Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Some thoughts about Kendall and "history":

It may very well be me, but could it be that the problem with Kendall, and
too many other historians, is that they are, apparently, relying on
More/Shakespeare to provide a "character" for Richard and they then try to
fit that "character" into what is *factually* known about Richard's actions?
Certainly that would explain most, if not all, of some of the rather strange
conclusions about Richard, his actions and, most importantly, *why* he acted
as he did, that have been produced?

Then there's the problem that seems to affect so many supporters of the
Tudors - if Richard *wasn't* the villianous monster portrayed by
More/Shakespeare et al, that means the Tudors *weren't*, as has been
portrayed for five centuries, the glorious saviors of England because there
*wasn't* a need to rescue England from Richard's clutches. Which, needless
to say, then throws the entirety of proving not only his right to the
throne, but the legality of his actions in getting it, on Henry Tudor. How
well does *that* stand up to impartial historical review? Viewed
impartially, there's simply no way to come to any other conclusion than that
of Henry comitting treason and rebellion to gain the throne. Well, not only
does another fine myth bite the dust; there's all those textbooks that would
have to be re-witten...

Which brings me to my last point: the problem of what *everyone knows* about
Richard III. How much of what's in textbooks, whether in the UK or elsewhere
and whether at university level or below, concering Richard is based on
More, the Tudor chroniclers/"historians" and Shakespeare? It's my personal
opinion that the brou-ha-ha over the Leicester Digest can be traced directly
to what those who wrote it were taught in school and is merely another
example of the problems we face in getting an impartial portrait of Richard
out to the general public.
Because I firmly believe that, given an impartial and factual account of
Richard III, we wouldn't see references to "dishonorable actions".
Which means we're going to be here for some time yet...
Doug
(my apologies for the length)

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> It may very well be me, but could it be that the problem with Kendall, and
too many other historians, is that they are, apparently, relying on
More/Shakespeare to provide a "character" for Richard and they then try to
fit that "character" into what is *factually* known about Richard's actions?
Certainly that would explain most, if not all, of some of the rather strange
conclusions about Richard, his actions and, most importantly, *why* he acted
as he did, that have been produced?

Maybe not consciously, but most people have grown up seeing that version of
Richard in their mind's eye, so it's their automatic starting point. And
then there's Tey - although her conclusion is that Richard was as innocent
as a man in his position reasonably could be, the discussion at the
beginning about his expression being that of a man haunted by an action he
had realised was heinous may have stuck in people's minds, even people who
had read her and formed a generally favourable impression of Richard.

Also, because of the way it's described, I suspect most people (me included,
until this list put me right) will assume that the "pre-contract" was a
betrothal, a promise to marry, not a marriage itself. That then sounds like
something which probably could have been overcome with a bit of special
pleading, which in turn makes it sound as if Richard seized an opportunity
he had the option of refusing. If you say outright that there was a prior
*marriage* it becomes clearer that the only options were Richard, or
reversing the attainder on George and putting an eight-year-old with
possible learning difficulties on the throne.

And even if Richard had refused to listen to Stillington and had gone ahead
and crowned Edward V, once the story about the bigamy was out in the open it
would have been a disastrous mess because Edward would have been a
child-king from the unpopular Woodville faction *and* an open invitation to
rebellion by people questioning his right to the throne.

> there's simply no way to come to any other conclusion than that
of Henry comitting treason and rebellion to gain the throne.

I wouldn't put it like that because I don't think one can say he was really
ever Richard's subject, he owed him no fealty, therefore he could neither
rebel against him nor commit treason against hm. But it means Henry was
what he openly admitted being - an invader. That bears on people's whole
sense of British, and specifically English, history, because there's this
powerful national myth that England hasn't been successfully invaded or
conquered since 1066, despite the fact that both Henry Tudor and William of
Orange turned up mob-handed and forced their way onto the throne. Admitting
that Richard was a rightful king means admitting that the rightful king was
deposed and killed by a mostly-French invasion.

