for Brunhild's sprogs, then
> precis
> > in next message for the convenience of the general public.
> >
> > This, then picks up with Northumberland's letter to the city of
> 8th
> > June:
> >
> > "Right worshipful and right heartily beloved friend and right
> trusty
> > and wellbeloved friends, I commend me unto you, and not only
thank
> > you for your loving dispositions perseverantly showed unto me but
> > specially for the faithful guiding and true dispositions showed
> for
> > your provident and sure ordering of the King our sovereign's
> lord's
> > city under your rule, for the surety and conservation of the
same,
> to
> > his most high pleasure, praying you as effectually as I can
> therein
> > to show your faithful eneavours with all diligence as ye have
> done;
> > and, if the case require that occasion be to the contrary
thereof,
> I
> > thereof certified, with God helping, will be at Pocklington
> tomorrow
> > at even, shall not rest but be with you the same night, like as
> > worshipful these bearers, chaplains unto the King's Highness, can
> > show unto you, to whom I pray you to give credence; and upon
> Sunday
> > next coming I will not fail to be with you at the farthest - and
> > tofore if ye think it requisite - that knoweth Our Father
> celestial,
> > whom I beseech to be your everlasting protector. Written in my
> manor
> > of Leconfield the 8th day of June."
> >
> > 5) City's account of the rebellion, 8-17 June 1487:
> >
> > "The process of the battle beside Newark in the third year of the
> > reign of King Henry the VIIth:
> > Saturday the 8th of June [apparently 8th was actually a Friday]
> the
> > year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry the Seventh,
at
> > afternoon of the same day, the chamberlains (sent in message unto
> the
> > lords of Lincoln and Lovell and other herebefore named) came in
at
> > Micklegate Bar and there showed unto my Lord the Mayor and other
> his
> > brethren being present how the said lords and their retinue was
> > departed over Brugh Bridge [the bridge at Boroughbridge, which
> lies
> > between Masham and York?] and so straight southward, not
intending
> to
> > come nigh this city to do any prejudice or hurt unto the same.
> And,
> > incontinently after their coming, the Lord Clifford sent word
unto
> my
> > Lord Mayor that he might come in with his folks ans retinue for
to
> > assist and support the Mayor and the commonalty of this city if
> any
> > of the King's enemies would approach unto the same; whereunto the
> > Mayor consented and granted that he should so have his entry, and
> > caused all the street of Micklegate to be garnished with men in
> > harness to the number of 600 persons and more. And within the
> space
> > of an hour after, received the said Lord Clifford at Micklegate
> Bar
> > with 400 persons of footmen and horsemen into the said city, and
> sent
> > unto him a present of wine and [blank] according to his honour.
> >
> > And upon Trinity Sunday at noon my Lord of Northumberland, with
> many
> > knights and lords of this country, came to this city. And the
same
> > day at afternoon the Lord Clifford took his journey towards the
> > King's enemies lying upon Bramham Moor, and lodged himself that
> night
> > at Tadcaster; but the same night the King's enemies lying nigh to
> the
> > same town came upon the said Lord Clifford's folks and made a
> great
> > skirmish there, into so much that he, with such folks as he might
> > get, returned to the city again. And at that same skirmish were
> slain
> > and maimed diverse of the said town [ie Tadcaster], and the
> > inhabitants thereof were spoiled and robbed. And the 'gardewyans'
> and
> > trussing coffers of the Lord Clifford were taken off the bridge
by
> > misfortune and had unto the other party.
> >
> > Also ,upon the Tuesday after that, the Earl of Northumberland,
> Lord
> > Clifford and many other nobles, accompanied with 6,000 numbered,
> > departed southward toward the King's Grace at 11 of the clock.
And
> > anon after his departure the lords Scropes of Bolton and Upsall,
> > constrained as it was said by their folks, came on horseback to
> > Bootham Bar, and there cried 'King Edward' and made assault at
the
> > gates; but the commons being watchmen there well and manly
> defended
> > them and put them to flight. And, incontinently, the Mayor, upon
> > knowledge threupon, accompanied with a 100 persons in harness,
> made
> > his proclamation throughout the city in the name of King Henry
the
> > Seventh, charging all manner of franchised men and other resident
> > within this city forthwith to be in harness and attend upon the
> > wardens, and that every warden should keep his ward at his
> jeopardy,
> > and that all manner of strangers in harness should depart forth
of
> > the city at the south gate, under pain of forfeiture of his
> harness
> > and his body to prison. The Earl of Northumberland having
> knowledge
> > thereof, being within 6 miles of the city, sent in message unto
> the
> > Mayor and desired him that he might come and enter the city again
> for
> > diverse considerations and causes him moving. Whereupon the
Mayor,
> by
> > the advice of his brethren, sent Master Vavasour, Recorder, and 3
> of
> > his brethren aldermen with other of the council of this city,
> > accompanied with 12 horse, in message unto the said earl, showing
> how
> > he should be welcome to the said city and as many as he would
> > undertake were the king's true liegemen, and caused all the
street
> of
> > Micklegate to be garnished with men in harness to the number of
> 4,000.
> >
> > And, incontinently thereupon, the said earl, the Lord Clifford
and
> > other many nobles, accompanied with 4,000 men and more, was
> > thankfully received unto the said city and there continued to
> > Thursday, Corpus Christi Day, and the same day at noon hastily
the
> > said lords took their journey towards the north parts.
> >
> > Proclamation of the deferring of Corpus Christi play. Upon Corpus
> > Christi Eve proclamation was made through the city that the play
> of
> > the same. . . should be deferred unto the Sunday next after the
> feast
> > of St Thomas of Canterebury, and then after,it was deferred to
the
> > Sunday next after the feast of St Peter called ad Vincula [1st
> > August] because of the king's coming hither.
> >
> > The Saturday next after the feast of Corpus Christi, the King,
> lying
> > with a great power divided in three hosts beyond Newark the
> wayward
> > of the same, in the which the Earl of Oxford, the Lord Strange,
> Sir
> > John Cheyney, the Earl of Shrewsbury and many other, to the
number
> of
> > 10,000, met with the lords of Lincoln and Lovell with other many
> > nobles, as well of Englishmen as Irishmen and other, to the
number
> of
> > 20,000 of the more beyond Newark, and there was a sore battle, in
> the
> > which the Earl of Lincoln and many other, as well Englishmen as
> > Irish, to the number of 5,000, were slain and murdered. The Lord
> > Lovell was discomfited, and fled with Sir Thomas Broughton and
> many
> > other; and the child which they called their king was taken and
> > brought unto the King's Grace; and many other in great number,
> which
> > was judged to death at Lincoln and other places thereabout, etc.
> >
> > And upon Sunday by 3 of the clock in the morning tidings came to
> my
> > Lord Mayor from the field, how Almighty God had sent the King
> victory
> > of his enemies and rebels, and thereupon my Lord Mayor, taking
> with
> > him his brother aldermen with the whole council of this city,
upon
> > certain knowledge of the victory foresaid, showed by the mouth of
> a
> > servant of Master Recorder coming straight from the said field,
> came
> > to the cathedral church of York and there caused all the
ministers
> of
> > the same to make lovings to Our Saviour for the triumph and
> victory
> > foresaid, singing solemnly in the high choir of the said church
> the
> > psalm of Te Deum Laudamus with other suffragies."
> >
> > I think there's an interesting sub-text to all this. There are
> > several notices in the books of arrests and bonds to keep the
> peace
> > in June of 1487, and also a copy of a letter from Henry VII
> ordering
> > the city to organise that thanksgiving service, complete
> > with "lovings".
> >
> > Marie
>
> Crikey Marie! I got a bit lost between which bits were the
documents
> and which bits were your blurb between! You seem to have some blurb
> within speech marks and in "medieval speak" or have I got that
> wrong? I am trying to separate them into individual sources for the
> aforementioned sprogs!
> Brunhild

I'll check it over, but the original does have blurb in between, if
you see what I mean. The clerk noted the receipt of a letter, or the
city having sent a letter, then quoted it, and maybe then gave other
information. So yes, the medieval-speak blurb in speechmarks is the
clerk in York, and the bits that look like documents are records of
correspnodence. All but the last item, that is, whch is just the
city's official interpretation of the Yorkist march and the Battle of
Stoke. As far as I'm aware, everything in speechmarks IS the
original, and not me.

Marie

Yesm just checked both messages. Everything in speech marks that
should be. And nothing that shouldn't.

I shouldn't have started lapsing into medieval-speak myself, should
I? Very confusing.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Herewith followeth the remainder of the stuff from the York House
> Books. I'll quote in full, Katy, for Brunhild's sprogs, then precis
> in next message for the convenience of the general public.
>
> This, then picks up with Northumberland's letter to the city of 8th
> June:
>
>
> Marie

I understood that last letter -- bless Henry Percy for being a clear
writer. It was Henry Percy, wasn't it? The Earl of Northumberland
almost always is, from time immemorial to the preesent day. They've
had quite a run of surviving eldest sons inevitably named Henry. Or
maybe his secretary was a clear writer. Bless whoever it was.

Though I understood text, I doubt that I comprehended the sub-text
and the shades of meaning no doubt hidden in it, and I eagerly await
your analysis, Marie.

Katy

> I'll check it over, but the original does have blurb in between,
if
> you see what I mean. The clerk noted the receipt of a letter, or
the
> city having sent a letter, then quoted it, and maybe then gave
other
> information. So yes, the medieval-speak blurb in speechmarks is
the
> clerk in York, and the bits that look like documents are records
of
> correspnodence. All but the last item, that is, whch is just the
> city's official interpretation of the Yorkist march and the Battle
of
> Stoke. As far as I'm aware, everything in speechmarks IS the
> original, and not me.
>
> Marie

Thanks, I will look at it again with that in mind! Monday is R3
lesson - looking at personality, Thursday will be battle day and
that is my ration sadly on R, but I intend to make every source and
minute count - by Monday afternoon they will at the very least have
an open mind and at best will be converts!
Brunhild

Re those bits from the York records.

