The Simnel Rebellion
The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-02 16:35:34
Funny, I'm working on this rebellion right now and from everything I've read,
either it was assumed that one of the princes was alive and could take the
throne or Lincoln would simply take it once they had won the battle. I'm sure
the princes were a better rallying call than Lincoln himself was. After all,
who came out of the woodwork years later when Warbeck was making his candidacy
known? William Stanley, the King's Chamberlain!
I think the biggest mystery, then, is whether there was a prince living and
waiting in the shadows. It always comes back to the princes, poor things!
Nate
either it was assumed that one of the princes was alive and could take the
throne or Lincoln would simply take it once they had won the battle. I'm sure
the princes were a better rallying call than Lincoln himself was. After all,
who came out of the woodwork years later when Warbeck was making his candidacy
known? William Stanley, the King's Chamberlain!
I think the biggest mystery, then, is whether there was a prince living and
waiting in the shadows. It always comes back to the princes, poor things!
Nate
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-02 18:11:01
After all,
> who came out of the woodwork years later when Warbeck was making
his candidacy
> known? William Stanley, the King's Chamberlain!
>
> I think the biggest mystery, then, is whether there was a prince
living and
> waiting in the shadows. It always comes back to the princes, poor
things!
>
> Nate
>
Nate - I attended a lecture last year by a number of top historians
in London, and one (wish i could remember which!) suggested that
Stanley's fall was in fact a frame-up. What the motive for that
might have been I don't know, but the notion was that Henry was
responsible. Perhaps he had become too demanding in terms of what
reward he should get? Anyone come across this or has info bearing on
it?
Brunhild
> who came out of the woodwork years later when Warbeck was making
his candidacy
> known? William Stanley, the King's Chamberlain!
>
> I think the biggest mystery, then, is whether there was a prince
living and
> waiting in the shadows. It always comes back to the princes, poor
things!
>
> Nate
>
Nate - I attended a lecture last year by a number of top historians
in London, and one (wish i could remember which!) suggested that
Stanley's fall was in fact a frame-up. What the motive for that
might have been I don't know, but the notion was that Henry was
responsible. Perhaps he had become too demanding in terms of what
reward he should get? Anyone come across this or has info bearing on
it?
Brunhild
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-03 09:33:29
I attended a lecture last year by a number of top historians
> in London, and one (wish i could remember which!) suggested that
> Stanley's fall was in fact a frame-up. What the motive for that
> might have been I don't know, but the notion was that Henry was
> responsible. Perhaps he had become too demanding in terms of what
> reward he should get? Anyone come across this or has info bearing
on
> it?
> Brunhild
Brunhild
I can't suggest any source for it, but the idea that Stanley was
framed because he was getting too demanding is plausible. I can't
give you a specific date, but he certainly had aspirations to be made
Earl of Chester. Given that this is a title which goes with that of
Prince of Wales (an heir apparent is automatically Duke of Cornwall
from birth or accession of parent, if later, and is customarily
created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester) this was a decided bit
of lese majeste (that final e should have an accent).
Ann
> in London, and one (wish i could remember which!) suggested that
> Stanley's fall was in fact a frame-up. What the motive for that
> might have been I don't know, but the notion was that Henry was
> responsible. Perhaps he had become too demanding in terms of what
> reward he should get? Anyone come across this or has info bearing
on
> it?
> Brunhild
Brunhild
I can't suggest any source for it, but the idea that Stanley was
framed because he was getting too demanding is plausible. I can't
give you a specific date, but he certainly had aspirations to be made
Earl of Chester. Given that this is a title which goes with that of
Prince of Wales (an heir apparent is automatically Duke of Cornwall
from birth or accession of parent, if later, and is customarily
created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester) this was a decided bit
of lese majeste (that final e should have an accent).
Ann
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-03 12:44:33
>
>
> Brunhild
> I can't suggest any source for it, but the idea that Stanley was
> framed because he was getting too demanding is plausible. I can't
> give you a specific date, but he certainly had aspirations to be
made
> Earl of Chester. Given that this is a title which goes with that
of
> Prince of Wales (an heir apparent is automatically Duke of
Cornwall
> from birth or accession of parent, if later, and is customarily
> created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester) this was a decided
bit
> of lese majeste (that final e should have an accent).