> Because I firmly believe that, given an impartial and factual account of
Richard III, we wouldn't see references to "dishonorable actions".
Which means we're going to be here for some time yet...

Yup.

I don't think you have to owe fealty to the King to commit treason. Tudor invaded the country of an annointed King. If Richard had won and he had survived I am sure that even Richard would have executed him for treason. Didn't Tudor execute Catesby for treason and you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that Catesby owed fealty to Tudor.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 12:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
>
> > It may very well be me, but could it be that the problem with Kendall, and
> too many other historians, is that they are, apparently, relying on
> More/Shakespeare to provide a "character" for Richard and they then try to
> fit that "character" into what is *factually* known about Richard's actions?
> Certainly that would explain most, if not all, of some of the rather strange
> conclusions about Richard, his actions and, most importantly, *why* he acted
> as he did, that have been produced?
>
> Maybe not consciously, but most people have grown up seeing that version of
> Richard in their mind's eye, so it's their automatic starting point. And
> then there's Tey - although her conclusion is that Richard was as innocent
> as a man in his position reasonably could be, the discussion at the
> beginning about his expression being that of a man haunted by an action he
> had realised was heinous may have stuck in people's minds, even people who
> had read her and formed a generally favourable impression of Richard.
>
> Also, because of the way it's described, I suspect most people (me included,
> until this list put me right) will assume that the "pre-contract" was a
> betrothal, a promise to marry, not a marriage itself. That then sounds like
> something which probably could have been overcome with a bit of special
> pleading, which in turn makes it sound as if Richard seized an opportunity
> he had the option of refusing. If you say outright that there was a prior
> *marriage* it becomes clearer that the only options were Richard, or
> reversing the attainder on George and putting an eight-year-old with
> possible learning difficulties on the throne.
>
> And even if Richard had refused to listen to Stillington and had gone ahead
> and crowned Edward V, once the story about the bigamy was out in the open it
> would have been a disastrous mess because Edward would have been a
> child-king from the unpopular Woodville faction *and* an open invitation to
> rebellion by people questioning his right to the throne.
>
> > there's simply no way to come to any other conclusion than that
> of Henry comitting treason and rebellion to gain the throne.
>
> I wouldn't put it like that because I don't think one can say he was really
> ever Richard's subject, he owed him no fealty, therefore he could neither
> rebel against him nor commit treason against hm. But it means Henry was
> what he openly admitted being - an invader. That bears on people's whole
> sense of British, and specifically English, history, because there's this
> powerful national myth that England hasn't been successfully invaded or
> conquered since 1066, despite the fact that both Henry Tudor and William of
> Orange turned up mob-handed and forced their way onto the throne. Admitting
> that Richard was a rightful king means admitting that the rightful king was
> deposed and killed by a mostly-French invasion.
>
> > Because I firmly believe that, given an impartial and factual account of
> Richard III, we wouldn't see references to "dishonorable actions".
> Which means we're going to be here for some time yet...
>
> Yup.
>

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> I don't think you have to owe fealty to the King to commit treason. Tudor
> invaded the country of an annointed King. If Richard had won and he had
> survived I am sure that even Richard would have executed him for treason.

Yes, probably - but that would be in part because there hadn't been an
invasion since 1066 (and then the invader won), so there was no legal label
for a captured foreign invader.

> Didn't Tudor execute Catesby for treason and you can't say by any stretch
> of the imagination that Catesby owed fealty to Tudor.

Well, yeah - but for Henry, treason was whatever he said it was.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] I wouldn't put it like that because I don't think one can say he was really ever Richard's subject, he owed him no fealty, therefore he could neither rebel against him nor commit treason against hm. [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't know about that. He certainly headed Richard's list of "rebels and traitors" in his bills of attainder--and he called *himself* king and Richard a usurper in one that I quoted the other day. He was half-English, and his mother certainly owed Richard fealty. He was also one quarter Welsh, and the Welsh also owed him (or his son while he lived) fealty even though England and Wales were not yet united. Henry VI had been half-French but considered himself English. Henry Tudor must also have considered himself English to even consider claiming the throne of England (although he played up his Welsh quarter when it suited him). English was certainly his first language. Also, he was born in England, and the title he claimed (Earl of Richmond) was an English title actually held by Richard. He never claimed the French crown (as he might well have done if it weren't for Salic Law) and he was never anything except a "guest" or fugitive in the courts of France or Britanny. In short, I disagree with you. Just like the diehard Lancastrians who followed him or joined him in exile and the disaffected Yorkists who were tricked into joining him with the rumor that the "princes" were dead and the promise to marry EoY (by no means a done deal, papal dispensation or no), he owed fealty to Richard but chose to set up a (baseless) rival claim, making him a "rebel and traitor."

