Richard and the Countess of Warwick

Excuse me if this has been discussed before but does anyone have a
good pro-Richard (or at least not anti-) account of Richard's
dealings with his mother-in-law after Warwick's death they could
recommend? Did he really "imprison" her at Middleham? I find this
hardly credible but have no detail myself but bare bones and some
very anti sources, and I would like to get an alternative angle if
one is available source-wise.
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> Excuse me if this has been discussed before but does anyone have a
> good pro-Richard (or at least not anti-) account of Richard's
> dealings with his mother-in-law after Warwick's death they could
> recommend? Did he really "imprison" her at Middleham? I find this
> hardly credible but have no detail myself but bare bones and some
> very anti sources, and I would like to get an alternative angle if
> one is available source-wise.
> Brunhild

I can't think of one that I've seen, Brunhild. I wonder why
Ricardians ignore this - are they frightened of what they'll find?
Certainly I've not come across any mention of her being out and about
after she went north with Tyrrell. I checked the York House Books a
few months back, thinking visits to the city would have been an
obvious one, but nothing. Also, after she does seem to stop agitating
to have her lands back.
On the other hand, the Pastons believed Richard was trying to
persuade Edward to let George Neville come home in 1475, only his
death overtook the issue. Not something he would have done if he had
Warwick's widow in prison, I should have thought. Also, there's the
commissioning of the Beauchamp Pageant. Surely she must have been
involved in that.
As for Henry's reign, all I know is that letter I mentioned before,
which suggests that old Yorkists thought it was safe to write to her
regarding putting Warwick on the throne.
Also, did I read correctly that she left Henry all her property in
her will? Surely, with two children, one of whom she would apparently
have wished to see on Henry's throne and the other a girl needing a
dowry, that cannot have been done of her own free will.
It was Rous who said Richard imprisoned her, wasn't it? I assume that
was in the 1489 version, written to make the man who (at least
officially) had her young son in the Tower feel better about himself?

If we can't find a good source, should we do our own work?

Next project?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > Excuse me if this has been discussed before but does anyone have
a
> > good pro-Richard (or at least not anti-) account of Richard's
> > dealings with his mother-in-law after Warwick's death they could
> > recommend? Did he really "imprison" her at Middleham? I find
this
> > hardly credible but have no detail myself but bare bones and
some
> > very anti sources, and I would like to get an alternative angle
if
> > one is available source-wise.
> > Brunhild
>
> I can't think of one that I've seen, Brunhild. I wonder why
> Ricardians ignore this - are they frightened of what they'll find?
> Certainly I've not come across any mention of her being out and
about
> after she went north with Tyrrell. I checked the York House Books
a
> few months back, thinking visits to the city would have been an
> obvious one, but nothing. Also, after she does seem to stop
agitating
> to have her lands back.
> On the other hand, the Pastons believed Richard was trying to
> persuade Edward to let George Neville come home in 1475, only his
> death overtook the issue. Not something he would have done if he
had
> Warwick's widow in prison, I should have thought. Also, there's
the
> commissioning of the Beauchamp Pageant. Surely she must have been
> involved in that.
> As for Henry's reign, all I know is that letter I mentioned
before,
> which suggests that old Yorkists thought it was safe to write to
her
> regarding putting Warwick on the throne.
> Also, did I read correctly that she left Henry all her property in
> her will? Surely, with two children, one of whom she would
apparently
> have wished to see on Henry's throne and the other a girl needing
a
> dowry, that cannot have been done of her own free will.
> It was Rous who said Richard imprisoned her, wasn't it? I assume
that
> was in the 1489 version, written to make the man who (at least
> officially) had her young son in the Tower feel better about
himself?
>
> If we can't find a good source, should we do our own work?
>
> Next project?
>
> Marie

Hi Marie
Thanks, I have to confess here that a. I have half a unit to prepare
(we have a teacher off with new baby and I am covering her half of
the A level so I have quite a bit on my hands just now though
anything I can do within the texts I have handy I will and b. I
don't know about that will but Henry did have more of a policy of
retaining lands in his own hands than either Edward 4 or Richard. So
it wouldn't be out of character for him. According to Hicks it
wasn't out of character for Richard, and I have certainly seen
references to this in many books, but very brief ones, Hicks goes
into more detail and it certainly sounds nothing like the Richard
many of his own policies and writings indicate. I imagine the Rous
reference was indeed the later version (I will check later)Hicks I
don't trust - he is more biased against Richard than I had expected
from a student of Charles Ross, but he states outright that Richard
did nothing to save George of Clarence. The Pastons tell us he
pleaded with Edward for George's life. Rous said he was overcome by
grief. Paston also tells us that Gloucester took the countess north
in 1473 "some say by the king's assent", which may even suggest it
was Edward's idea. Certainly the Patent roll reference to Richard,
George and their wives holding the countess's lands as if she were
naturally dead is worrying and mkes me wonder if there are
anyprecedents for this or what the daughters thought of it? Anne and
Richard seem to have been close - together a great deal at any rate -
and surely if he had imprisoned her mother this might not have been
the case? Whereas taking one's mother-in-law to live with one would
seem to fit the bill. Perhaps the countess sought retirement but not
in a convent?
Brunhild

Brunhilde wrote: Henry did have more of a policy of
retaining lands in his own hands than either Edward 4
or Richard. So it wouldn't be out of character for
him.