They record a city staunchly loyal to Henry VII by this time, and you
might think they were unsympathetic to the Yorkist rebels.

As it happens, having spent some hours in the local A & E with my son
this week, I've almost finished Bennett's 'Lambert Sminel', and he's
got a passage which sums up the situation for me:
The process of the city's readjustment to the new order "was greatly
facilitated by the rise. . . of a new group of aldermen, including
Richard York and William Todd, and by the earl of Northumberland's
settlement with the king and re-establishment in the north. King
Henry's visit to York in April 1486 confirmed both the advantages to
be derived from good relations with the crown and the folly of
continued reistance. As rumours of invasion and insurrection spread
in the spring of 1487, therefore, the mayor and aldermen of York
acted with studious loyalty, keeping the governement informed of all
matters that came to their notice, and taking the initiative in
making the city a loyalist stronghold. . . A number of obscure
incidents in the city early in May, moreover, suggest that even if
the ruling counci had reconciled intself to the new rgime some of the
townsmen at least were less than happy about it. Two tradesmen were
reported to the authorities for declaring on separate occasions that
the people would not tolerate knights and men-at-arms being brought
in to secure the city. Then one night William Welles, a former mayor,
was murdered while commanding the watch at Bootham Bar." (p78)
The House Books show that Henry VII himself got personally involved
with that particular case, and I get the strong impression that both
the carrot and the stick were being used by Henry and Northumberland
to maintain the city's loyalty.

Now the mayor at the time of Lincoln's invasion was the above-named
William Todd. He was in constant touch with King Henry, and Henry
wrote on 15th May promising him that if the rebels tried to attack
the city he would send a force to their aid, and also that
Northumberland was just about to rush down to the vicinity of the
city in force.
Very resassuring for those who wanted to be loyal to the Kinng.

And a strong warning to those who didn't that they wouldn't stand a
chance. Northumberland's oh-so-friendly letter of 6th June also has
that double effect. A huge solace to Tudor's loyal men, and a strong
warning to anybody thinking of declaring for the rebels that he and
his army would be in York "on Sunday next coming" so they'd better
think again.

I can check, but I don't recall from earlier times examples of the
city keeping such a copious record of its doings, or the shows of
hands, and it all reads to me as if this was a record written (quite
unlike the record of Richard's death at Bosworth) with one eye over
the shoulder.

The records make very clear that the Mayor and council made up their
minds to remain loyal to King Henry, but I do not find any evidence
that they actually felt any hostility towards the rebels. They are
quite respectfully referred to as "the Lord of Lincoln and Lovell and
others"; they are at least once referred to as "the king's enemies"
but never as the writer's enemies, still less rebels or traitors.

The city decided not to open its gates to the rebels - and with
Northumberland and Edward Woodville breathing down their necks they
can hardly have done otherwise. But, whereas the letter from "Edward
VI" had only asked that they send the reply back via their own
messenger, the city in fact sent three chamberlains of its own to
relay their refusal to the rebels at Masham (NW of York), which I
suggest shows at the very least an interest in getting back some
intelligence from them. (In fact, "Edward VI's" letter shows that
what he mainly wanted from the city was lodging and victuals, and I
wonder if these 3 men may have been given some provisions for
Lincoln, undeclared in the city's records, but that is speculation.)
Also, since the records state that these Chamberlains "came in again
at Micklegate Bar" - the entry to the city from the south - I can
only conclude that they did nbot just visit the rebels but rode with
their army for some miles - whether to ensure that they really did
bypass the city or to provide moral support and perhaps useful local
intelligence, who knows. Certainly, the rebels seem to have been
aware of Clifford's attempt to sneak up on them the following day,
and surprised and routed him that night. At the least I think the
pragmatic Mayor Todd would have made sure that he stayed as friendly
as possible with both sides - just in case the Yorkists won.
But for me what really suggests that even Todd and his pragmatists
secretly wished the rebls well is their description of Stoke, and of
how Lincoln and 5,000 Englishmen and Irishmen were there "slain and
murdered". Not the words one would normally choose to describe
traitors slain in battle. But ones all Ricardians will be aware of
having been used earlier in the York records in the context of a
Yorkist defeat. There is nothing in the description of the battle
that suggests the city council were pleased or relieved at its
outcome.
Until, in the next paragraph, we read how the city gave thanks for
the victory, and caused the cathedral "to give lovings to Our
Saviour". They WERE pleased, then.
Or were they really? A few pages later is recorded the text of a
letter sent by the King after the battle ordering the city brethren
to congregate "in the most solemn church of our city" and there "do
lovings and praisings to be given to our said Saviour after the best
of your powers."

So my feeling is not that York had been converted to Tudorism in the
2 years since Bosworth, or that they were terrified by the Germans
and Irish (theire is no suggestion of that at all) but that the
merchants who ran the city had decided that they had to knuckle down
if they were to survive. But the underlying tensions can be felt, and
perhaps culminated in the Earl of Northumberland's murder two years
later.

Incidentally, as regards the question of who was Richard's heir,
Bennett (who assumes it was Lincoln) relates that the reason
Northumberland was imprisoned after Bosworth was apparently because
he was in favour of Warwick being made king after richard's death.

By the by, Brunhild, if you haven't got Bennett's book it's well
worth while getting hold of a copy as the appendices include the
relevant chunks of Andre, Vergil, Molinet and the account of Henry
VII's herald.

Incidentally, as regards the normal suggestion that the northern
Yorkists were put off joining lincoln by the Germans and the Irish
(especially the Irish), there doesn't seem to be any contemporary
suggestion of this. Bennett notes the extraordinary speed of the
army's advance across the Pennines and suggests that they simply
weren't giving themselves time to recruit, or their wellwishers time
to catch up with them.
(Martin Schwartz and his men
Went up the hills and down again"??
He doesn't suggest why, but there may be many reasons: unwillingness
to outstay their welcome (armies, like young Hobbits, need a lot of
provender), and awareness that Henry had had a long time in which to
prepare his resistance, given that the doings in Ireland had been
known about since the previous year, and they had to try to strike
before his own army was fully mobilised. Thirdly, they may have been
expecting to be joined by other supporters further south, people who
perhaps were put off or prevented by Henry's extremely successful
network of what I can only call a cross between local military
governors and spies.

The York records suggest that Lincoln's army vastly outnumbered
Henry's, but apparently the opposite was true.

As regards the Irish soldiers, I think there are two reasons why they
were so easily overwhelmed. Firstly, of course, they were not exactly
up-to-date in arms or equipment (and of course 'naked' in medieval
texts doesn't mean no clothes, just not properly dressed for the
occasion). Secondly, it sound as though, almost inevitably, the bulk
of the Gaelic Irish who went over were footsoldiers (there would I
think have been a limit to the number of horses which could have been
shipped across). Now, the kern or Gaelic footsoldiers were ferocious
and dexterous but had nothing in the way of weapons to match the
English longbowmen or pikemen. Nor would they have been anywhere near
as useful as the Gaelic cavalry soldiers, who were a big notch above
socially, and significantly better dressed and armed. But, really,
Gaelic Ireland was like a little bit of the Classical world stuck in
a time-warp on the margins of Europe. It's probably useful to think
in terms of (Native American) Indians v. the US cavalry. They were
best deployed in guerilla warfare - ambush situations and the like
(and they seem to have been successful against Clifford) - but
completely out of their depth in a pitched battle where they were
badly outnumbered.

Incidentally, Bennett says that the Archbishop of Armagh who got up
Lincoln's nose by refusing to participate in "Warwick's" coronation
was an Italian who had been persuaded that said lad was an imposter
by a letter written to him by his "brother" Archbishop of Canterbury.

Morton again!

Marie

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

>
>> Incidentally, Bennett says that the Archbishop of Armagh who got
up
> Lincoln's nose by refusing to participate in "Warwick's" coronation
> was an Italian who had been persuaded that said lad was an imposter
> by a letter written to him by his "brother" Archbishop of
Canterbury.
>
> Morton again!
>
> Marie

That makes me wonder if the Archbishop of Armagh (he is Canterbury's
equivalent, isn't he? ie, the head of the Church in Ireland?) was
supposed to in turn persuade the bishops of Ireland not to accept
Edward VI or participate in his coronation, and they disobeyed him.

Katy

This is from Francis Bacon's history of Henry VII, written early in
the 17th century:

"So that with marvellous consent and applause this counterfeit
Plantagenet was brought with great solemnity to the castle of Dublin,
and there saluted, served, and honoured as king; the boy becoming it
well, and doing nothing that did betray the baseness of his
condition. And within a few days after he was proclaimed king in
Dublin, by the name of King Edward the Sixth, there being not a sword
drawn in King Henry's quarrel.

"The king was much moved with this unexpected accident when it came
to his ears, both because it struck upon that string which ever he
most feared, as also because it was stirred in such a place where he
could not with safety transfer his own person to suppress it. For
partly through natural valour, and partly through an universal
suspicion, not knowing whom to trust, he was ever ready to wait upon
all his achievements in person. The king, therefore, first called his
council together at the charter-house at Shine; which council was
held with great secrecy, but the open decrees thereof, which
presently came abroad, were three.