>
Quite! Ann - you can achieve the é by hitting "alt 130" (using
numbers to right of keyboard).
Brunhild
>
> Brunhild
> I can't suggest any source for it, but the idea that Stanley was
> framed because he was getting too demanding is plausible. I can't
> give you a specific date, but he certainly had aspirations to be
made
> Earl of Chester. Given that this is a title which goes with that
of
> Prince of Wales (an heir apparent is automatically Duke of
Cornwall
> from birth or accession of parent, if later, and is customarily
> created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester) this was a decided
bit
> of lese majeste (that final e should have an accent).
>
Quite! Ann - you can achieve the é by hitting "alt 130" (using
numbers to right of keyboard).
Brunhild
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-03 19:29:05
I've just got down the Society Festschrift, which has an article on
Lincoln by Wendy Moorhen. She is of the opinion that he did fight at
Bosworth (perhaps NOT what one would expect if he were Richard's
heir).
She says rumours of Warwick's escape started circulating in the
spring of 1486.
On 29 November 1486 Thomas Betanson wrote from London to to Sir
Robert Plumpton:
"Also hereis but litle spech [...] of the earle of Warwick now, but
after /christenmas they say thur wylbe more spech of. Also ther by
mayny enimies on the see, & dyvers schippes take, & ther be many take
of the kynges house for theves."
She says that in February 1487 "Sir Willliam Simonds", a 28-yr-old
priest from Oxford, confessed to "abducting" the son of an unnamed
Oxford organ-maker and taking him to Ireland, where he "was reputed
to be the Earl of Warwick", and that he had consorted with Lovell in
Furness. However, she gives as her source only Bennett's book on
Simnel, so I can't tell whether this confession is known of from a
strictly contemporary source or one of the later Tudor histories*.
Warwick's being shown in public on 18th/19th February, however, is
apparently in both Vergil and Cardinal Morton's register. He was
taken to Sheen where "Lincoln daily spoke with him" - but footnotes
suggest source for this is either Vergil or Leland.
Elizabeth Woodville went off to Bermondsey Abbey and was deprived of
her estates, and a few weeks later Dorset was arrested and sent to
the Tower. Stillington refused to appear before the King and took
refuge in Oxford - on 7 March Henry wrote to the city authorities
demanding they surrender him. On 9 March Lincoln fled from Sheen and
made for Flanders to join Lovell.
The Act of Attainder against Lincoln accuses him of conspiring and
imagining "the most dolorous and lamentable murder, death and
destruction of the royal person of our said sovereign" on 19 March,
but apparently we do not know what this refers to.
Lincoln seems to have been completely supportive of the pretender's
Dublin coronation - when the Archibship of Armagh refused to
participate, Lincoln was so angry he "could scarcely be restrained
from doing him physical hurt" (source, Bennett's book again).
8 June King Edward wrote to the Mayor of York requesting lodging &
victuals.
I find it odd that, if Lincoln had spoken to Warwick at Sheen and
been convinced he really was still in Henry's custody, he would have
just after that fled from sheen to join the rebellion - unless
Warwick pleaded with him to do something to rescue him. But that
would still leave the question of who Simnel really was and why the
fake ID.
* Regarding the various other versions on Simnel:
1) Mentor's name otherwise given as Richard Simon.
2) Act of Parliament describes the boy's father as Thomas
Simnel, "late of Oxford, joiner".
Looking at my Chronicles of London, I see Vtellius A XVI, which
covers that period, makes no mention of either Warwick being shown to
the people or of Lambert Simnel.
Marie
3) Bernard Andre was not sure whether the boy's father was a baker or
a shoemaker.
Lincoln by Wendy Moorhen. She is of the opinion that he did fight at
Bosworth (perhaps NOT what one would expect if he were Richard's
heir).
She says rumours of Warwick's escape started circulating in the
spring of 1486.
On 29 November 1486 Thomas Betanson wrote from London to to Sir
Robert Plumpton:
"Also hereis but litle spech [...] of the earle of Warwick now, but
after /christenmas they say thur wylbe more spech of. Also ther by
mayny enimies on the see, & dyvers schippes take, & ther be many take
of the kynges house for theves."