***

Here are two examples of how Henry VII treated widows,
which I've found in my readings.

1 - Barbara Hanawalt describes how John Percival,
mayor of London's widow was treated:

"When [Percival] died in 1507, she was so wealthy that
she was prey for one of Henry VII's money-raising
schemes. He pardoned her for a trumped-up offense in
exchange for a paymen of 1,000 [pounds]." (Charles M.
Clode, "The Early History of the Guild of Merchange
Taylors (London: 1888, pp. 11-13, 20-21 quoted in
"Growing Up in Medieval London," p. 187)

2 - Charles Williams paraphrases Katherine of Aragon's
letters to her father protesting Henry VII's
stinginess. Williams also says: "It is clear that
Henry neglected the Princess--probably with
deliberation. ... Her servants (she said) were in
rags, and she in destitution. ... Henry had no
intention of letting her return to Spain; he had every
intention of making her useful to him in England. Her
kept her as an instrument." (Charles Williams, "Henry
VII, pp. 243-244." London, Arthur Barker, 1937)

***

According to Hicks it wasn't out of character for
Richard, and I have certainly seen references to this
in many books, but very brief ones

***

Have you seen Keith Dockray, "Richard III: A Reader in
History," p. 46 for Chancery Patent Rolls on "possess
and enjoy" and "as though she were naturally dead."
(Gloucester, Alan Sutton, 1988)?

This is cited in the footnotes to Bernard Fields,
"Royal Blood," pp. 50-51. Fields' book has been
criticized on this list. But I still think it's worth
considering a practicing lawyer's view of the case.
You can point out the variety of opinions to your
students, and they can decide for themselves what's
fair.

It seems only fair to compare Tudor behavior to
Richard's when considering criticisms of him.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > > Excuse me if this has been discussed before but does anyone
have
> a
> > > good pro-Richard (or at least not anti-) account of Richard's
> > > dealings with his mother-in-law after Warwick's death they
could
> > Hi Marie
> Thanks, I have to confess here that a. I have half a unit to
prepare
> (we have a teacher off with new baby and I am covering her half of
> the A level so I have quite a bit on my hands just now though
> anything I can do within the texts I have handy I will and b. I
> don't know about that will but Henry did have more of a policy of
> retaining lands in his own hands than either Edward 4 or Richard.
So
> it wouldn't be out of character for him. According to Hicks it
> wasn't out of character for Richard, and I have certainly seen
> references to this in many books, but very brief ones, Hicks goes
> into more detail and it certainly sounds nothing like the Richard
> many of his own policies and writings indicate. I imagine the Rous
> reference was indeed the later version (I will check later)Hicks I
> don't trust - he is more biased against Richard than I had expected
> from a student of Charles Ross, but he states outright that Richard
> did nothing to save George of Clarence. The Pastons tell us he
> pleaded with Edward for George's life. Rous said he was overcome by
> grief. Paston also tells us that Gloucester took the countess north
> in 1473 "some say by the king's assent", which may even suggest it
> was Edward's idea. Certainly the Patent roll reference to Richard,
> George and their wives holding the countess's lands as if she were
> naturally dead is worrying and mkes me wonder if there are
> anyprecedents for this or what the daughters thought of it? Anne
and
> Richard seem to have been close - together a great deal at any
rate -
> and surely if he had imprisoned her mother this might not have
been
> the case? Whereas taking one's mother-in-law to live with one would
> seem to fit the bill. Perhaps the countess sought retirement but
not
> in a convent?
> Brunhild

I've looked through my Ricardian indexes (I'm missing one, so I'll
also have to trawl through that particular batch of issues), and I've
just found two things of interest regarding the Countess. One is the
petition she wrote to Parliament from Beaulieu Sanctuary in the
winter of 1472 asking for her lands back. Apparently it's quite a
harangue. She accuses Edward of treating her unjustly, complains that
the Abbot has her surrounded by an armed guard, and mentions having
written letters to every member of the royal family in her own hand
(she also complained about lack of staff!).
The other is a Research Note from Mrs D. Court in issue 64 backing up
the idea that she must have been a forceful character:
"Within a month of Bosworth she had extracted an annuity of 500 marks
from Henry VII. In November-December 1487 she secured the repeal of
the Act of 1474 which divided her estates between her two sons-in-
law 'as if she were already dead'. This restored her lands to her
only temporarily for, presumably as part of a bargain with Henry VII,
she settled the lands on the crown in December 1487 with the
exception of the Manor of Erdington in Warwickshire, which she
retained for life for herself and her heirs. In December 1490, she
received a grant for life of a substantial part of her former lands
in sevral counties and was also appointed Principal Keeper of the
Forest of Wychwood. It is evident that at the, then, advanced age of
sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights. (For the
references to these grants etc. see G.E.C., The Complete Peerage, Vol
XII, part 2, p.393)."

At present I'm seeing where these things fit in with political events
of the time. So this is the basis of the idea she left all her
property to Henry. Given she handed them back as soon as she was
given them it must have been as her end of a deal - which she could
no way have got out of. I find it interesting that this is the first
parliament after the Simnel rebellion, the one which attainted the
Yorkists involved.

It would be nice to know where she was living during the Simnel
rising. Both that and the 1486 rebellion (also in favour of Warwick)
centred on Warwickshire and Middleham, the two main areas previously
associated with the Countess. Taylor's letter of 1491 suggests they
totally assumed they would have her support for another go. And yet
it seems Henry had no notion she had been involved.