Carol

Quite correct. Wales had the same monarch as England from c.1290 even if some aspects were different. The Tydder, therefore, owed his fealty to the King of England.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] I wouldn't put it like that because I don't think one can say he was really ever Richard's subject, he owed him no fealty, therefore he could neither rebel against him nor commit treason against hm. [snip]

Carol responds:

I don't know about that. He certainly headed Richard's list of "rebels and traitors" in his bills of attainder--and he called *himself* king and Richard a usurper in one that I quoted the other day. He was half-English, and his mother certainly owed Richard fealty. He was also one quarter Welsh, and the Welsh also owed him (or his son while he lived) fealty even though England and Wales were not yet united. Henry VI had been half-French but considered himself English. Henry Tudor must also have considered himself English to even consider claiming the throne of England (although he played up his Welsh quarter when it suited him). English was certainly his first language. Also, he was born in England, and the title he claimed (Earl of Richmond) was an English title actually held by Richard. He never claimed the French crown (as he might well have done if it weren't for Salic Law) and he was never anything except a "guest" or fugitive in the courts of France or Britanny. In short, I disagree with you. Just like the diehard Lancastrians who followed him or joined him in exile and the disaffected Yorkists who were tricked into joining him with the rumor that the "princes" were dead and the promise to marry EoY (by no means a done deal, papal dispensation or no), he owed fealty to Richard but chose to set up a (baseless) rival claim, making him a "rebel and traitor."

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> Henry Tudor must also have considered himself English to even consider
> claiming the throne of England

That doesn't follow. William the Bastard didn't consider himself English,
even though he considered he had a right to the throne, and Henry claimed
the throne by right of Lancaster (which he didn't have) and by conquest.
Anybody can walk in and conquer someone else's country if they're ruthless
and ambitious enough and they have the force to back it up, just as various
shades of white men walked in and conquered America without considering
themselves to be Native Americans, or believing themselves to be committing
treason against the local rulers. And since English rule had been imposed
on the Welsh against their will I don't consider the Welsh to have owed any
fealty to an English king unless they had personally and individually taken
an oath of fealty (although this is arguable in the case of the Yorkists
since they were descended from Llewellyn).

By the same token, I don't see those Yorkists who continued to rebel against
Henry as committing treason, even though by that point he was (by whatever
means) the anointed king, because his rule had been imposed on them by force
and they hadn't individually sworn fealty to him.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think you have to owe fealty to the King to commit treason. Tudor invaded the country of an annointed King. If Richard had won and he had survived I am sure that even Richard would have executed him for treason. Didn't Tudor execute Catesby for treason and you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that Catesby owed fealty to Tudor.
>


But doesn't treason, by definition, mean betraying your own country (and its king, whose subject you are)? Whoever happens to be the King of course gets to say that their enemy is a traitor, but from the point of view of history it would be hard to argue that - for example - Margaret of Anjou and her die-hard Lancastrians were guilty of treason against Edward IV.

Catesby was Henry's subject, whether he liked it or not - but would Henry, from his point of view in Brittany, have considered himself a subject to the English king? Should *we* consider him an English subject (and therefore guilty of treason)? I think his situation was far more complicated than that.

Now, Margaret Beaufort, on the other hand... her behaviour was definitely Treason with a capital T.