She says that in February 1487 "Sir Willliam Simonds", a 28-yr-old
priest from Oxford, confessed to "abducting" the son of an unnamed
Oxford organ-maker and taking him to Ireland, where he "was reputed
to be the Earl of Warwick", and that he had consorted with Lovell in
Furness. However, she gives as her source only Bennett's book on
Simnel, so I can't tell whether this confession is known of from a
strictly contemporary source or one of the later Tudor histories*.
Warwick's being shown in public on 18th/19th February, however, is
apparently in both Vergil and Cardinal Morton's register. He was
taken to Sheen where "Lincoln daily spoke with him" - but footnotes
suggest source for this is either Vergil or Leland.
Elizabeth Woodville went off to Bermondsey Abbey and was deprived of
her estates, and a few weeks later Dorset was arrested and sent to
the Tower. Stillington refused to appear before the King and took
refuge in Oxford - on 7 March Henry wrote to the city authorities
demanding they surrender him. On 9 March Lincoln fled from Sheen and
made for Flanders to join Lovell.
The Act of Attainder against Lincoln accuses him of conspiring and
imagining "the most dolorous and lamentable murder, death and
destruction of the royal person of our said sovereign" on 19 March,
but apparently we do not know what this refers to.
Lincoln seems to have been completely supportive of the pretender's
Dublin coronation - when the Archibship of Armagh refused to
participate, Lincoln was so angry he "could scarcely be restrained
from doing him physical hurt" (source, Bennett's book again).
8 June King Edward wrote to the Mayor of York requesting lodging &
victuals.
I find it odd that, if Lincoln had spoken to Warwick at Sheen and
been convinced he really was still in Henry's custody, he would have
just after that fled from sheen to join the rebellion - unless
Warwick pleaded with him to do something to rescue him. But that
would still leave the question of who Simnel really was and why the
fake ID.
* Regarding the various other versions on Simnel:
1) Mentor's name otherwise given as Richard Simon.
2) Act of Parliament describes the boy's father as Thomas
Simnel, "late of Oxford, joiner".
Looking at my Chronicles of London, I see Vtellius A XVI, which
covers that period, makes no mention of either Warwick being shown to
the people or of Lambert Simnel.
Marie
3) Bernard Andre was not sure whether the boy's father was a baker or
a shoemaker.
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-03 20:30:09
On to the Paston Letters.
19 May 1486:
Countess of Oxford to John Paston:
"And for as much as I am credibly informed that Francis, late Lord
Lovell, is now of late resorted into the Isle of Ely, to the intent
by all likelihood to find the ways and means to get him shipping and
passage in your coasts, or else to resoirt again to sanctuary, if he
can or may
I therefore heartily desire, pray you, and nevertheless in the
King'sname straitly charge you, that ye in all goodly haste endeavour
yourself that such watch or other means be used and had in the ports
and creeks and other places where ye think necessary by your
discretion, to the letting of his said purpose; and that ye also use
all the ways ye can or may by your wisdom to the taking of the same
late Lord Lovell."
August 12 1486
Henry VII wrote to JP announcing he was sendinbg Edmund Chgadderton
into "those parties" and desiring & praying him to co-operate with
him.
January 24 1487
Earl of Oxford to JP:
" And as for such tiding as ye have sent hither, the King had
knowledge thereof more than a seven-night past. and, as for such
names as ye have sent supposing them to be gone with the Lord Lovell,
they be yet in England, for he is departing with 14 persons and no
more. At the king's coming to London I would advise you to see his
Highness. And Almighty God keep you."
Ouch!
16 May 1487
Sir Edmund Bedingfield to JP:
"Right worshipful cousin, I recommend me to you as heartily as I can,
letting you wit I was with my Lord Stuarde [John Ratdcliffe, lord
Fitzwalter] as on Monday last past by the desire of them that i might
not say nay to. I heard all that was said there, but they got none
advantage, word nor promise of me, but they thought, in asmuch as
they were the best in the shire, that ebvery man ought to wait and go
with them. Whereto it was answered that our master [Oxford?], next
the king, having his commission, must needs have the gentlemen and
the country to await upon him by the virtue of the same, but it was
thought I ought not to obey no copy of the commission without I had
the same under wax, wherein hath been great argument, which I
understood by report a fortnight past, and that caused me to send
unto my Lord to have the very commission, which he sent me, and a
letter, whereof I send you the copy herein closed.