Re that and 1490, uncharacteristic of Henry to give people their
lands back. Was this a reward for good behaviour? If so it would
appear her was duped? Or did he have a very guilty conscience? It
certainly would seem that by 1490 he believed (unlike Taylor) that
she would not use her revenues to support her son. Could this be
because they both knew he no longer lived???

I find it hard to believe that Richard could have kept this kind of
lady an unwilling prisoner at Middleham without family life having
become impossible.

Also, it seems to me that as regards Richard and Clarence stealing
her lands, Edward clearly had no intention of restoring them to her.
He was not as chivalrous in his treatment of traitors' wives as
richard was to be as king. He states categorically in one place, re
Montagu, that the only reason he wasn't attainted was because his
family pleaded with him not to. Same, no doubt, with Warwick. I'm
actually of the opinion that Edward believed the Countess had egged
her husband on.
So if the lands hadn't gone to Clarence and Warwick over the
Countess' head, then they would have got them through Warwick's
attainder and Edward's regrant. The deal that was done actually left
the Countess in a slightly stronger position. If Warwick had been
attainted, then if Edward revoked his grant to his brothers the lands
would go to him. If he repealed thec 1474 Act the lands would go to
the Countess.
Maybe tim can step in here - he seems to have a good legal head, but
since Hastings didn't land actually belong to the king in any case? -
that is the meaning of real estate/ realty - royal estate. That is
why people left their land by 'will', testaments being only for
goods, because they didn't have an absolute right to pass on their
land but could only indicate their wishes. So surely this action of
Edward's can't be called illegal even though it was very irregular?

I think Clarence and Gloucester both knew perfectly well the Countess
was never going to get her lands back. She would be lucky if Edward
let her out of sanctuary.

Marie

>
> Here are two examples of how Henry VII treated widows,
> which I've found in my readings.
>
> 1 - Barbara Hanawalt describes how John Percival,
> mayor of London's widow was treated:
>
> "When [Percival] died in 1507, she was so wealthy that
> she was prey for one of Henry VII's money-raising
> schemes. He pardoned her for a trumped-up offense in
> exchange for a paymen of 1,000 [pounds]." (Charles M.
> Clode, "The Early History of the Guild of Merchange
> Taylors (London: 1888, pp. 11-13, 20-21 quoted in
> "Growing Up in Medieval London," p. 187)
>
> 2 - Charles Williams paraphrases Katherine of Aragon's
> letters to her father protesting Henry VII's
> stinginess. Williams also says: "It is clear that
> Henry neglected the Princess--probably with
> deliberation. ... Her servants (she said) were in
> rags, and she in destitution. ... Henry had no
> intention of letting her return to Spain; he had every
> intention of making her useful to him in England. Her
> kept her as an instrument." (Charles Williams, "Henry
> VII, pp. 243-244." London, Arthur Barker, 1937)
>
> ***

Ah yes, we use the latter, and the former is well in keeping with
Empson's confession. Thanks.
>
> According to Hicks it wasn't out of character for
> Richard, and I have certainly seen references to this
> in many books, but very brief ones
>
> ***
>
> Have you seen Keith Dockray, "Richard III: A Reader in
> History," p. 46 for Chancery Patent Rolls on "possess
> and enjoy" and "as though she were naturally dead."
> (Gloucester, Alan Sutton, 1988)?

Yes I do and know about that one. I was rather wondering exactly
what the phrase meant in legal terms but am not sure. Any lawyers in
the house? Otherwise will have to ring up brother-in-law!
>
> This is cited in the footnotes to Bernard Fields,
> "Royal Blood," pp. 50-51. Fields' book has been
> criticized on this list. But I still think it's worth
> considering a practicing lawyer's view of the case.
> You can point out the variety of opinions to your
> students, and they can decide for themselves what's
> fair.

Which is what I try to do whenever time allows - sadly it doesn't
always, and I sometimes have to feed them...I do try to be
reasonably fair about Henry but I confess I did call him a stingy
little git today..... ;-) (Mind you it was an aisde with the upper
6th who did him last year!)
>
> It seems only fair to compare Tudor behavior to
> Richard's when considering criticisms of him.

Quite and we all know HT committed far more "judicial murders" than
ever Richard did.
Brunhild
>
> Marion
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

>
> I've looked through my Ricardian indexes (I'm missing one, so I'll
> also have to trawl through that particular batch of issues), and
I've
> just found two things of interest regarding the Countess. One is
the
> petition she wrote to Parliament from Beaulieu Sanctuary in the
> winter of 1472 asking for her lands back. Apparently it's quite a
> harangue. She accuses Edward of treating her unjustly, complains
that
> the Abbot has her surrounded by an armed guard, and mentions
having
> written letters to every member of the royal family in her own
hand
> (she also complained about lack of staff!).

So my suspicion that it was really Edward's dong (he was no pushover
except in bed!) could be correct!