Henry was regarded as a fugitive English subject by Edward IV. In a clause of the Treaty of Picquigny Louis XI agreed to hand him back, so he wasn't regarded as French - a bit like a modern extradition treaty. But he escaped to Brittany and Edward was arguably too lazy to follow it up. To say that he wasn't an English subject because he'd fled to France/Brittany is no excuse. The same with John de Vere.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 15:28
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think you have to owe fealty to the King to commit treason. Tudor invaded the country of an annointed King. If Richard had won and he had survived I am sure that even Richard would have executed him for treason. Didn't Tudor execute Catesby for treason and you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that Catesby owed fealty to Tudor.
>

But doesn't treason, by definition, mean betraying your own country (and its king, whose subject you are)? Whoever happens to be the King of course gets to say that their enemy is a traitor, but from the point of view of history it would be hard to argue that - for example - Margaret of Anjou and her die-hard Lancastrians were guilty of treason against Edward IV.

Catesby was Henry's subject, whether he liked it or not - but would Henry, from his point of view in Brittany, have considered himself a subject to the English king? Should *we* consider him an English subject (and therefore guilty of treason)? I think his situation was far more complicated than that.

Now, Margaret Beaufort, on the other hand... her behaviour was definitely Treason with a capital T.

Sorry, forgot to say, you can't really acuse an annointed king or queen of treason (though I think Parliament did Charles I ?). You can accuse them of misgovernance or because you have a stronger claim - H4, Richard of York. And Catesby was only a traitor because H7 pre-dated his reign to the day before Bosworth, a very sly ploy.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 15:28
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think you have to owe fealty to the King to commit treason. Tudor invaded the country of an annointed King. If Richard had won and he had survived I am sure that even Richard would have executed him for treason. Didn't Tudor execute Catesby for treason and you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that Catesby owed fealty to Tudor.
>

But doesn't treason, by definition, mean betraying your own country (and its king, whose subject you are)? Whoever happens to be the King of course gets to say that their enemy is a traitor, but from the point of view of history it would be hard to argue that - for example - Margaret of Anjou and her die-hard Lancastrians were guilty of treason against Edward IV.

Catesby was Henry's subject, whether he liked it or not - but would Henry, from his point of view in Brittany, have considered himself a subject to the English king? Should *we* consider him an English subject (and therefore guilty of treason)? I think his situation was far more complicated than that.

Now, Margaret Beaufort, on the other hand... her behaviour was definitely Treason with a capital T.

"ricard1an" wrote:
>
> I don't think you have to owe fealty to the King to commit treason. Tudor invaded the country of an annointed King. If Richard had won and he had survived I am sure that even Richard would have executed him for treason. Didn't Tudor execute Catesby for treason and you can't say by any stretch of the imagination that Catesby owed fealty to Tudor.

Carol responds:

Except that Henry backdated his reign, making anyone who "rebelled" against him as "king" a traitor. So anyone who had rebelled against Richard, the rightful king, including chiefly Henry Tudor, would have been a traitor.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Henry was regarded as a fugitive English subject by Edward IV. In a clause of the Treaty of Picquigny Louis XI agreed to hand him back, so he wasn't regarded as French - a bit like a modern extradition treaty. But he escaped to Brittany and Edward was arguably too lazy to follow it up. To say that he wasn't an English subject because he'd fled to France/Brittany is no excuse. The same with John de Vere.
>

I'm not saying Henry would have been considered French, by any means - and doubtless he as well as de Vere were guilty of treason from Richard's point of view. I'm even less interested in coming up with excuses for Henry, so please don't think that I am ;)

I think that Henry was an opportunist in a very complicated position and 'treason' doesn't really cover the whole thing - just like 'treason' doesn't really cover the position of Richard, Duke of York in his day. (Yes, York's claim was infinitely better than Henry's, but that's not my point - one might argue York's activities were 'treasonous' long before he made his claim.)

I suppose what I'm thinking is more like treason in law vs. treason in spirit. I can't really even explain what I mean! I just feel that the whole period of the Wars of the Roses had made the concept of 'treason' more murky than it otherwise would be. Well, I suppose it had been murky since Richard II, really.