"The first was, that the queen dowager, for that she, contrary to her
pact and agreement with those that had concluded with her concerning
the marriage of her daughter Elizabeth with King Henry, had
nevertheless delivered her daughters out of sanctuary into King
Richard's hands, should be cloistered in the nunnery of Bermondsey,
and forfeit all her lands and goods.

"The next was, that Edward Plantagenet, then close prisoner in the
Tower, should be, in the most public and notorious manner that could
be devised, showed unto the people; in part to discharge the king of
the envy of that opinion and bruit, how he had been put to death
privily in the Tower, but chiefly to make the people see the levity
and imposture of the proceedings in Ireland, and that their
Plantagenet was indeed but a puppet or a counterfeit.

"The third was, that there should be again proclaimed a general
pardon to all that would reveal their offences, and submit themselves
by a day...."

So the idea of parading Edward Plantagenet (Earl of Warwick) through
London -- or some boy substituting for him -- came from a meeting of
Henry's council at Sheen. As did the scheme to get rid of Elizabrth
Woodville permanently by sending her to the Bermondsey nunnery. This
council, called to deal with such grave problems, would have involved
Henry's closest advisors, and that would have included Morton.

So once again, Morton is in the middle of this whole curious affair.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Incidentally, Bennett says that the Archbishop of Armagh who got
> up
> > Lincoln's nose by refusing to participate in "Warwick's"
coronation
> > was an Italian who had been persuaded that said lad was an
imposter
> > by a letter written to him by his "brother" Archbishop of
> Canterbury.
> >
> > Morton again!
> >
> > Marie
>
> That makes me wonder if the Archbishop of Armagh (he is
Canterbury's
> equivalent, isn't he? ie, the head of the Church in Ireland?) was
> supposed to in turn persuade the bishops of Ireland not to accept
> Edward VI or participate in his coronation, and they disobeyed him.
>
> Katy

You're absolutely right. Armagh was St Patrick's bishopric and the
Archbishop of same was top prelate in Ireland.
However, although Morton seems to have persuaded the Italian, he in
turn was remarkably unsuccessful in persuading the other Irish
bishops - assuming he tried. To quote Bennett:
"... he seems to have been unwilling or unable to dissuaade the
Archbishop of Dublin and other Irish prelates from persisting with
the enterprise." (p66)
In fact, the coronation was graced by the Archbishop of Dublin, the
bishops of Meath, Kildare and Cloyne and a number of abbots and
priors.

I suspect Morton was also behind the bull the Pope issued during the
rising, excommunicating anyone rebelling against Henry!

However, I get the impression from Bennett that Morton had been with
Henry at Kenilworth prior to the battle, so didn't have that far to
come if he did hot-foot it to Newark to meet the pretender.

Marie

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Incidentally, Bennett says that the Archbishop of Armagh who got
> up
> > Lincoln's nose by refusing to participate in "Warwick's"
coronation
> > was an Italian who had been persuaded that said lad was an
imposter
> > by a letter written to him by his "brother" Archbishop of
> Canterbury.
> >
> > Morton again!
> >
> > Marie
>
> That makes me wonder if the Archbishop of Armagh (he is
Canterbury's
> equivalent, isn't he? ie, the head of the Church in Ireland?) was
> supposed to in turn persuade the bishops of Ireland not to accept
> Edward VI or participate in his coronation, and they disobeyed him.
>
> Katy

I guess Morton thought if he could nobble the Archbishop of Armagh he
could prevent the coronation taking place. It was no wonder lincoln
was furious with him - it would be like having an English coronation
with the archb. of Canterbury refusing to participate.

Marie - thanks. I bought it in the week and it arrived yesterday, it
was one I kept meaning to get then forgot I hadn't got as I have one
with an almost identical cover! LOL Nevertheless I am grateful for
being pointed at it and the references which I shall peruse most
gleefully over the next week or so.
Brunhild

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Re those bits from the York records.
>
> They record a city staunchly loyal to Henry VII by this time, and
you
> might think they were unsympathetic to the Yorkist rebels.
>
> As it happens, having spent some hours in the local A & E with my
son
> this week, I've almost finished Bennett's 'Lambert Sminel', and
he's
> got a passage which sums up the situation for me:
> The process of the city's readjustment to the new order "was
greatly
> facilitated by the rise. . . of a new group of aldermen, including
> Richard York and William Todd, and by the earl of Northumberland's
> settlement with the king and re-establishment in the north. King
> Henry's visit to York in April 1486 confirmed both the advantages
to
> be derived from good relations with the crown and the folly of
> continued reistance. As rumours of invasion and insurrection
spread
> in the spring of 1487, therefore, the mayor and aldermen of York
> acted with studious loyalty, keeping the governement informed of
all
> matters that came to their notice, and taking the initiative in
> making the city a loyalist stronghold. . . A number of obscure
> incidents in the city early in May, moreover, suggest that even if
> the ruling counci had reconciled intself to the new rgime some of
the
> townsmen at least were less than happy about it. Two tradesmen
were
> reported to the authorities for declaring on separate occasions
that
> the people would not tolerate knights and men-at-arms being
brought
> in to secure the city. Then one night William Welles, a former
mayor,
> was murdered while commanding the watch at Bootham Bar." (p78)
> The House Books show that Henry VII himself got personally
involved
> with that particular case, and I get the strong impression that
both
> the carrot and the stick were being used by Henry and
Northumberland
> to maintain the city's loyalty.
>
> Now the mayor at the time of Lincoln's invasion was the above-
named
> William Todd. He was in constant touch with King Henry, and Henry
> wrote on 15th May promising him that if the rebels tried to attack
> the city he would send a force to their aid, and also that
> Northumberland was just about to rush down to the vicinity of the
> city in force.
> Very resassuring for those who wanted to be loyal to the Kinng.
>
> And a strong warning to those who didn't that they wouldn't stand
a
> chance. Northumberland's oh-so-friendly letter of 6th June also
has
> that double effect. A huge solace to Tudor's loyal men, and a
strong
> warning to anybody thinking of declaring for the rebels that he
and
> his army would be in York "on Sunday next coming" so they'd better
> think again.
>
> I can check, but I don't recall from earlier times examples of the
> city keeping such a copious record of its doings, or the shows of
> hands, and it all reads to me as if this was a record written
(quite
> unlike the record of Richard's death at Bosworth) with one eye
over
> the shoulder.
>
> The records make very clear that the Mayor and council made up
their
> minds to remain loyal to King Henry, but I do not find any
evidence
> that they actually felt any hostility towards the rebels. They are
> quite respectfully referred to as "the Lord of Lincoln and Lovell
and
> others"; they are at least once referred to as "the king's
enemies"
> but never as the writer's enemies, still less rebels or traitors.
>
> The city decided not to open its gates to the rebels - and with
> Northumberland and Edward Woodville breathing down their necks
they
> can hardly have done otherwise. But, whereas the letter
from "Edward
> VI" had only asked that they send the reply back via their own
> messenger, the city in fact sent three chamberlains of its own to
> relay their refusal to the rebels at Masham (NW of York), which I
> suggest shows at the very least an interest in getting back some
> intelligence from them. (In fact, "Edward VI's" letter shows that
> what he mainly wanted from the city was lodging and victuals, and
I
> wonder if these 3 men may have been given some provisions for
> Lincoln, undeclared in the city's records, but that is
speculation.)
> Also, since the records state that these Chamberlains "came in
again
> at Micklegate Bar" - the entry to the city from the south - I can
> only conclude that they did nbot just visit the rebels but rode
with
> their army for some miles - whether to ensure that they really did
> bypass the city or to provide moral support and perhaps useful
local
> intelligence, who knows. Certainly, the rebels seem to have been
> aware of Clifford's attempt to sneak up on them the following day,
> and surprised and routed him that night. At the least I think the
> pragmatic Mayor Todd would have made sure that he stayed as
friendly
> as possible with both sides - just in case the Yorkists won.
> But for me what really suggests that even Todd and his pragmatists
> secretly wished the rebls well is their description of Stoke, and
of
> how Lincoln and 5,000 Englishmen and Irishmen were there "slain
and
> murdered". Not the words one would normally choose to describe
> traitors slain in battle. But ones all Ricardians will be aware of
> having been used earlier in the York records in the context of a
> Yorkist defeat. There is nothing in the description of the battle
> that suggests the city council were pleased or relieved at its
> outcome.
> Until, in the next paragraph, we read how the city gave thanks for
> the victory, and caused the cathedral "to give lovings to Our
> Saviour". They WERE pleased, then.
> Or were they really? A few pages later is recorded the text of a
> letter sent by the King after the battle ordering the city
brethren
> to congregate "in the most solemn church of our city" and
there "do
> lovings and praisings to be given to our said Saviour after the
best
> of your powers."
>
> So my feeling is not that York had been converted to Tudorism in
the
> 2 years since Bosworth, or that they were terrified by the Germans
> and Irish (theire is no suggestion of that at all) but that the
> merchants who ran the city had decided that they had to knuckle
down
> if they were to survive. But the underlying tensions can be felt,
and
> perhaps culminated in the Earl of Northumberland's murder two
years
> later.
>
> Incidentally, as regards the question of who was Richard's heir,
> Bennett (who assumes it was Lincoln) relates that the reason
> Northumberland was imprisoned after Bosworth was apparently
because
> he was in favour of Warwick being made king after richard's death.
>
> By the by, Brunhild, if you haven't got Bennett's book it's well
> worth while getting hold of a copy as the appendices include the
> relevant chunks of Andre, Vergil, Molinet and the account of Henry
> VII's herald.
>
> Incidentally, as regards the normal suggestion that the northern
> Yorkists were put off joining lincoln by the Germans and the Irish
> (especially the Irish), there doesn't seem to be any contemporary
> suggestion of this. Bennett notes the extraordinary speed of the
> army's advance across the Pennines and suggests that they simply
> weren't giving themselves time to recruit, or their wellwishers
time
> to catch up with them.
> (Martin Schwartz and his men
> Went up the hills and down again"??
> He doesn't suggest why, but there may be many reasons:
unwillingness
> to outstay their welcome (armies, like young Hobbits, need a lot
of
> provender), and awareness that Henry had had a long time in which
to
> prepare his resistance, given that the doings in Ireland had been
> known about since the previous year, and they had to try to strike
> before his own army was fully mobilised. Thirdly, they may have
been
> expecting to be joined by other supporters further south, people
who
> perhaps were put off or prevented by Henry's extremely successful
> network of what I can only call a cross between local military
> governors and spies.
>
> The York records suggest that Lincoln's army vastly outnumbered
> Henry's, but apparently the opposite was true.
>
> As regards the Irish soldiers, I think there are two reasons why
they
> were so easily overwhelmed. Firstly, of course, they were not
exactly
> up-to-date in arms or equipment (and of course 'naked' in medieval
> texts doesn't mean no clothes, just not properly dressed for the
> occasion). Secondly, it sound as though, almost inevitably, the
bulk
> of the Gaelic Irish who went over were footsoldiers (there would I
> think have been a limit to the number of horses which could have
been
> shipped across). Now, the kern or Gaelic footsoldiers were
ferocious
> and dexterous but had nothing in the way of weapons to match the
> English longbowmen or pikemen. Nor would they have been anywhere
near
> as useful as the Gaelic cavalry soldiers, who were a big notch
above
> socially, and significantly better dressed and armed. But, really,
> Gaelic Ireland was like a little bit of the Classical world stuck
in
> a time-warp on the margins of Europe. It's probably useful to
think
> in terms of (Native American) Indians v. the US cavalry. They were
> best deployed in guerilla warfare - ambush situations and the like
> (and they seem to have been successful against Clifford) - but
> completely out of their depth in a pitched battle where they were
> badly outnumbered.
>
> Incidentally, Bennett says that the Archbishop of Armagh who got
up
> Lincoln's nose by refusing to participate in "Warwick's"
coronation
> was an Italian who had been persuaded that said lad was an
imposter
> by a letter written to him by his "brother" Archbishop of
Canterbury.
>
> Morton again!
>
> Marie