> The other is a Research Note from Mrs D. Court in issue 64 backing
up
> the idea that she must have been a forceful character:
> "Within a month of Bosworth she had extracted an annuity of 500
marks
> from Henry VII. In November-December 1487 she secured the repeal
of
> the Act of 1474 which divided her estates between her two sons-in-
> law 'as if she were already dead'. This restored her lands to her
> only temporarily for, presumably as part of a bargain with Henry
VII,
> she settled the lands on the crown in December 1487 with the
> exception of the Manor of Erdington in Warwickshire, which she
> retained for life for herself and her heirs. In December 1490, she
> received a grant for life of a substantial part of her former
lands
> in sevral counties and was also appointed Principal Keeper of the
> Forest of Wychwood. It is evident that at the, then, advanced age
of
> sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights. (For
the
> references to these grants etc. see G.E.C., The Complete Peerage,
Vol
> XII, part 2, p.393)."
>
> At present I'm seeing where these things fit in with political
events
> of the time. So this is the basis of the idea she left all her
> property to Henry. Given she handed them back as soon as she was
> given them it must have been as her end of a deal - which she
could
> no way have got out of. I find it interesting that this is the
first
> parliament after the Simnel rebellion, the one which attainted the
> Yorkists involved.
>
> It would be nice to know where she was living during the Simnel
> rising. Both that and the 1486 rebellion (also in favour of
Warwick)
> centred on Warwickshire and Middleham, the two main areas
previously
> associated with the Countess. Taylor's letter of 1491 suggests
they
> totally assumed they would have her support for another go. And
yet
> it seems Henry had no notion she had been involved.

Hmmm, now that could prove very interesting indeed! Cecily Neville
and Elizabeth Woodville also being involved, plus Margaret of
Burgundy, and we have a potential clique of tough ladies still
fighting the Yorkist corner. Anne Neville does not seem to have been
strong, emotionally or physically (certainly not the latter) and
could have been coerced into allowing mistreatment of her mother,
but I just don't see it, and if the countess is the woman you
describe I wouldn't have wanted to be Richard living in the same
house with her under effective house arrest! We know Henry Tudor did
that, as with E. Woodville, but it wasn't beyond Edward - after all,
she wasn't HIS mother-in-law!
>
> Re that and 1490, uncharacteristic of Henry to give people their
> lands back. Was this a reward for good behaviour? If so it would
> appear her was duped? Or did he have a very guilty conscience? It
> certainly would seem that by 1490 he believed (unlike Taylor) that
> she would not use her revenues to support her son. Could this be
> because they both knew he no longer lived???

Do you mean her grandson Warwick here? If thatw asa reward it was a
very stingy one - par for the course!
>
> I find it hard to believe that Richard could have kept this kind
of
> lady an unwilling prisoner at Middleham without family life having
> become impossible.

Quite.
>
> Also, it seems to me that as regards Richard and Clarence stealing
> her lands, Edward clearly had no intention of restoring them to
her.
> He was not as chivalrous in his treatment of traitors' wives as
> richard was to be as king. He states categorically in one place,
re
> Montagu, that the only reason he wasn't attainted was because his
> family pleaded with him not to. Same, no doubt, with Warwick. I'm
> actually of the opinion that Edward believed the Countess had
egged
> her husband on.
> So if the lands hadn't gone to Clarence and Warwick over the
> Countess' head, then they would have got them through Warwick's
> attainder and Edward's regrant. The deal that was done actually
left
> the Countess in a slightly stronger position. If Warwick had been
> attainted, then if Edward revoked his grant to his brothers the
lands
> would go to him. If he repealed thec 1474 Act the lands would go
to
> the Countess.

Warwick himself was none too kind to his sisters-in-law, depriving
them through legal chicanery and real right of their lands. Anyone
would think that Richard were the only king ever to try a stunt like
this! Look at Edward I - he pulled some real corkers like the
Redvers business and Quo Warranto!

> Maybe tim can step in here - he seems to have a good legal head,
but
> since Hastings didn't land actually belong to the king in any
case? -
> that is the meaning of real estate/ realty - royal estate. That is
> why people left their land by 'will', testaments being only for
> goods, because they didn't have an absolute right to pass on their
> land but could only indicate their wishes. So surely this action
of
> Edward's can't be called illegal even though it was very irregular?
>
> I think Clarence and Gloucester both knew perfectly well the
Countess
> was never going to get her lands back. She would be lucky if
Edward
> let her out of sanctuary.

But as you say, that was better than losing them to attainder.
Brunhild
>
> Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
(snip)
> The other is a Research Note from Mrs D. Court in issue 64 backing
up
> the idea that she must have been a forceful character:
> "Within a month of Bosworth she had extracted an annuity of 500
marks
> from Henry VII. In November-December 1487 she secured the repeal of
> the Act of 1474 which divided her estates between her two sons-in-
> law 'as if she were already dead'. This restored her lands to her
> only temporarily for, presumably as part of a bargain with Henry
VII,
> she settled the lands on the crown in December 1487 with the
> exception of the Manor of Erdington in Warwickshire, which she
> retained for life for herself and her heirs. In December 1490, she
> received a grant for life of a substantial part of her former lands
> in sevral counties and was also appointed Principal Keeper of the
> Forest of Wychwood. It is evident that at the, then, advanced age
of
> sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights.

It sounds, then, as if Henry VII treated Isabel Neville, Warwick's
wife and mother of the wives of Clarence and R III, better than he
did Elizabeth Woodville, mother of his own wife and the current Queen
Mother.

How interesting.