But more interesting to me than Henry is the question: do we think someone like Jasper Tudor was guilty of treason?

And do we think Perkin Warbeck would have been guilty of treason, if he was who he originally claimed he was? (Regardless of whether or not we consider Henry the rightful king, he was still an *anointed* king...)

(Good point about Catesby and Henry's back-dating.)

I know exactly what you mean. If you were at the very top it was treason when it suited you; like you wouldn't dream of executing 'one of the family' you quietly bumped them off (even Clarence in a way - hey what if he was spirited to Burgundy and a substitute coffined, just thought that one up?!). You can perhaps see why LizI agonised so long over publicly executing Mary Queen of Scots. Treason in the heart is indeed a different thing, and one can levy that at MB, Morton, Stanley, Buckingham, anyone who stood to lose out. Very difficult to tease out though. And one could say H7 was/had to be the most open?
A good point about Perkin Warbeck etc.
One could write a whole book on it.  


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Henry was regarded as a fugitive English subject by Edward IV. In a clause of the Treaty of Picquigny Louis XI agreed to hand him back, so he wasn't regarded as French - a bit like a modern extradition treaty. But he escaped to Brittany and Edward was arguably too lazy to follow it up. To say that he wasn't an English subject because he'd fled to France/Brittany is no excuse. The same with John de Vere.
>

I'm not saying Henry would have been considered French, by any means - and doubtless he as well as de Vere were guilty of treason from Richard's point of view. I'm even less interested in coming up with excuses for Henry, so please don't think that I am ;)

I think that Henry was an opportunist in a very complicated position and 'treason' doesn't really cover the whole thing - just like 'treason' doesn't really cover the position of Richard, Duke of York in his day. (Yes, York's claim was infinitely better than Henry's, but that's not my point - one might argue York's activities were 'treasonous' long before he made his claim.)

I suppose what I'm thinking is more like treason in law vs. treason in spirit. I can't really even explain what I mean! I just feel that the whole period of the Wars of the Roses had made the concept of 'treason' more murky than it otherwise would be. Well, I suppose it had been murky since Richard II, really.

But more interesting to me than Henry is the question: do we think someone like Jasper Tudor was guilty of treason?

And do we think Perkin Warbeck would have been guilty of treason, if he was who he originally claimed he was? (Regardless of whether or not we consider Henry the rightful king, he was still an *anointed* king...)

(Good point about Catesby and Henry's back-dating.)

Claire M Jordan wrote:

//snip//
"I wouldn't put it like that because I don't think one can say he was really
ever Richard's subject, he owed him no fealty, therefore he could neither
rebel against him nor commit treason against hm. But it means Henry was
what he openly admitted being - an invader. That bears on people's whole
sense of British, and specifically English, history, because there's this
powerful national myth that England hasn't been successfully invaded or
conquered since 1066, despite the fact that both Henry Tudor and William of
Orange turned up mob-handed and forced their way onto the throne. Admitting
that Richard was a rightful king means admitting that the rightful king was
deposed and killed by a mostly-French invasion."

Doug here:
Well, Henry claimed the honor of being "Earl of Richmond" and that placed
him as a member of the English nobility and every English noble *did* owe
Richard fealty as their annointed King. Also, while it's true Henry later
based his right to the throne on conquest, he amassed the means to
accomplish that conquest by claiming to be the rightful *English* heir via
his descent from John of Gaunt legitimized bastards. And even if one allows
that Henry *himself* didn't commit treason, he certanily connived in it with
those who *did* owe fealty to Richard. Is "misprision" the correct term?
I think I posted before that what's very difficult for me to remember is
that there simply was no legal way to remove an annointed King. One either
waited for his death or committed treason and tried to remove him (or his
advisors) by force. Which means, to me at least, that being charged with
"treason" in the 15th century doesn't carry the same connotations that the
same charge would in, say, the 19th century when there *were* other means to
effect political changes. I guess the best way to put *my* thoughts about
someone being accused of treason in the 15th century is based on the actions
that caused that person to be so charged.
And, in my opinion, that's where Henry fails.
There was no over-riding reason for Henry to invade other than he thought he
should be king. He wasn't over-throwing a blood-thirsty tyrant. Henry didn't
invade because Richard refused to give up advisors who were pillaging the
country and raiding the Treasury. No, Henry invaded, not because Richard was
a bad king, but solely because, if Richard was King, then Henry *wasn't*.
Which is why, although I tend to agree with your statement about the
English/British national myth of not being invaded since 1066 requires
everyone to forget about how Henry and William III, "acquired" their
respective rights to the throne, I'm not certain the two instances are alike
in any respect other than someone with foreign troops invaded the British
Isles and replaced the reigning king. As best I can tell, the reasons for
William III's invasion stretched far beyond merely wanting the crown for the
mere sake of his (William's) possessing it; which, again, I see as Henry's
only reason.
Doug