Two things.

Firstly, as regards when Simons was taken, if at all.

Looking at Bennett, Lincoln's Act of Attainder, as quoted in Bennett,
makes no mention of the priest. If he is not mentioned in that
parliament, then that leaves Vergil the only source during Henry's
reign claiming he was taken at Stoke (and was called Richard).

I presume this was a later improvement on the facts - that he was
produced as William Simons and confessed back in February in tandem
with the parading of the 'real' Warwick. I find it interesting that
he is not mentioned as having been captured at Stoke either in the
Act of Attainder, or by Henry's herald, or in Andre's account (Andre
was apparently in England during this whole period, although his
account was written after Vergil).

Secondly, I thought you all might be a bit interested in this as a
curiosity. It is an obscure novel called "All Hallows Eve" first
published in 1945, by Charles Williams, one of the Inklings group who
included Tolkien and CS Lewis. Williams spent most of his childhood
in St Albans and apparently wrote a biography of Henry VII (which
I've never seen). His novels (which I don't actually recommend!) have
several references to the Wars of the Roses, but this one seems to
have a strong undercurrent which reminds me of Morton and Lambert
Simnel (and even Warbeck). I ought to warn that his novels are
peculiar things based on ocultism and the battle between the forces
of good and evil, the seen and unseen worlds, etc. (Williams was a
former Rosicrucian, member of the Order of the Golden Dawn, and an
expert in arcane 'wisdom').

Anyway, the plot goes that it is World War II, and while all eyes are
turned on Hitler the unsuspecting world is threatened by the real
Antichrist, one Father Simon or Simon the Clerk, who has his
headquarters in London, somewhere around Holborn.
Father Simon is a Jewish-born master of Goetia (Black Magic) who has
by his arts long outlived his natural lifespan. His aim is to attain
complete mastery over the worlds of both the living and the dead.
Posing as a charismatic priest preaching a gospel of love, he has
established a large cult following around the world, but to achieve
his ends he needs someone whose soul has been trained to make
excursions into the world of the newly dead. To this end, he has
secretly made a partner in goetia, and fathered a daughter on, the
arrogant Lady Sara Wallingford, wife of a certain Air Marshall. This
daughter, Betty, though Father simon's bastard, is believed by the
world at large to be the Air Marshall's daughter. She is golden-
haired, but also timid and ill as a result of her ordeals. The final
aim of Betty's loving parents is to send her permanently into the
world of the dead, utter the reverse tetragrammaton and take over the
worlds. Betty's real body is to be taken to lie in the lumber room of
a cottage in Yorkshire to be used when needed, while a magically-
produced substitute is buried in its place.
Things begin to go wrong for Father Simon when two young women who
were at boarding school with Betty are killed in an air crash near
Westminster Bridge (nb there was a 'Westminster Bridge' in the 15th
century, though it was only a landing pier). The important one is the
wife of a certain Richard Furnival; her first name is Lester, and her
maiden surname was Grantham; we are told she was beautiful in life.
The two encounter Betty's soul on one of her Otherworld excursions,
and follow her home. So Lester finds out what is going on.
Anyway, Father Simon conjures up a hideous body, wearing which Lester
is able to visit her husband Richard. This body starts as a formless
lump, then sinewless limbs appear, and finally "there stood facing
the Clerk, a short rather heavy-looking middle-aged woman, slightly
deformed, with one shoulder a little higher than the other and one
foot draggging a little..." However, Lester's soul is so serene by
now that this doesn't bother her.
In this form she takes Richard to Holborn on All Hallows Eve, where
they are just in time to find Father Simon and Lady Wallingford
having trouble trying to kill Betty by sticking a pin in an endoplasm
image of her. Anyway, to cut a long story short, Lady Wallingford
pricks herself instead and ends up in a vegatitive state, and Father
Simon is blasted into hell by a painting. Lester and Richard make
their last farewell and Lester trips off to paradise.

I see shades of Buckingham's Rebellion in Lester's maiden name of
Grantham and the plot's coming to grief on All Hallow's Eve at the
end of an "October closing in a deluge".
Lady Sara Wallingford and Betty remind me of Elizabeth Woodville and
her daughter Elizabeth, the Lady Bessy. The name Sara actually means
queen. Shades of Sheriff Hutton, perhaps, in the Yorkshire place
where Bessy was to be kept.

I do see Richard III and Anne Neville in Richard Furnival and his
wife Lester, particularly with that deformed body Lester is handed
after death. So why does she have a name associating her with the
place of Richard's death? Well, Williams had a belief that the dead
have a problem coming to terms with their state, and long for the
living to joing them. He says at first Lester also felt like
this: "If only he too would die, and come!" I wonder if he was toying
with the idea that Richard's defeat and death at Bosworth might have
been caused by his dead wife's desire for him to join her. He
certainly believed that at places of great slaughter the worlds are
not properly separated, and that such places can be precarious for
the living.
Father Simon, with his magically produced bodies and hall in Holborn,
seems to be a cross between the priest Richard/William Simons who is
supposed to have mentored the 'feigned boy' Lambert Simnel, and
Morton. Which, in view of our recent discussions, is interesting. His
Jewish birth may also be a nod in the direction of Warbeck's mentor
Edward Brampton. It was, in fact, this book that first got me
thinking that the name Simons would have made the medievals - steeped
in this arcane stuff just as Williams was - think of Simon Magus.
Father Simon is certainly based on this figure, and Williams relates
how:
"One of the earlier [masters], another Simon, called the Magus, had
slain a boy by magic and sent his soul into the spiritual places,
there to be his servant. . . . The earlier Simon had kept the body of
the boy in a casing of gold in his bedchamber, and (as it was said)
angels and other powers of the air had visibly adored it, at the will
of the magician laid upon them through the single living soul,. . .
until their lord became a pillar of the universe and about him the
planetary heavens revolved."
Warbeck, of course, claimed to be Richard duke of York, who was
supposedly dead. Simnel is supposed also to have claimed to be York
at first, and then Warwbeck who, though alive, was elsewhere.
Williams almost seems to be toying with the notion of the pretenders
being the originals controlled in some way by black magic (magicians
also believe they can master astral projection, appearing in more
than one place at the same time - Father Simon had such projections
of himself operating in Russia and China). My suggestion is that
Morton and Henry may have alluded to Simon Magus in the same way, but
as a joke.
Father Simon disappearing by being blasted into hell and disappearing
in a puff of smoke is presumably his own joke to 'explain' why nobody
ever saw Simnel's Father Simons.

Wallingford was a castle belonging to the de la Poles.

The Furnival family, I think, married into the Talbots. Furnivall's
Inn was in Holborn.

Have fun.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Two things.
>
> Firstly, as regards when Simons was taken, if at all.
>
> Looking at Bennett, Lincoln's Act of Attainder, as quoted in
Bennett,
> makes no mention of the priest. If he is not mentioned in that
> parliament, then that leaves Vergil the only source during Henry's
> reign claiming he was taken at Stoke (and was called Richard).
>
> Warbeck, of course, claimed to be Richard duke of York, who was
> supposedly dead. Simnel is supposed also to have claimed to be York
> at first, and then Warwbeck who, though alive, was elsewhere.
>
> Marie


I don't know what to make of the novel, but mentioning who claimed to
be whom, re Simnel and Warbeck, reminds me again that I wonder why no
one claimed to be, or to have in his custody, the older son, Edward.
It seems that he would be the logical choice, because he would trump
Edward Earl of Warwick and Richard of York. But it seems that no one
did, and that really interests me.