Katy

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've looked through my Ricardian indexes (I'm missing one, so
I'll
> > also have to trawl through that particular batch of issues), and
> I've
> > just found two things of interest regarding the Countess. One is
> the
> > petition she wrote to Parliament from Beaulieu Sanctuary in the
> > winter of 1472 asking for her lands back. Apparently it's quite a
> > harangue. She accuses Edward of treating her unjustly, complains
> that
> > the Abbot has her surrounded by an armed guard, and mentions
> having
> > written letters to every member of the royal family in her own
> hand
> > (she also complained about lack of staff!).
>
> So my suspicion that it was really Edward's dong (he was no
pushover
> except in bed!) could be correct!
>
> > The other is a Research Note from Mrs D. Court in issue 64
backing
> up
> > the idea that she must have been a forceful character:
> > "Within a month of Bosworth she had extracted an annuity of 500
> marks
> > from Henry VII. In November-December 1487 she secured the repeal
> of
> > the Act of 1474 which divided her estates between her two sons-in-
> > law 'as if she were already dead'. This restored her lands to her
> > only temporarily for, presumably as part of a bargain with Henry
> VII,
> > she settled the lands on the crown in December 1487 with the
> > exception of the Manor of Erdington in Warwickshire, which she
> > retained for life for herself and her heirs. In December 1490,
she
> > received a grant for life of a substantial part of her former
> lands
> > in sevral counties and was also appointed Principal Keeper of the
> > Forest of Wychwood. It is evident that at the, then, advanced age
> of
> > sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights. (For
> the
> > references to these grants etc. see G.E.C., The Complete Peerage,
> Vol
> > XII, part 2, p.393)."
> >
> > At present I'm seeing where these things fit in with political
> events
> > of the time. So this is the basis of the idea she left all her
> > property to Henry. Given she handed them back as soon as she was
> > given them it must have been as her end of a deal - which she
> could
> > no way have got out of. I find it interesting that this is the
> first
> > parliament after the Simnel rebellion, the one which attainted
the
> > Yorkists involved.
> >
> > It would be nice to know where she was living during the Simnel
> > rising. Both that and the 1486 rebellion (also in favour of
> Warwick)
> > centred on Warwickshire and Middleham, the two main areas
> previously
> > associated with the Countess. Taylor's letter of 1491 suggests
> they
> > totally assumed they would have her support for another go. And
> yet
> > it seems Henry had no notion she had been involved.
>
> Hmmm, now that could prove very interesting indeed! Cecily Neville
> and Elizabeth Woodville also being involved, plus Margaret of
> Burgundy, and we have a potential clique of tough ladies still
> fighting the Yorkist corner. Anne Neville does not seem to have
been
> strong, emotionally or physically (certainly not the latter) and
> could have been coerced into allowing mistreatment of her mother,
> but I just don't see it, and if the countess is the woman you
> describe I wouldn't have wanted to be Richard living in the same
> house with her under effective house arrest! We know Henry Tudor
did
> that, as with E. Woodville, but it wasn't beyond Edward - after
all,
> she wasn't HIS mother-in-law!
> >
> > Re that and 1490, uncharacteristic of Henry to give people their
> > lands back. Was this a reward for good behaviour? If so it would
> > appear her was duped? Or did he have a very guilty conscience? It
> > certainly would seem that by 1490 he believed (unlike Taylor)
that
> > she would not use her revenues to support her son. Could this be
> > because they both knew he no longer lived???
>
> Do you mean her grandson Warwick here?

Yes I do! I noticed I called Margaret of Clarence her daughter in
another message. I do really know they're her grandchildren, really.
Honest.

I seem to be suffering from "Annals of Ulster Syndrome".

Marie

age
> of
> > sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights.
>
> It sounds, then, as if Henry VII treated Isabel Neville,
Warwick's
> wife and mother of the wives of Clarence and R III, better than he
> did Elizabeth Woodville, mother of his own wife and the current
Queen
> Mother.
>
> How interesting.
>
> Katy

Anne Beauchamp, Katy! :-)
Brunhild

> > Do you mean her grandson Warwick here?
>
> Yes I do! I noticed I called Margaret of Clarence her daughter in
> another message. I do really know they're her grandchildren,
really.
> Honest.
>
> I seem to be suffering from "Annals of Ulster Syndrome".
>
> Marie

LOL Well I confess at least one of my students has taken to watching
this page and if I am not careful may butt in to tell you of some of
mine! They are now familiar with the blank look that says I have
just forgotten what I was discussing!
Brunhild

Marie
> Also, did I read correctly that she left Henry all her
> property in her will? Surely, with two children, one
> of whom she would apparently have wished to see on
> Henry's throne and the other a girl needing a dowry,
> that cannot have been done of her own free will.


Ann:
And a most interesting point, when linked with the Research Note from Mrs. D. Court in issue 64:

> ... presumably as part of a bargain with Henry VII,
> she settled the lands on the crown in December 1487
> with the exception of the Manor of Erdington in
> Warwickshire, which she retained for life for herself
> and her heirs.

One wonders whether Margaret ultimately inherited Erdington. Does a record of the Countess' IPM survive?

Thanks,

Ann Sharp

Feudalism: when it's your Count that Votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> age
> > of
> > > sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights.
> >
> > It sounds, then, as if Henry VII treated Isabel Neville,
> Warwick's
> > wife and mother of the wives of Clarence and R III, better than
he
> > did Elizabeth Woodville, mother of his own wife and the current
> Queen
> > Mother.
> >
> > How interesting.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Anne Beauchamp, Katy! :-)
> Brunhild

Anne Beauchamp? I thought we were talking about Richard Neville, the
Earl of Warwick's, widow...I thought her name was Isabel. Was it
Anne? I used to have all these names straight and could juggle
names, titles, and relationships. Now likely as not I slip a
generation or my typing outruns my thinking or something and they
all go crashing to the floor.