I can see what you are getting at, but I have always thought that H4 and really did commit treason and more than probably did commit regicide (well got someone else to do it. It all starts from there doesn't it, none of the Lancastrian Kings were particularly good in my opinion and H6 was particularly bad. However, that probably wasn't all his fault because he had mental problems possibly catatonic schizophrenia. Richard of York had a better claim in law than H4, that's probably why H5 executed his father the Earl of Cambridge. Things were dire in the country when Richard of York tried to take the throne. Then we have Edward who was more capable than his father gaining the throne and Marguerite trying to get it back. Then Warwick wades in on H6's side and here we go again. The only thing I would say against H7 is that he had no claim to the throne whatsoever, his mother's family were legally barred from the throne. I think that MB was affected by her traumatic life and was possibly slightly mad. His "Tudor Dynasty" and their successors inflicted huge damage on this country for centuries. However, I can still see what you are trying to say, it is so very complicated.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:

> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Henry was regarded as a fugitive English subject by Edward IV. In a clause of the Treaty of Picquigny Louis XI agreed to hand him back, so he wasn't regarded as French - a bit like a modern extradition treaty. But he escaped to Brittany and Edward was arguably too lazy to follow it up. To say that he wasn't an English subject because he'd fled to France/Brittany is no excuse. The same with John de Vere.
> >
>
> I'm not saying Henry would have been considered French, by any means - and doubtless he as well as de Vere were guilty of treason from Richard's point of view. I'm even less interested in coming up with excuses for Henry, so please don't think that I am ;)
>
> I think that Henry was an opportunist in a very complicated position and 'treason' doesn't really cover the whole thing - just like 'treason' doesn't really cover the position of Richard, Duke of York in his day. (Yes, York's claim was infinitely better than Henry's, but that's not my point - one might argue York's activities were 'treasonous' long before he made his claim.)
>
> I suppose what I'm thinking is more like treason in law vs. treason in spirit. I can't really even explain what I mean! I just feel that the whole period of the Wars of the Roses had made the concept of 'treason' more murky than it otherwise would be. Well, I suppose it had been murky since Richard II, really.
>
> But more interesting to me than Henry is the question: do we think someone like Jasper Tudor was guilty of treason?
>
> And do we think Perkin Warbeck would have been guilty of treason, if he was who he originally claimed he was? (Regardless of whether or not we consider Henry the rightful king, he was still an *anointed* king...)
>
> (Good point about Catesby and Henry's back-dating.)
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> And even if one allows
that Henry *himself* didn't commit treason, he certanily connived in it with
those who *did* owe fealty to Richard.

Yes - he connived with his mother in spreading subversion. and collaborated
with Rhys ap Thomas who *was* a traitor, since he swore loyalty with the
intent to deceive, and seems to have done so out of ambition rather than
sincere political belief.

> There was no over-riding reason for Henry to invade other than he thought
> he
should be king. He wasn't over-throwing a blood-thirsty tyrant.

He may have thought he was - Carol found a story about him searching the
Tower, looking for the bodies of the two boys, which suggests that he
initially believed that Richard was a murderous usurper. What he thought he
knew about Richard would have come from his mother, and the French court.