As for you, ye be sore taken in some place, seeing that ye intend
such things as is like to follow great mischief. I said I understood
none such, nor things lie it, and it is thought ye intend not to go
forth this hourney, nor no gentlemen in that quarter but Robert
Brandon that hath promised to go with them, as they say.
I understand Sir William Boleyn and Sir Harry Heydon were at Thetford
into Kent-ward, but they journeyed into Norfolk again; I think they
will not go this journey if the King need. Sir Harry was at
Attleborough on Saturday; I ween he had advice there to turn again,
wherefore, cousin, it is good to understand the certainty what
gentlemen intend to go, and be assured to go together, that I may
have word - my cousn Hopton hath promised that he will be one. As for
Wysman, he saith he will be of the same, but I can have no hold.
Furthermore, cousin, it is said that after my Lord's departing to the
kinge were met at Barkwey [Barkway near Royston, on road to London?],
which is construed that ye had been with the Lady Lovell, but wrath
said never well, and in as much as we understand my Lord's pleasure,
it is well done we deal wisely thereafter. And, next to the King, I
answered plainly I was bound to do him service, and to fulfil his
commandment to the uttermost of my power, by the grace of God, wo
ever preserve you to His pleasure.
Written at Oxborough [Norfolk], the 16 day of May"
Gairdner's notes say that commissions of array were issued 7th April
1487 for suffolk, Norfolk & Essex, with special instructions for
repairing & guarding the beacons. The ocmmissionber for Norfolk were
John Duke of suffolk [Lincoln's father!], the Earl of Oxford, Lord
Fitzwalter, and 15 others including John Pasotn.
Undated
Anon [Oxford?] to Sir Edmund Bedingfield
"Whereas I understand by your late writing to me that ye have right
well endeavoured to the excusion of the king's commission and
commandment, in preparing yourself with the gentlemen and other of
the country, to be rerady to do the king service, which I have showed
unto the king's Highness, so that his Grace is right well content and
right thankfully accepteth the same, understanding the right good
minds and disposition of you and of other gentlemen there towards his
Grace. Howbeit, his Highness will not as yet put you to any further
labor or charge, for so much as his rebels and enemies be into
Ireland; nevertheless, his Grace will that the country be ready at
all times to do his Highness service upon reasonable warning; for so
much as the King's Grace intendeth to make provision to send an army
into Ireland in haste, not knowing as yet whether that ye, and other
about you, shall be desired to bear any charge thereto or no. And,
whereas it is marvelled that ye had not the King's commission under
his Great Seal, I send it to you with this my writing, willing you
not to proceed further to any execution thereof till such time as ye
have otherwise in commandment, always thanking heartily the gentlemen
and all other for their food wills towards me."
The remnants of a list of men knighted at Stoke included Bedingfield
and john Paston.
Marie
19 May 1486:
Countess of Oxford to John Paston:
"And for as much as I am credibly informed that Francis, late Lord
Lovell, is now of late resorted into the Isle of Ely, to the intent
by all likelihood to find the ways and means to get him shipping and
passage in your coasts, or else to resoirt again to sanctuary, if he
can or may
I therefore heartily desire, pray you, and nevertheless in the
King'sname straitly charge you, that ye in all goodly haste endeavour
yourself that such watch or other means be used and had in the ports
and creeks and other places where ye think necessary by your
discretion, to the letting of his said purpose; and that ye also use
all the ways ye can or may by your wisdom to the taking of the same
late Lord Lovell."
August 12 1486
Henry VII wrote to JP announcing he was sendinbg Edmund Chgadderton
into "those parties" and desiring & praying him to co-operate with
him.