But in any case, her name was Neville at the time we're talking
about, wasn't it?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > age
> > > of
> > > > sixty-four she was still active in fighting for her rights.
> > >
> > > It sounds, then, as if Henry VII treated Isabel Neville,
> > Warwick's
> > > wife and mother of the wives of Clarence and R III, better than
> he
> > > did Elizabeth Woodville, mother of his own wife and the current
> > Queen
> > > Mother.
> > >
> > > How interesting.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Anne Beauchamp, Katy! :-)
> > Brunhild
>
> Anne Beauchamp? I thought we were talking about Richard Neville,
the
> Earl of Warwick's, widow...I thought her name was Isabel. Was it
> Anne? I used to have all these names straight and could juggle
> names, titles, and relationships. Now likely as not I slip a
> generation or my typing outruns my thinking or something and they
> all go crashing to the floor.
>
> But in any case, her name was Neville at the time we're talking
> about, wasn't it?
>
> Katy

These aristocratic ladies always kept their own name.

Marie

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> Excuse me if this has been discussed before but does anyone have a
> good pro-Richard (or at least not anti-) account of Richard's
> dealings with his mother-in-law after Warwick's death they could
> recommend? Did he really "imprison" her at Middleham? I find this
> hardly credible but have no detail myself but bare bones and some
> very anti sources, and I would like to get an alternative angle if
> one is available source-wise.
> Brunhild

I know this is no help with the imprisonment question, but this is
what Rous had to say about her (as quoted in Peter Hammond & Anne
Sutton's book RIII The Road to Bos.):

"... which good lady had in her days great tribulation for her lord's
sake. . . This good lady was born in the manor of Caversham by
Reading in the county of Oxenford, and was ever a full devout lady in
God's service; free of her speech to every person, familiar according
to her and their degree; glad to be at and with women that travailed
of child, full comfortable and plenteous then of all thing that
should be helping to them. And in her tribulation she was ever, to
the great pleasure of God, full patient, to the great merit of her
own soul and example of all other that were vexed with any adversity.
She was also, gladly, ever companionable and liberal, and in her own
person seemly and beauteous, and to all that drew to her Ladyship, as
the deed full showed, full good and gracious, her reason was and ever
shall."

Free of her speech. . .
Patient?? ?

I imagine her as one of those poeple you dread when you're having a
baby.

They also quote the 1474 Act. The proviso about if Richard should
divorce Anne he should keep the estates, so often quoted as evidence
of his lack of affection, is actually quite ambiguous:
"if the said richard Duke of gloucester and Anne be hereafter
divorced, and after the same be lawfully married, that yet this
present Act be to them as good and valuable as if no such divorce had
been had, but as if the same Anne had continued wife to the Duke of
Gloucester."

This is often taken as meaning - probably on the strength of the last
phrase - that if they divorced and married other people he would keep
her inheritance, but a) it doesn't say 'marry other people', and b)
says the Act should be as valuable to THEM - not to HIM - as if they
had not divorced. I suggest it actually means that if their marriage
were declared invalid because the dispensation hadn't yet come in,
and they had to remarry each other when it did, that this would not
invalidate the Act, the wording of which had settled the lands on the
Duke AND HIS WIFE. Anyway, that's wot I fink.

Just a thought on the imprisonment thing. Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence, and all that. It's amazing how little survives
in the way of evidence for the existence or freedom of a lot of
people. Take Richard III's children after Bosworth. If it weren't for
her petition to Parliament in 1472 we wouldn't know Anne Beauchamp
had been shooting all these letters off. And in Henry's reign there
are only the grants and that one reference in Taylor's letter, no
record of where she lived.

The Rous Roll and Beauchamp Pageant were of course written during her
time with Richard. It would seem strange that if he'd locked her up
and thrown away the key, having got her legally dead, that these
things so extolling her and her family would have been commissioned.

I seem to recall that Rous said she had gone to Richard thinking he
would protect her, but she ended up a virtual prisoner at Middleham.
Does anybody have the quote?? This MUST be the later version - he
can't possibly have said that during Richard's reign. In which case
perhaps it should be fitted into the context of her struggle to
soften Henry's heart. A lot of poeple found the best way to do that
was to make out they'd been badly treated by Richard, then he would
make an effort to show he was better than that.
Anyway, I don't see that Henry treated her well until 1490. She would
have been kept until 1485 as a member of one of Richard's households,
so Bosworth would have left her destitute. So Henry had to give her
some sort of an allowance. It was was not huge for the mother of the
last queen - £333.33 per annum - considerably less than the average
baron's income.
In 1487 he appeared to treat her well but that was just spin for
public consumption - having her lands restored by Parliament. In fact
all he actually did was to grant her one single backwater manor to
live on. I don't know whether she continued to receive the allowance.
In fact, this seems remarkably like the deal Richard struck with the
Countess of Oxford, which we are told was so evil.
1490, however, seems to mark a big shift. It would be nice to know
the background to that. Perhaps she got matey with Henry's mum.
Perhaps it was that sob story of Rous' which did the trick.

Marie

PS. Anybody want the text of 1474?