> Henry didn't
invade because Richard refused to give up advisors who were pillaging the
country and raiding the Treasury. No, Henry invaded, not because Richard was
a bad king, but solely because, if Richard was King, then Henry *wasn't*.

Sort of, but you also have to bear in mind that Henry didn't have many
options. He couldn't come home, except at the head of an army, and France
only wanted him if he was causing trouble for England. He didn't have many
transferable skills that we know of, so he couldn't go off and become a
physician or a strolling player - he had to do what France wanted.
Overthrowing somebody else's government and causing a lot of needless deaths
to preserve your own life is ignoble and selfish, but not quite as bad imo
as doing it out of naked mabition.

Hilary said:
 And Catesby was only a traitor because H7 pre-dated his reign to the day before Bosworth, a very sly ploy.

 
Liz replied:
 
A sly ploy is putting it mildly.  I have to say that to me it is one of the most disgusting things he did, and utterly contemptible.

Pansy said:

 
And do we think Perkin Warbeck would have been guilty of treason, if he was who he originally claimed he was? (Regardless of whether or not we consider Henry the rightful king, he was still an *anointed* king...)

Liz replied:

This is a really interesting point.  To my mind the answer is a resounding no because If Perkin Warbeck "had been" Richard of York then his right to the throne was greater so how could it be treason?  However, there are those who would disagree.

I'm sure I read once that the anointing ceremony began in early medieval France after someone like Pepin the Fat  got rid of the last Merovingian and gave  the anointing ceremony its importance, because he didn't really have any right to the throne.  I'm not sure if that's correct or when anointing started in England though.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> Liz replied:

> A sly ploy is putting it mildly. I have to say that to me it is one of
> the most disgusting things he did, and utterly contemptible.

It's always seemed to me that it was a joke - he was experimenting to see
just how much the nobles would let him get away with - bearing in mind that
he followed it up by ordering his nobles to ride into London two to a horse.
But it was a very nasty joke which people died of.

I have to say I don't think it's remotely funny and neither apparently did anyone else, including his supporters.
 
I don't think Henry had a sense of humour, no matter how twisted.  I think it was a totally calculated move to get rid of people who he knew would be ready to pounce and get rid of him the moment they could. 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 20:16
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> Liz replied:

> A sly ploy is putting it mildly. I have to say that to me it is one of
> the most disgusting things he did, and utterly contemptible.

It's always seemed to me that it was a joke - he was experimenting to see
just how much the nobles would let him get away with - bearing in mind that
he followed it up by ordering his nobles to ride into London two to a horse.
But it was a very nasty joke which people died of.

That's very sound reasoning Doug. You could try to remove an annointed King by saying you had a better right but Henry certainly didn't have that. He was what, nineteenth in line to the throne after Richard? As for William III we're into an entirely different situation where he was encouraged/invited to take the throne by a Parliament who had fought a war to get rid of a monarch with Catholic sympathies. Power had by this time passed from the monarch to Parliament; that's why the war was fought. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 20:28
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 


Claire M Jordan wrote:

//snip//
"I wouldn't put it like that because I don't think one can say he was really
ever Richard's subject, he owed him no fealty, therefore he could neither
rebel against him nor commit treason against hm. But it means Henry was
what he openly admitted being - an invader. That bears on people's whole
sense of British, and specifically English, history, because there's this
powerful national myth that England hasn't been successfully invaded or
conquered since 1066, despite the fact that both Henry Tudor and William of
Orange turned up mob-handed and forced their way onto the throne. Admitting
that Richard was a rightful king means admitting that the rightful king was
deposed and killed by a mostly-French invasion."