Katy

> I don't know what to make of the novel, but mentioning who claimed
to
> be whom, re Simnel and Warbeck, reminds me again that I wonder why
no
> one claimed to be, or to have in his custody, the older son,
Edward.
> It seems that he would be the logical choice, because he would
trump
> Edward Earl of Warwick and Richard of York. But it seems that no
one
> did, and that really interests me.
>
> Katy

Have you noticed, Katy, that several novels suggest that Edward V
died of natural causes, invariably connected with the jaw (though
that silly one did say they both died of some illness - yes, I did
pick it back up and finish it, but remained thoroughly unimpressed
and think the author should stick to fantasy). I have often wondered
why they should choose this - were there any primary sources which
mentioned him having toothache or something in 1483?
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what to make of the novel, but mentioning who
claimed
> to
> > be whom, re Simnel and Warbeck, reminds me again that I wonder
why
> no
> > one claimed to be, or to have in his custody, the older son,
> Edward.
> > It seems that he would be the logical choice, because he would
> trump
> > Edward Earl of Warwick and Richard of York. But it seems that no
> one
> > did, and that really interests me.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Have you noticed, Katy, that several novels suggest that Edward V
> died of natural causes, invariably connected with the jaw (though
> that silly one did say they both died of some illness - yes, I did
> pick it back up and finish it, but remained thoroughly unimpressed
> and think the author should stick to fantasy). I have often
wondered
> why they should choose this - were there any primary sources which
> mentioned him having toothache or something in 1483?
> Brunhild

No. Perversely, I think this is just based on Dem Bones. The older of
the two children whose bits are in the urn had some deterioration of
the jaw, which Tanner & Wright put down to osteomyselitis - a bone
infection. This has been picked up rather thoughtlessly by some
novelists who seem to be able to simultaneously associate Edward V
with the older of the two children whose remains were found together
in the Tower, and Richard Duke of York with Perkin Warbeck!
I think it all goes back to Mancini, who reports (his source being
apparently Edward's physician John Argentine) that Edward was
expecting to die. Ricardian interpretation being he was terminally
ill. There is evidence the older of the two children found buried
near the White Tower had a potentially fatal illness (of the jaw).
QED Edward V died of natural causes. QED Richard Duke of York
survived.
But that leaves the problem of whose was the younger body found in
the Tower diggings???????? (Donny Osmond, I suppose)
Sort of sloppy thinking which, I suppose, referring to previous
postings, gives the die-hard trads a field day.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> ---
> >
> > Have you noticed, Katy, that several novels suggest that Edward V
> > died of natural causes, invariably connected with the jaw (though
> > that silly one did say they both died of some illness - yes, I
did
> > pick it back up and finish it, but remained thoroughly
unimpressed
> > and think the author should stick to fantasy). I have often
> wondered
> > why they should choose this - were there any primary sources
which
> > mentioned him having toothache or something in 1483?
> > Brunhild
>
> No. Perversely, I think this is just based on Dem Bones. The older
of
> the two children whose bits are in the urn had some deterioration
of
> the jaw, which Tanner & Wright put down to osteomyselitis - a bone
> infection. This has been picked up rather thoughtlessly by some
> novelists who seem to be able to simultaneously associate Edward V
> with the older of the two children whose remains were found
together
> in the Tower, and Richard Duke of York with Perkin Warbeck!
> I think it all goes back to Mancini, who reports (his source being
> apparently Edward's physician John Argentine) that Edward was
> expecting to die. Ricardian interpretation being he was terminally
> ill. There is evidence the older of the two children found buried
> near the White Tower had a potentially fatal illness (of the jaw).
> QED Edward V died of natural causes. QED Richard Duke of York
> survived.
> But that leaves the problem of whose was the younger body found in
> the Tower diggings???????? (Donny Osmond, I suppose)
> Sort of sloppy thinking which, I suppose, referring to previous
> postings, gives the die-hard trads a field day.
>
> Marie

I think I did read that a doctor examined the boys during their stay
in the Tower and found Edward melancholy and suffering from tooth or
jaw trouble. It was supposed to be a contemporary account.

Katy

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

>
> No. Perversely, I think this is just based on Dem Bones. The older
of
> the two children whose bits are in the urn had some deterioration
of
> the jaw, which Tanner & Wright put down to osteomyselitis - a bone
> infection. This has been picked up rather thoughtlessly by some
> novelists who seem to be able to simultaneously associate Edward V
> with the older of the two children whose remains were found
together
> in the Tower, and Richard Duke of York with Perkin Warbeck!
> I think it all goes back to Mancini, who reports (his source being
> apparently Edward's physician John Argentine) that Edward was
> expecting to die. Ricardian interpretation being he was terminally
> ill. There is evidence the older of the two children found buried
> near the White Tower had a potentially fatal illness (of the jaw).
> QED Edward V died of natural causes. QED Richard Duke of York
> survived.
> But that leaves the problem of whose was the younger body found in
> the Tower diggings???????? (Donny Osmond, I suppose)
> Sort of sloppy thinking which, I suppose, referring to previous
> postings, gives the die-hard trads a field day.
>
> Marie

Personally, I think those bones are coincidental. Supposedly they
are the "princes's" because they were found right where More said
they weren't. That is, he said that industrious priest dug up the
stairs to the Chapel of St John and buried the boys there without
anyone noticing, then he dug them up again and put them someplace
else, so the fact that some bones were found under the stairs proves
the story. Huh? That handy priest dug them up yet again and put
them back under the stairs? The Tower complex is built on top of the
old Roman fort which was built on the Anglo-Saxon fort which was
probably built on the site of a prehistoric one -- the location is
strategically advantageous. If Roman workmen found bones during
construction of their fort, chances are they would have carefully
reburied them in situ. Possibly later Christian workmen would have
done the same. Who knows, without access to modern science, how old
the bones are?

>
> > >
> I think I did read that a doctor examined the boys during their
stay
> in the Tower and found Edward melancholy and suffering from tooth
or
> jaw trouble. It was supposed to be a contemporary account.
>
> Katy

I'd be interested if you did, because it would just confirm my rather
jaded view of certain historians.

I'd stake my life on it that there is no contemporary account
mentioning jaw trouble. Edward's doctor was John Argentine. I
honsestly believe the only account we have from him comes via
Mancini, who met him in France, and who says Argentines told him
Edward was very melencholy and preparing himself for death.

If your historian said that was due to jaw trouble, then he was
beefing up the account with evidence from the skeleton - which he
presumes is Edward's.

Just shows how careful you have to be with historians.

Even with Bennett's 'Lambert Simnel'. He says the name Simnel is
first mentioned in William Simonds confession in February 1487, but
he actually gives a translation of it in the back of the book, and
the name's not there - the boy is unnamed and his father was just "a
certain organ maker".

Marie

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> > No. Perversely, I think this is just based on Dem Bones. The
older
> of
> > the two children whose bits are in the urn had some deterioration
> of
> > the jaw, which Tanner & Wright put down to osteomyselitis - a
bone
> > infection. This has been picked up rather thoughtlessly by some
> > novelists who seem to be able to simultaneously associate Edward
V
> > with the older of the two children whose remains were found
> together
> > in the Tower, and Richard Duke of York with Perkin Warbeck!
> > I think it all goes back to Mancini, who reports (his source
being
> > apparently Edward's physician John Argentine) that Edward was
> > expecting to die. Ricardian interpretation being he was
terminally
> > ill. There is evidence the older of the two children found buried
> > near the White Tower had a potentially fatal illness (of the
jaw).
> > QED Edward V died of natural causes. QED Richard Duke of York
> > survived.
> > But that leaves the problem of whose was the younger body found
in
> > the Tower diggings???????? (Donny Osmond, I suppose)
> > Sort of sloppy thinking which, I suppose, referring to previous
> > postings, gives the die-hard trads a field day.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Personally, I think those bones are coincidental. Supposedly they
> are the "princes's" because they were found right where More said
> they weren't. That is, he said that industrious priest dug up the
> stairs to the Chapel of St John and buried the boys there without
> anyone noticing, then he dug them up again and put them someplace
> else, so the fact that some bones were found under the stairs
proves
> the story. Huh? That handy priest dug them up yet again and put
> them back under the stairs? The Tower complex is built on top of
the
> old Roman fort which was built on the Anglo-Saxon fort which was
> probably built on the site of a prehistoric one -- the location is
> strategically advantageous. If Roman workmen found bones during
> construction of their fort, chances are they would have carefully
> reburied them in situ. Possibly later Christian workmen would have
> done the same. Who knows, without access to modern science, how
old
> the bones are?

I do agree. They could belong to any period at all, and since they
seem to have been found under the foundations they are likely to have
been earlier rather than later.

Also, it is not totally clear that they actually were found under a
staircase or in a chest. None of the people who described the find
actually witnessed it, nor do they suggest that they interviewed the
workmen who had. There is a tendency for their accounts to get
increasingly close to More's description of the burial of the
Princes, and it is hard to be sure of anything except that the bones
turned up when foundations were being dug up somewhere around the
south end of the White Tower. It is even possible that they didn't
comprise a single burial.

It would be very nice if they could be examined. As regards royal
reluctance, we should possibly remember that even the modern monarchy
owes it's title to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

Marie

--- In , oregonkaty <> >
> I don't know what to make of the novel, but mentioning who claimed
to
> be whom, re Simnel and Warbeck, reminds me again that I wonder why
no
> one claimed to be, or to have in his custody, the older son, Edward.
> It seems that he would be the logical choice, because he would
trump
> Edward Earl of Warwick and Richard of York. But it seems that no
one
> did, and that really interests me.
>
> Katy

I don't think many people know what to make of Williams' novels, so I
shouldn't worry. I read most of them at one time, plus other books
about him, in the cause of some other research, so I started to get a
handle on his strange world view. But, as I said, it's just a
curiosity. Apparently Williams' biography of Henry VII indicates that
he found him interesting and likeable, which his own biographer
thought was odd in itself.