>
> I know this is no help with the imprisonment question, but this is
> what Rous had to say about her (as quoted in Peter Hammond & Anne
> Sutton's book RIII The Road to Bos.):
>
> "... which good lady had in her days great tribulation for her
lord's
> sake. . . This good lady was born in the manor of Caversham by
> Reading in the county of Oxenford, and was ever a full devout lady
in
> God's service; free of her speech to every person, familiar
according
> to her and their degree; glad to be at and with women that
travailed
> of child, full comfortable and plenteous then of all thing that
> should be helping to them. And in her tribulation she was ever, to
> the great pleasure of God, full patient, to the great merit of her
> own soul and example of all other that were vexed with any
adversity.
> She was also, gladly, ever companionable and liberal, and in her
own
> person seemly and beauteous, and to all that drew to her Ladyship,
as
> the deed full showed, full good and gracious, her reason was and
ever
> shall."

Which doesn't actually specify what "adversity" this is, could
simply be widowhood and loss of both her daughters!
>
> Free of her speech. . .
> Patient?? ?
>
> I imagine her as one of those poeple you dread when you're having
a
> baby.

It also, in the stress on devout, makes a mockery of a certain novel!
>
> They also quote the 1474 Act. The proviso about if Richard should
> divorce Anne he should keep the estates, so often quoted as
evidence
> of his lack of affection, is actually quite ambiguous:
> "if the said richard Duke of gloucester and Anne be hereafter
> divorced, and after the same be lawfully married, that yet this
> present Act be to them as good and valuable as if no such divorce
had
> been had, but as if the same Anne had continued wife to the Duke
of
> Gloucester."
>
> This is often taken as meaning - probably on the strength of the
last
> phrase - that if they divorced and married other people he would
keep
> her inheritance, but a) it doesn't say 'marry other people', and
b)
> says the Act should be as valuable to THEM - not to HIM - as if
they
> had not divorced. I suggest it actually means that if their
marriage
> were declared invalid because the dispensation hadn't yet come in,
> and they had to remarry each other when it did, that this would
not
> invalidate the Act, the wording of which had settled the lands on
the
> Duke AND HIS WIFE. Anyway, that's wot I fink.

Do you know I have read that several times recently and thought
exactly the same. It does read as a reference to their remarrying.
>
> Just a thought on the imprisonment thing. Absence of evidence is
not
> evidence of absence, and all that. It's amazing how little
survives
> in the way of evidence for the existence or freedom of a lot of
> people. Take Richard III's children after Bosworth. If it weren't
for
> her petition to Parliament in 1472 we wouldn't know Anne Beauchamp
> had been shooting all these letters off. And in Henry's reign
there
> are only the grants and that one reference in Taylor's letter, no
> record of where she lived.

Oh yes, I was just hopingt here might be something on Richard's side
to use to hit Hicks with! (Meta[phorically speaking, though if I met
him I might just remember how good my right hook used to be!)
>
> The Rous Roll and Beauchamp Pageant were of course written during
her
> time with Richard. It would seem strange that if he'd locked her
up
> and thrown away the key, having got her legally dead, that these
> things so extolling her and her family would have been
commissioned.

Yep.Anyhow I am goingt o phone the legal brains in the familya nd
see what he kows about legal death.
>
> I seem to recall that Rous said she had gone to Richard thinking
he
> would protect her, but she ended up a virtual prisoner at
Middleham.
> Does anybody have the quote?? This MUST be the later version - he
> can't possibly have said that during Richard's reign. In which
case
> perhaps it should be fitted into the context of her struggle to
> soften Henry's heart. A lot of poeple found the best way to do
that
> was to make out they'd been badly treated by Richard, then he
would
> make an effort to show he was better than that.

Nails on head and all that...

> Anyway, I don't see that Henry treated her well until 1490. She
would
> have been kept until 1485 as a member of one of Richard's
households,
> so Bosworth would have left her destitute. So Henry had to give
her
> some sort of an allowance. It was was not huge for the mother of
the
> last queen - £333.33 per annum - considerably less than the
average
> baron's income.

The words "stingy" and "git" certainly spring to mind (again!).

> In 1487 he appeared to treat her well but that was just spin for
> public consumption - having her lands restored by Parliament. In
fact
> all he actually did was to grant her one single backwater manor to
> live on. I don't know whether she continued to receive the
allowance.
> In fact, this seems remarkably like the deal Richard struck with
the
> Countess of Oxford, which we are told was so evil.

Yes, maybe you can expand on that for me, Marie? Again I only have
basic source refs.
Brunhild

> 1490, however, seems to mark a big shift. It would be nice to know
> the background to that. Perhaps she got matey with Henry's mum.
> Perhaps it was that sob story of Rous' which did the trick.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Anybody want the text of 1474?

Marie wrote: Perhaps she got matey with Henry's mum.

***

This comment started me on a slightly similar line of
questioning: What if Henry's mum and Elizabeth
Woodville had a falling-out? Or just an ongoing,
simmering dislike for each other? Is it possible that
Margaret Beaufort could have gotten Elizabeth
Woodville sent to the convent without income for the
rest of her life?

There seems to be a lack of hard evidence that
explains Elizabeth's incarceration.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: I seem to recall that Rous said she had
gone to Richard thinking he
would protect her, but she ended up a virtual prisoner
at Middleham.
Does anybody have the quote?? This MUST be the later
version - he can't possibly have said that during
Richard's reign.