January 24 1487
Earl of Oxford to JP:
" And as for such tiding as ye have sent hither, the King had
knowledge thereof more than a seven-night past. and, as for such
names as ye have sent supposing them to be gone with the Lord Lovell,
they be yet in England, for he is departing with 14 persons and no
more. At the king's coming to London I would advise you to see his
Highness. And Almighty God keep you."
Ouch!
16 May 1487
Sir Edmund Bedingfield to JP:
"Right worshipful cousin, I recommend me to you as heartily as I can,
letting you wit I was with my Lord Stuarde [John Ratdcliffe, lord
Fitzwalter] as on Monday last past by the desire of them that i might
not say nay to. I heard all that was said there, but they got none
advantage, word nor promise of me, but they thought, in asmuch as
they were the best in the shire, that ebvery man ought to wait and go
with them. Whereto it was answered that our master [Oxford?], next
the king, having his commission, must needs have the gentlemen and
the country to await upon him by the virtue of the same, but it was
thought I ought not to obey no copy of the commission without I had
the same under wax, wherein hath been great argument, which I
understood by report a fortnight past, and that caused me to send
unto my Lord to have the very commission, which he sent me, and a
letter, whereof I send you the copy herein closed.
As for you, ye be sore taken in some place, seeing that ye intend
such things as is like to follow great mischief. I said I understood
none such, nor things lie it, and it is thought ye intend not to go
forth this hourney, nor no gentlemen in that quarter but Robert
Brandon that hath promised to go with them, as they say.
I understand Sir William Boleyn and Sir Harry Heydon were at Thetford
into Kent-ward, but they journeyed into Norfolk again; I think they
will not go this journey if the King need. Sir Harry was at
Attleborough on Saturday; I ween he had advice there to turn again,
wherefore, cousin, it is good to understand the certainty what
gentlemen intend to go, and be assured to go together, that I may
have word - my cousn Hopton hath promised that he will be one. As for
Wysman, he saith he will be of the same, but I can have no hold.
Furthermore, cousin, it is said that after my Lord's departing to the
kinge were met at Barkwey [Barkway near Royston, on road to London?],
which is construed that ye had been with the Lady Lovell, but wrath
said never well, and in as much as we understand my Lord's pleasure,
it is well done we deal wisely thereafter. And, next to the King, I
answered plainly I was bound to do him service, and to fulfil his
commandment to the uttermost of my power, by the grace of God, wo
ever preserve you to His pleasure.
Written at Oxborough [Norfolk], the 16 day of May"
Gairdner's notes say that commissions of array were issued 7th April
1487 for suffolk, Norfolk & Essex, with special instructions for
repairing & guarding the beacons. The ocmmissionber for Norfolk were
John Duke of suffolk [Lincoln's father!], the Earl of Oxford, Lord
Fitzwalter, and 15 others including John Pasotn.
Undated
Anon [Oxford?] to Sir Edmund Bedingfield
"Whereas I understand by your late writing to me that ye have right
well endeavoured to the excusion of the king's commission and
commandment, in preparing yourself with the gentlemen and other of
the country, to be rerady to do the king service, which I have showed
unto the king's Highness, so that his Grace is right well content and
right thankfully accepteth the same, understanding the right good
minds and disposition of you and of other gentlemen there towards his
Grace. Howbeit, his Highness will not as yet put you to any further
labor or charge, for so much as his rebels and enemies be into
Ireland; nevertheless, his Grace will that the country be ready at
all times to do his Highness service upon reasonable warning; for so
much as the King's Grace intendeth to make provision to send an army
into Ireland in haste, not knowing as yet whether that ye, and other
about you, shall be desired to bear any charge thereto or no. And,
whereas it is marvelled that ye had not the King's commission under
his Great Seal, I send it to you with this my writing, willing you
not to proceed further to any execution thereof till such time as ye
have otherwise in commandment, always thanking heartily the gentlemen
and all other for their food wills towards me."
The remnants of a list of men knighted at Stoke included Bedingfield
and john Paston.
Marie
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-06 10:00:28
re the name Lambert, I came across this in the Croyland
Chronicle: "To these results, which had been obtained as a final
settlement of the matter in the time of abbat Lambert, Edmund, who
succeeded him, to his great praise, added the resources of good
policy;"
Given the earlier discussion one assumes Lambert here is a surname,
but given the use of the next person's forename it made me stop and
wonder. Anyone know who this Lambert is? (I mean is this first or
surname, not is he Simnel!)