Like you, I find it interesting that nobody ever put up Edward V
(Smith's arguments that the 1487 pretender was really claiming to be
Edward V seem to me to evaporate on scrutiny).

The explanation in 1487 is perhaps that Warwick was actually
Richard's heir - I think the evidence there is actually quite good -
and so he would be the first choice of Richard's old supporters.

I've not thought about Perkin Warbeck for years really. However, why
did the Yorkists not make another attempt to place Warwick on the
throne? Two possible reasons, as I see it. One, this was organised by
a different crowd - supporters of Edward IV's line rather than of
Richard III's legacy. Lincoln was of course definitely dead, and
Lovell if he was still alive took no part. Secondly, perhaps they
believed that the boy Henry kept in the Tower - the one who didn't
know a goose from a capon - was not really Warwick at all; that,
indeed, Warwick was no more.

Passing over Warwick, then, why not Edward V? If the boy was a fake,
then they could as easily have chosen to train up a lad the same age
as Edward. Whether PW was the real Richard Duke of York or not, it
does seem to suggest that Edward V was dead (and in the latter case
that he was definitely known to be dead by certain people whose
support mattered).

Antway, that's how it seems to me.

Marie

>
> No. Perversely, I think this is just based on Dem Bones. The older
of
> the two children whose bits are in the urn had some deterioration
of
> the jaw, which Tanner & Wright put down to osteomyselitis - a bone
> infection.

Damn - I knew I was forgetting something but couldn't think what!

This has been picked up rather thoughtlessly by some
> novelists who seem to be able to simultaneously associate Edward V
> with the older of the two children whose remains were found
together
> in the Tower, and Richard Duke of York with Perkin Warbeck!
> I think it all goes back to Mancini, who reports (his source being
> apparently Edward's physician John Argentine) that Edward was
> expecting to die. Ricardian interpretation being he was terminally
> ill. There is evidence the older of the two children found buried
> near the White Tower had a potentially fatal illness (of the jaw).
> QED Edward V died of natural causes. QED Richard Duke of York
> survived.

Well it is one way of reading it, of course, even if not the
likeliest. I should have thought if there were a terminal illness
with him someone would have mentioned it before the suspicious
circumstances arose, or did it sudenly come on??? Hmmmm...

> But that leaves the problem of whose was the younger body found in
> the Tower diggings???????? (Donny Osmond, I suppose)
> Sort of sloppy thinking which, I suppose, referring to previous
> postings, gives the die-hard trads a field day.
>
> Marie

In fact it also lleaves the question of whose were the other two
skeletons found a while later walled up??? (Which apparently ties in
with a Burgundian source, but it's one I have never seen.)
Brunhild

Huh? That handy priest dug them up yet again and put
> them back under the stairs?

ROTFLMAO. He obviously gets about, that guy!

The Tower complex is built on top of the
> old Roman fort which was built on the Anglo-Saxon fort which was
> probably built on the site of a prehistoric one -- the location is
> strategically advantageous. If Roman workmen found bones during
> construction of their fort, chances are they would have carefully
> reburied them in situ. Possibly later Christian workmen would
have
> done the same. Who knows, without access to modern science, how
old
> the bones are?

Quite. The walled up ones are a bit more of a poser in my opinion.
The sooner they let us DNA them the better. Both lots in fact!
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> Huh? That handy priest dug them up yet again and put
> > them back under the stairs?
>
> ROTFLMAO. He obviously gets about, that guy!
>
> The Tower complex is built on top of the
> > old Roman fort which was built on the Anglo-Saxon fort which was
> > probably built on the site of a prehistoric one -- the location
is
> > strategically advantageous. If Roman workmen found bones during
> > construction of their fort, chances are they would have carefully
> > reburied them in situ. Possibly later Christian workmen would
> have
> > done the same. Who knows, without access to modern science, how
> old
> > the bones are?
>
> Quite. The walled up ones are a bit more of a poser in my opinion.
> The sooner they let us DNA them the better. Both lots in fact!
> Brunhild

The wallewd-up ones don't exist, unfortunately. Unless they're the
same pair again.

I think it was Helen Maurer who had two extensive articles published
in the Ricardian a few years back on the bones question. The walled
up ones were apparently found shortly before 1620. the story was
picked up via people who had been in touch with Raleigh and another
prisoner in the Tower at the time. A wall was knocked down and and a
sealed room found with one or two apparently immature skeletons (must
dig article out again), assumed to be the Princes, but it was
discreetly walled up again. There's even a diagram showing where the
room was, but unfortunately it's hard to interpret now the royal
apartments have gone. Perhaps if we get archaeology that can map it
out for us, but the area was subject to continuous rebuilding. Maurer
points out that the real problem is that the area in question was
actually extensively knocked around during Tudor times so it is hard
to see how bodies that had been there since before 1485 could have
been overlooked during the 1500s.
Again, there may have been a walled-up room but the presence of the
bodies may have been a lurid addition to the truth. The two prisoners
in question are unlikely to have been shown them and may have been
fed tall tales by their warders.
Since we are told the bodies were left in situ, and since only two
skeletons were found when the whole area was demolished in Charles
II's reign, there has to be a strong possibility that if there were
two bodies in a sealed room they are the same ones found in the
1670s. In which case these weren't found under the stairs. But, as I
suggested before, that may well be the contemporary reporters making
assumptions on the basis of where they thought the bodies had been
buried.

I think the source for the princes having been walled up alive is
Molinet. Again, once stories or ideas are current, they sometimes
cause people to interpret findings in the light of them. My suspicion
is actually that there was a sealed room but no bodies. It is hard to
imagine Edward V and his brother having been walled up again without
benefit of Christian burial by their so-many-times-great-nephew James
I.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> I do agree. They could belong to any period at all, and since they
> seem to have been found under the foundations they are likely to
have
> been earlier rather than later.
>
> Also, it is not totally clear that they actually were found under a
> staircase or in a chest. None of the people who described the find
> actually witnessed it, nor do they suggest that they interviewed
the
> workmen who had. There is a tendency for their accounts to get
> increasingly close to More's description of the burial of the
> Princes, and it is hard to be sure of anything except that the
bones
> turned up when foundations were being dug up somewhere around the
> south end of the White Tower. It is even possible that they didn't
> comprise a single burial.
>
> It would be very nice if they could be examined. As regards royal
> reluctance, we should possibly remember that even the modern
monarchy
> owes it's title to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.
>
> Marie

My books on the history of the Tower clearly show that William the
Conqueror built his original fortress directly on top of the south
and east walls of the Roman fort Londinium. That fortress became the
White Tower, the one in question re dem bones. If the bones were
found under the foundation of a wall, I suggest they could well have
been pre-Roman wall sacrifices. Even the Romans occasionally
sacrificed children to have their spirits guard an area and lend
strength to the wall, bridge, whatever.

The idea of that industrious priest burying the royal children under
the stairs to the Chapel of St John is even more ludicrous when you
discover that those stairs were in daily use at the time, being the
access to the chapel from the royal apartments.

However, the concept of burying a body under stairs is a very old one
that occurs in numerous societies, according to my son-in-law's
sister, who has a doctorate in folklore. The usual purpose is a
spiteful one -- to deprive the deceased of rest, what with people
walking over its grave constantly. And another widespread cultural
concept is that of throwing the deceased in a river, to be swept
away, so without a proper grave at which the living can pay respect,
the soul can never find rest. I recall that supposedly R III's bones
were disinterred and thrown in the river. As with Marie's suggestion
of the "ambitious priest's" name eing Simon to invoke Simon Magus,
the burial under the stairs and body flung in the river may also be
designed to touch on old superstitions. (Harking back to the wall
sacrifices above, that old pagan ritaul also resonates into the
present: almost every major modern edifice has attached to it an
apocryphal story of workmen who fell into the concrete as the
foundation was being poured, or were accidentally walled up in a
space, or somehow killed on the job. Urban legends.