***

Has anyone published the earlier and later Rous
versions together, so that they can be compared
easily? I'm visualizing a 2-column layout, earlier on
the left, later on the right.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

> > In 1487 he appeared to treat her well but that was just spin for
> > public consumption - having her lands restored by Parliament. In
> fact
> > all he actually did was to grant her one single backwater manor
to
> > live on. I don't know whether she continued to receive the
> allowance.
> > In fact, this seems remarkably like the deal Richard struck with
> the
> > Countess of Oxford, which we are told was so evil.
>
> Yes, maybe you can expand on that for me, Marie? Again I only have
> basic source refs.
> Brunhild

Sorry, Brunhild. I thought there was a whole article on it in the
ricardian. I know I've read a very detailed one somewhere and thought
I had it. However, all my books suggest it is in the English
Historical Review, so it'll have to wait until I next go to
Manchester Central Library.
The gist is, though, that in 1495 Oxford attempted to establish his
title to his mother's lands with the following sob story. Back at the
time that he himself was causing trouble for Edward IV in the early
1470s, his old mum - I think Hicks says she was pushing 70 but my
notes suggest she was only in her early 60s or perhaps hardly more
than 60 - was brought (by John Howard and Tyrell) before Richard (as
Constable, of course)in "his" house at Stepney, and was afraid of
being sent to the Tower, or of being packed off to freezing old
Middleham, in the NORTH - which she feared would surely kill her. The
idea is he was very threatening (and so was Howard - also dead and
unable to defend himself), and to avoid the Tower or the Frozen North
she eventually made over to him all her lands. The ordeal was so
dreadful she only lived another couple of years.
The following thoughts occur to me:
1.Oxford evidently had to demonstrate coercion in order to argue his
title to the estates.
2. The best way to get anything out of Henry was to make out you'd
been victimised by Richard. His only shred of an excuse for killing
Richard was that latter had been a tyrant who needed to be got rid
of, and this always made him feel better.
3. Tyrell and Howard were locals rivals of the de Veres, of whom they
would be only too happy to besmirch reputations (Hicks fails to
mention this).
4. Probably the Countess was genuinely sending money to her son;
women did that sort of thing - viz Margaret of Burgundy, and the
network of Yorkists indicted during the Perkin Warbeck crisis who all
lived around Berkamsted. In 1462, at the time her husband and elder
son were executed, the Countess had in fact been arrested and kept in
prison for a while as well, so clearly wasn't regarded as that
harmless by Edward (Hicks fails to mention this either). I don't know
if she was in the Tower in 1462, but husband & son were. So she would
naturally have feared a repetition and her fears may have had nothing
to do with dastadrly and uncalled-for threats from Gloucester. In
fact, Gloucester's threat to send her to Middleham may well have been
his idea of leniency.
5. If she had been sending money to Oxford, that couldn't be allowed
to go on. At the very least her excess income had to be taken out of
her hands; granted Richard took it, not Edward, which does seem very
irregular and greedy, but perhaps if Edward had had his way things
would have been worse for her, who knows.
6. Given the circumstances, I think the deal struck was not bad. She
was to get back from her estates an annuity of 500 marks (now where
have I seen one like that recently?); Richard was to provide
benefices for a younger son of hers studying at Cambridge for the
priesthood, and to provide unspecified "benefits, costs and charges"
for herself, her children and grandchildren.
I also didn't know Richard had a house in Stepney. Nor why he would.
This is probably rubbish, but is it possible she was meant to be
taken to the Tower for questioning, but Rich. thought that was a bit
heavy so rented a house on that side of London to meet her in instead?

Marie

By the by, I have been briefly into Manchester today, and picked up a
couple of the original sources for the Countess of Warwick stuff. But
more later. Time pressing.

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: I seem to recall that Rous said she had
> gone to Richard thinking he
> would protect her, but she ended up a virtual prisoner
> at Middleham.
> Does anybody have the quote?? This MUST be the later
> version - he can't possibly have said that during
> Richard's reign.
>
> ***
>
> Has anyone published the earlier and later Rous
> versions together, so that they can be compared
> easily? I'm visualizing a 2-column layout, earlier on
> the left, later on the right.
>
> Marion

I've got Rous sorted out now. He wrote the Rous Roll in about 1483,
which is the one he rewrote during Henry's reign. That is just a
heraldic roll with potted bios. Richard's piccie got deleted from the
second version, and the several lines of glowing praise was replaced
by simple "infelix maritus" - unhappy husband. Or perhaps unfortunate?
But he also wrote - just once - a history of the Kings of Britain,
which he finished in 1490 (probably). That is the one where he really
lays into Richard, and amongst other things accuses him of keeping
the Countess of Warwick locked up.
I don't know whether Rous can be described as a servant of the
Warwick family, but the earls (and countesses) of Warwick were
definitely the natural patrons of Guys Cliff Chapel. So is this
likely to have been written without the Countess's approval? And, if
not, what was her angle?
Well, I think it is worth remembering that she (and her descendants -
that's the change from before 1485) had nothing of her family's
ancient riches but a single manor; and also that Henry had her only
surviving grandson locked up. And Henry responded to nothing so well
as criticism of Richard and pleas from people who claimed RIII had
used them ill.

And, lo and behold, in December of the same year the Countess is
granted a lot of her old estates back (although, as I discovered in
reading the original, it was only a grant for life - I expect Henry
thought she was about to pop her clogs anyway). No freedom for
Warwick, though.

Marie
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com