Brunhild
Chronicle: "To these results, which had been obtained as a final
settlement of the matter in the time of abbat Lambert, Edmund, who
succeeded him, to his great praise, added the resources of good
policy;"
Given the earlier discussion one assumes Lambert here is a surname,
but given the use of the next person's forename it made me stop and
wonder. Anyone know who this Lambert is? (I mean is this first or
surname, not is he Simnel!)
Brunhild
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-06 17:37:05
--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> re the name Lambert, I came across this in the Croyland
> Chronicle: "To these results, which had been obtained as a final
> settlement of the matter in the time of abbat Lambert, Edmund, who
> succeeded him, to his great praise, added the resources of good
> policy;"
> Given the earlier discussion one assumes Lambert here is a surname,
> but given the use of the next person's forename it made me stop and
> wonder. Anyone know who this Lambert is? (I mean is this first or
> surname, not is he Simnel!)
> Brunhild
Funnily enough I just noticed that too. I guess we were both looking
at Croyland for info relating to the early part of Henry's reign?
I've just been back and noticed that one of the Croyland files on the
Society's site is a list of the abbots. Checking that,I see he was
Lambert Fossedyke, abbot from 1481-5. So that's a good example of the
Christian name being in use in England at that very period. None the
less, recent writers suggest the name was very rare, and wasn't
Morton in hiding in the fens during Richard's reign? in which case he
would certainly have been very aware of the name of the Abbot of
Croyland.
Marie
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> re the name Lambert, I came across this in the Croyland
> Chronicle: "To these results, which had been obtained as a final
> settlement of the matter in the time of abbat Lambert, Edmund, who
> succeeded him, to his great praise, added the resources of good
> policy;"
> Given the earlier discussion one assumes Lambert here is a surname,
> but given the use of the next person's forename it made me stop and
> wonder. Anyone know who this Lambert is? (I mean is this first or
> surname, not is he Simnel!)
> Brunhild
Funnily enough I just noticed that too. I guess we were both looking
at Croyland for info relating to the early part of Henry's reign?
I've just been back and noticed that one of the Croyland files on the
Society's site is a list of the abbots. Checking that,I see he was
Lambert Fossedyke, abbot from 1481-5. So that's a good example of the
Christian name being in use in England at that very period. None the
less, recent writers suggest the name was very rare, and wasn't
Morton in hiding in the fens during Richard's reign? in which case he
would certainly have been very aware of the name of the Abbot of
Croyland.
Marie
Re: The Simnel Rebellion
2003-09-07 09:44:42
>
> Funnily enough I just noticed that too. I guess we were both
looking
> at Croyland for info relating to the early part of Henry's reign?
Yes, I was looking for the source re Sheriff Hutton.
>
> I've just been back and noticed that one of the Croyland files on
the
> Society's site is a list of the abbots. Checking that,I see he was
> Lambert Fossedyke, abbot from 1481-5. So that's a good example of
the
> Christian name being in use in England at that very period. None
the
> less, recent writers suggest the name was very rare, and wasn't
> Morton in hiding in the fens during Richard's reign? in which case
he
> would certainly have been very aware of the name of the Abbot of
> Croyland.
> Marie
Ah, Morton again. Seems all roads lead to Morton....
Brunhild
> Funnily enough I just noticed that too. I guess we were both
looking
> at Croyland for info relating to the early part of Henry's reign?
Yes, I was looking for the source re Sheriff Hutton.
>
> I've just been back and noticed that one of the Croyland files on
the
> Society's site is a list of the abbots. Checking that,I see he was
> Lambert Fossedyke, abbot from 1481-5. So that's a good example of
the
> Christian name being in use in England at that very period. None
the
> less, recent writers suggest the name was very rare, and wasn't
> Morton in hiding in the fens during Richard's reign? in which case
he
> would certainly have been very aware of the name of the Abbot of
> Croyland.
> Marie
Ah, Morton again. Seems all roads lead to Morton....
Brunhild
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.