One of my books on the Tower of London said that a room housing the
mechanism to raise the portcullis of one of the gates is the last
place the "princes" were ever seen alive and that their spirits are
occasionally encountered there. I'm looking for my notes on that so
I can quote the book, but that's about all I recall it saying. I
find that an interesting story. Offhand I'd think the reason you
might be in a room right inside a gate is if you were going someplace
and were waiting for the gate to be opened.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > I do agree. They could belong to any period at all, and since
they
> > seem to have been found under the foundations they are likely to
> have
> > been earlier rather than later.
> >
> > Also, it is not totally clear that they actually were found under
a
> > staircase or in a chest. None of the people who described the
find
> > actually witnessed it, nor do they suggest that they interviewed
> the
> > workmen who had. There is a tendency for their accounts to get
> > increasingly close to More's description of the burial of the
> > Princes, and it is hard to be sure of anything except that the
> bones
> > turned up when foundations were being dug up somewhere around the
> > south end of the White Tower. It is even possible that they
didn't
> > comprise a single burial.
> >
> > It would be very nice if they could be examined. As regards royal
> > reluctance, we should possibly remember that even the modern
> monarchy
> > owes it's title to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.
> >
> > Marie
>
> My books on the history of the Tower clearly show that William the
> Conqueror built his original fortress directly on top of the south
> and east walls of the Roman fort Londinium. That fortress became
the
> White Tower, the one in question re dem bones. If the bones were
> found under the foundation of a wall, I suggest they could well
have
> been pre-Roman wall sacrifices. Even the Romans occasionally
> sacrificed children to have their spirits guard an area and lend
> strength to the wall, bridge, whatever.
>
> The idea of that industrious priest burying the royal children
under
> the stairs to the Chapel of St John is even more ludicrous when you
> discover that those stairs were in daily use at the time, being the
> access to the chapel from the royal apartments.
>
> However, the concept of burying a body under stairs is a very old
one
> that occurs in numerous societies, according to my son-in-law's
> sister, who has a doctorate in folklore. The usual purpose is a
> spiteful one -- to deprive the deceased of rest, what with people
> walking over its grave constantly. And another widespread cultural
> concept is that of throwing the deceased in a river, to be swept
> away, so without a proper grave at which the living can pay
respect,
> the soul can never find rest. I recall that supposedly R III's
bones
> were disinterred and thrown in the river. As with Marie's
suggestion
> of the "ambitious priest's" name eing Simon to invoke Simon Magus,
> the burial under the stairs and body flung in the river may also be
> designed to touch on old superstitions. (Harking back to the wall
> sacrifices above, that old pagan ritaul also resonates into the
> present: almost every major modern edifice has attached to it an
> apocryphal story of workmen who fell into the concrete as the
> foundation was being poured, or were accidentally walled up in a
> space, or somehow killed on the job. Urban legends.
>
> One of my books on the Tower of London said that a room housing the
> mechanism to raise the portcullis of one of the gates is the last
> place the "princes" were ever seen alive and that their spirits are
> occasionally encountered there. I'm looking for my notes on that
so
> I can quote the book, but that's about all I recall it saying. I
> find that an interesting story. Offhand I'd think the reason you
> might be in a room right inside a gate is if you were going
someplace
> and were waiting for the gate to be opened.
>
> Katy

Funnily enough you've touched on quite a few oddball ideas of my own.
Folklore and mythology are long-standing interests of mine (though I
hsave no qualifications), and I've also noted the tradition of bodies
being buried under staircases. In fact, there was a body found under
a staircase in Salisbury which had been decapitated and had hand cut
off, which got itself identified in the popular mind as being
Buckingham's. I think there may have been another purpose in burial
under stairs or in walls - that of fixing the unquiet spirit so it
couldn't haunt the living. Alwyn and Brinley Rees in their "Celtic
Heritage" explain how boundaries of all sorts - crossroads, fords,
boundary ditches - were regarded as 'places between'. They were
places where one could encounter the Otherworld, but also a good
place to put the bodies of the unquiet dead to stop their spirits
wandering. This is their explanation for the pracitice of placing
gibbets at crossroads, burying unbaptised babies at the edge of
fields, etc. I imagine it also explains the habit of putting the
heads and quarters of traitors at city gates.
As regards foundation sacrifices, these were intended to 'fix' the
very building itself. Geoffrey of Monmouth's story of Vortigern's
castle, which kept falling down and needed the sacrifice of a male
child (Merlin) to fix the problem, is but one example.
So More's story of the children being buried at the stair foot would
certainly strike a chord with his readers - the poor lads' unquiet
souls etc. Whether the bodies we have really were found under the
stairs, however, or our reporters convinced themselves of same - as I
say I'm not really sure. Nobody took any notice when they were first
unrearthed, and they had to be retrieved from the rubbish some while
later. The folks who reported on the find turned up after that point;
if you were lucky they spoke to the manager of the building
operations (who hadn't witnessed the find either) but it seems
speaking to the workmen who found the bones was completely beneath
them. And they'd anyway made up their minds that these were the
Princes, buried just as More described.
Certainly you're right - there was a Roman fortress there before the
Conqueror's fortress. In fact the medievals had the two confused and
believed the White Tower itself had been built by Julius Caesar.
Books I've seen which are a few years old say the Celts had nothing
on the site of Londinium, but not only do I find that strange as
there was definitely a river crossing, but I believe that iron-age
finds are now coming up in the area of the Tower. At least one Iron
Age body has been found there.

So the whole thing seems to be open season.

Marie

> >
>
> The idea of that industrious priest burying the royal children
under
> the stairs to the Chapel of St John is even more ludicrous when you
> discover that those stairs were in daily use at the time, being the
> access to the chapel from the royal apartments.
>
> However, the concept of burying a body under stairs is a very old
one
> that occurs in numerous societies, according to my son-in-law's
> sister, who has a doctorate in folklore. The usual purpose is a
> spiteful one -- to deprive the deceased of rest, what with people
> walking over its grave constantly. And another widespread cultural
> concept is that of throwing the deceased in a river, to be swept
> away, so without a proper grave at which the living can pay
respect,
> the soul can never find rest. I recall that supposedly R III's
bones
> were disinterred and thrown in the river. As with Marie's
suggestion
> of the "ambitious priest's" name eing Simon to invoke Simon Magus,
> the burial under the stairs and body flung in the river may also be
> designed to touch on old superstitions. (Harking back to the wall
> sacrifices above, that old pagan ritaul also resonates into the
> present: almost every major modern edifice has attached to it an
> apocryphal story of workmen who fell into the concrete as the
> foundation was being poured, or were accidentally walled up in a
> space, or somehow killed on the job. Urban legends.
>
> One of my books on the Tower of London said that a room housing the
> mechanism to raise the portcullis of one of the gates is the last
> place the "princes" were ever seen alive and that their spirits are
> occasionally encountered there.

I think this comes from the identification of the tower where the
Princes were houseed with the Garden Tower/ Bloody Tower. This last
was the gate tower leading from the public outer ward ("Water Lane")
into the private inner ward, and so includes drawbridge mechanism.
However, the now ingrained belief that they were housed there comes
from contemporary accounts of them having been seen shooting at the
butts etc in the garden, and the supposition that the Garden Tower
came to be named the Bloody Tower because of the Princes' tragic end.
Unfortunately for this orthodoxy, the Garden Tower turned into the
Bloody Tower rather later, during the 1q6th century, because of Tudor
atrociities. It was called the Garden Tower because it gave on to the
Constable's Garden, which, being in the inner ward, was not within
view of ghe public. So NOT the garden the Princes were seen using.
That must have been the Privy, or royal garden, which is not only
the garden you'd have thought they'd been in (if historians thought)
but just happened to have been carved out of a section of the outer
ward, and so was much more accessible to Joe Bloggs. (Also, it was a
longer garden than the Constable's Garden, which I personally doubt
was long enough for archery practice). The Garden/ Bloody Tower
doesn't give on to the royal garden at all, which is not surprising
seeing it's not part of the royal apartments.
There are some 'sensitives' who can encounter spirits anywhere
they're asked, sadly.

Marie

I'm looking for my notes on that so
> I can quote the book, but that's about all I recall it saying. I
> find that an interesting story. Offhand I'd think the reason you
> might be in a room right inside a gate is if you were going
someplace
> and were waiting for the gate to be opened.
>
> Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The idea of that industrious priest burying the royal children
> under
> > the stairs to the Chapel of St John is even more ludicrous when
you
> > discover that those stairs were in daily use at the time, being
the
> > access to the chapel from the royal apartments.
> >
> > However, the concept of burying a body under stairs is a very old
> one
> > that occurs in numerous societies, according to my son-in-law's
> > sister, who has a doctorate in folklore. The usual purpose is a
> > spiteful one -- to deprive the deceased of rest, what with
people
> > walking over its grave constantly. And another widespread
cultural
> > concept is that of throwing the deceased in a river, to be swept
> > away, so without a proper grave at which the living can pay
> respect,
> > the soul can never find rest. I recall that supposedly R III's
> bones
> > were disinterred and thrown in the river. As with Marie's
> suggestion
> > of the "ambitious priest's" name eing Simon to invoke Simon
Magus,
> > the burial under the stairs and body flung in the river may also
be
> > designed to touch on old superstitions. (Harking back to the
wall
> > sacrifices above, that old pagan ritaul also resonates into the
> > present: almost every major modern edifice has attached to it an
> > apocryphal story of workmen who fell into the concrete as the
> > foundation was being poured, or were accidentally walled up in a
> > space, or somehow killed on the job. Urban legends.
> >
> > One of my books on the Tower of London said that a room housing
the
> > mechanism to raise the portcullis of one of the gates is the last
> > place the "princes" were ever seen alive and that their spirits
are
> > occasionally encountered there.
>
> I think this comes from the identification of the tower where the
> Princes were houseed with the Garden Tower/ Bloody Tower. This last
> was the gate tower leading from the public outer ward ("Water
Lane")
> into the private inner ward, and so includes drawbridge

sorry, meant portcullis.


mechanism.
> However, the now ingrained belief that they were housed there comes
> from contemporary accounts of them having been seen shooting at the
> butts etc in the garden, and the supposition that the Garden Tower
> came to be named the Bloody Tower because of the Princes' tragic
end.
> Unfortunately for this orthodoxy, the Garden Tower turned into the
> Bloody Tower rather later, during the 1q6th century, because of
Tudor
> atrociities. It was called the Garden Tower because it gave on to
the
> Constable's Garden, which, being in the inner ward, was not within
> view of ghe public. So NOT the garden the Princes were seen using.
> That must have been the Privy, or royal garden, which is not only
> the garden you'd have thought they'd been in (if historians
thought)
> but just happened to have been carved out of a section of the outer
> ward, and so was much more accessible to Joe Bloggs. (Also, it was
a
> longer garden than the Constable's Garden, which I personally doubt
> was long enough for archery practice). The Garden/ Bloody Tower
> doesn't give on to the royal garden at all, which is not surprising
> seeing it's not part of the royal apartments.
> There are some 'sensitives' who can encounter spirits anywhere
> they're asked, sadly.
>
> Marie
>
> I'm looking for my notes on that so
> > I can quote the book, but that's about all I recall it saying. I
> > find that an interesting story. Offhand I'd think the reason you
> > might be in a room right inside a gate is if you were going
> someplace
> > and were waiting for the gate to be opened.
> >
> > Katy

>
> The wallewd-up ones don't exist, unfortunately. Unless they're the
> same pair again.

Oh, news to me, obviously!
>
> I think it was Helen Maurer who had two extensive articles
published
> in the Ricardian a few years back on the bones question. The
walled
> up ones were apparently found shortly before 1620. the story was
> picked up via people who had been in touch with Raleigh and
another
> prisoner in the Tower at the time. A wall was knocked down and and
a
> sealed room found with one or two apparently immature skeletons
(must
> dig article out again), assumed to be the Princes, but it was
> discreetly walled up again. There's even a diagram showing where
the
> room was, but unfortunately it's hard to interpret now the royal
> apartments have gone. Perhaps if we get archaeology that can map
it
> out for us, but the area was subject to continuous rebuilding.
Maurer
> points out that the real problem is that the area in question was
> actually extensively knocked around during Tudor times so it is
hard
> to see how bodies that had been there since before 1485 could have
> been overlooked during the 1500s.
> Again, there may have been a walled-up room but the presence of
the
> bodies may have been a lurid addition to the truth. The two
prisoners
> in question are unlikely to have been shown them and may have been
> fed tall tales by their warders.
> Since we are told the bodies were left in situ, and since only two
> skeletons were found when the whole area was demolished in Charles
> II's reign, there has to be a strong possibility that if there
were
> two bodies in a sealed room they are the same ones found in the
> 1670s. In which case these weren't found under the stairs. But, as
I
> suggested before, that may well be the contemporary reporters
making
> assumptions on the basis of where they thought the bodies had been
> buried.
>
> I think the source for the princes having been walled up alive is
> Molinet. Again, once stories or ideas are current, they sometimes
> cause people to interpret findings in the light of them. My
suspicion
> is actually that there was a sealed room but no bodies. It is hard
to
> imagine Edward V and his brother having been walled up again
without
> benefit of Christian burial by their so-many-times-great-nephew
James
> I.
>
> Marie

Sounds reasonable. Not having been able to keep up with all
Ricardian literature for some years I have obviously missed out on a
great deal. Damn!
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > The wallewd-up ones don't exist, unfortunately. Unless they're
the
> > same pair again.
>
> Oh, news to me, obviously!

Thought I'd better rename this thread. Sorry if above is a bit
tasteless.

I made some notes from Maurer's articles, which I've just dug out
(sorry!). So I thought it might be interesting to quote all the
sources on finds in the order they were written, and maybe get a
discussion going:

1. 1619-22. Author Buck:
"... there were certain bones, like the bones of a child, found
lately in a high and desolate turrent in the Tower. And they suppose
that these bones were the bones of one of these young princes."
He speculates that they may have been the bones of an ape escaped
from the menagerie.

2. 1622. Added by Ralph Brooke to the new edition of his 'Catalogue
and Succession of the... Kings of England' (first published 1619):
'Richard... was (with his brother Prince Edward) murdered in the
Tower of London; which place ever since hath been mured up and not
known until of late, when their dead carcases were there found, under
a heap of stones and rubbish.'

3. 1647. Author John Webbb (b.1611), deputy to Inigo Jones as
Surveyor of the King's Works (Jones had that job 1615-47). However,
based on info received not from jones but from the from son of Robert
Johnson, said son claiming his father had been an eyewitness. Other
eye-witnesses mentioned were officers of the Mint Mr. Palmer and
Henry Cogan:
a sealed room was found "wherein there stood a table and upon it the
bones of two children supposed of 6 or 8 years of age, which by the
aforesaid nobles [Raleigh and Grey of Wilton] wre credibly believed
to be the carcases of Edward the 5th and his brother the Duke of York"
Raleigh was held in the Bloody Tower, and Grey somewhere near the
Privy Lodgings

4. 1674 or 1901??? In 1910 Richard Davey claimed to have found this
written in the margin of a MS on heraldry inherited from his
grandfather, but Tanner was unable to trace said manuscript:
'This day I, standing by the opening, saw working men dig out of a
stairway in the White Tower the bones of those two princes who were
foully murdered by Richard III. They were small bones, of lads in
their teens, and there were pieces of rag and velvet about them.
Being fully recognised to be the bones of those two princes, they
were carefully put aside in a stone coffin or coffer.'
(Certain modern writers have suggested the word 'teens' is
anachronistic, but in fact the OED does trace the origins of the word
to the Restoration period.)

5. 1674. Author John Gibbon, Bluemantle Herald, who lived in St
Katharine's Hospital next to the Tower:
"Die veneris July 17 1674. In digging some foundations in the Tower,
were discovered the bodies of Edward V and his brother murdered 1483.
I myself handled the bones, especially the king's skull; the other,
which was lesser, was broken in the digging."


6. 1675 (after 18th February). Author Sir Winston Churchill
(from 'Divi Britannici'):
"He [Richard] called a bloody villain out of his bed to smother them
in theirs, who performed that horrid deed of darkness with so much
secrecy that the truth of his falsehood could not be detected till
within these very few weeks, when some, occasionally digging in the
Tower at the very place where it seems that poor priest buried them
who afterward died for his piety, they found the coffin, and in it
the bones of both the princes, as well his whom Perkin Warbeck
personated as the King his brother, which (I take it) are yet to be
seen, or were very lately, in the custody of Sir Thomas Chicheley,
the Master of the Ordnance, to whom his Majesty hath entrusted the
making a fitting monument for them in the Abbey of Westminster."
(The warrant for the urn was issued on 18th February 1675.)

7. 1675. Inscription on the urn (translated from Latin):
"in the rubble of the stairs (these stairs recently led to the chapel
in the White Tower), deeply buried, by the most certain signs were
found, 17 July 1674"

8. 1675 (or after). Author John Knight, chief surgeon to Charles II:
"Anno 1674. In digging down a pair of stone stairs leading from the
king's lodgings to the chapel in the White Tower, there were found
the bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest, which
upon the presumption that they were the bones of this king and his
brother Richard Duke of York, were by the command of King Charles the
2nd put into a marble urn and deposited amongst the royal family in
Henry 7th Chapel in Westminster at my importunity. Jo. Knight"

9. 1675 (or after). Author Sandford, based on a note from John
Knight. From 'Genealogical History of the King's of England':
"Upon Friday the .. day of July Anno 1674 (take this relation from a
gentleman, an eye-witness and principally concerned in the whole
scrutiny), in order to the rebuilding of the several offices in the
Tower, and to clear the White Tower from all contiguous buildings:
digging down the stairs which led from the King's lodgings to the
chapel in the said tower, about ten foot in the ground were found the
bones of two striplings in (as it seemed) a wooden chest which, upon
the survey, were found proportionable to the ages of those two
brothers - viz. about thirteen and eleven years, the skull of one
being entire, the other broken, as were indeed many of the other
bones, as also the chest, by the violence of the labourers, who, not
being sensible of what they had in hand, cast the rubbish and them
away together; wherefore they were caused to sift the rubbish, and by
that means preserved all the bones. The circumstances from the story
being considered, and the same discoursed with the Right Honourable
Sir Thomas Chicheley, Kt., Master of the Ordnance (by whose industry
the new buildings were then in carrying on, and by whom this matter
was reported to the King), upon the presumption that these were the
bones of the said princes, his Majesty King Charles II was graciously
pleased to command that the said bones should be put into a marble
urn and deposited among the relics of the Royal Family in the Chapel
of King Henry the Seventh in Westminster Abbey"

10. 1680. Author John Aubrey. Based on information from his father,
who had the story from Maurice of Nassau (apparently Grey de Wilton
had once founght under Maurice but there is no suggestion that he was
the ultimate source):
". . . there were found in this chamber upon a bed two little
carcases with two halters round their necks. These were the skeletons
of King Edward V and the Duke of York.... But the prudent princess
[Elizabeth I] had the door walled up as before. However, I learned
that this same door had been opened a short time ago and, the
skeletons being found in the same place, the King of England...
resolved to erect a mausoleum, and have them transported to
Westminster Abbey..."

Marie

Re Robert Bellingham, described by Henry's herald as a "valiant and
gentle esquire of the King's house" and the man who brought 'Lambert
Simnel' to the King after Stoke:

Remember, he was imprisoned later in the year for abducting fair
heiress (on 2 September). Well, to quote Bennett:
"At least one of his associates was an old Neville retainer, and one
of his fellow-prisoners was the attainted rebel, Rowland Robinson."
(p.108)

Robinson was a yeoman attainted in November 1487 for his part in the
rising. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if Bennett is saying Robinson
took part in the abduction or not. Anyway, Bellingham went on to do
very well in Henry's service, and Robinson was apparently later
released.

At the time of the abduction the lady was living at home with her
father in Temple Balsall near Solihull, but she had been married
before, to a wealthy Coventry draper. That whole Warwickshire area
was deeply implicated in the rising, of which stated aim was of
course to place the Earl of Warwick on the throne. It seems Margery
was happy with the marriage but her father wasn't. I was under the
impression that widows normally chose for themselves. As Bennett
says, "there is much that is mysterious about the whole affair."

On the other hand, I suppose if you come from the Warwick area it
would be hard not to number some old Neville retainers amongst your
associates.

Marie

PS. On subject of Princes sighted after Bosworth, I'm freaking out
too. Await developments with interest.