Doug here:
Well, Henry claimed the honor of being "Earl of Richmond" and that placed
him as a member of the English nobility and every English noble *did* owe
Richard fealty as their annointed King. Also, while it's true Henry later
based his right to the throne on conquest, he amassed the means to
accomplish that conquest by claiming to be the rightful *English* heir via
his descent from John of Gaunt legitimized bastards. And even if one allows
that Henry *himself* didn't commit treason, he certanily connived in it with
those who *did* owe fealty to Richard. Is "misprision" the correct term?
I think I posted before that what's very difficult for me to remember is
that there simply was no legal way to remove an annointed King. One either
waited for his death or committed treason and tried to remove him (or his
advisors) by force. Which means, to me at least, that being charged with
"treason" in the 15th century doesn't carry the same connotations that the
same charge would in, say, the 19th century when there *were* other means to
effect political changes. I guess the best way to put *my* thoughts about
someone being accused of treason in the 15th century is based on the actions
that caused that person to be so charged.
And, in my opinion, that's where Henry fails.
There was no over-riding reason for Henry to invade other than he thought he
should be king. He wasn't over-throwing a blood-thirsty tyrant. Henry didn't
invade because Richard refused to give up advisors who were pillaging the
country and raiding the Treasury. No, Henry invaded, not because Richard was
a bad king, but solely because, if Richard was King, then Henry *wasn't*.
Which is why, although I tend to agree with your statement about the
English/British national myth of not being invaded since 1066 requires
everyone to forget about how Henry and William III, "acquired" their
respective rights to the throne, I'm not certain the two instances are alike
in any respect other than someone with foreign troops invaded the British
Isles and replaced the reigning king. As best I can tell, the reasons for
William III's invasion stretched far beyond merely wanting the crown for the
mere sake of his (William's) possessing it; which, again, I see as Henry's
only reason.
Doug

 I don't think Henry knew what a joke was.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 20:16
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> Liz replied:

> A sly ploy is putting it mildly. I have to say that to me it is one of
> the most disgusting things he did, and utterly contemptible.

It's always seemed to me that it was a joke - he was experimenting to see
just how much the nobles would let him get away with - bearing in mind that
he followed it up by ordering his nobles to ride into London two to a horse.
But it was a very nasty joke which people died of.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



> Liz replied:

> This is a really interesting point. To my mind the answer is a resounding
> no because If Perkin Warbeck "had been" Richard of York then his right to
> the throne was greater so how could it be treason? However, there are
> those who would disagree.

Of course, he would know that hre was almost certainly illegitimate, so his
claim wasn't very good either - but it was better than Henry's. But then if
his elder brother was still alive and hadn't renounced the throne, would he
be committing treason against his brother?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> As for William III we're into an entirely different situation where he was
> encouraged/invited to take the throne by a Parliament who had fought a war
> to get rid of a monarch with Catholic sympathies.

As I understand it, Parliament invited him to take the throne because he had
landed in London with an army and they were too scared to refuse him.
*Scotland* invited him in, but he was imposed on England.

I don't think so. He didn't land in London anyway and his wife was the Protestant daughter of the extremely unpopular James II. The point is, by this time it was Parliament, not the monarchy, which called the shots. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 20:49
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> As for William III we're into an entirely different situation where he was
> encouraged/invited to take the throne by a Parliament who had fought a war
> to get rid of a monarch with Catholic sympathies.

As I understand it, Parliament invited him to take the throne because he had
landed in London with an army and they were too scared to refuse him.
*Scotland* invited him in, but he was imposed on England.

The Tydder's "Titulus Regius" had been passed in 1486, making him the de jure King (as well as de facto) but legitimising his brothers-in-law.
Had "Warbeck" been Richard of Shrewsbury, and my mind remains open on this, it would have been a legalistic treason to oppose a de jure King and a practical one to oppose a de facto King. Had he won, it would have been a different matter.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> Liz replied:

> This is a really interesting point. To my mind the answer is a resounding
> no because If Perkin Warbeck "had been" Richard of York then his right to
> the throne was greater so how could it be treason? However, there are
> those who would disagree.

Of course, he would know that hre was almost certainly illegitimate, so his
claim wasn't very good either - but it was better than Henry's. But then if
his elder brother was still alive and hadn't renounced the throne, would he
be committing treason against his brother?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



> I don't think so. He didn't land in London anyway and his wife was the
> Protestant daughter of the extremely unpopular James II. The point is, by
> this time it was Parliament, not the monarchy, which called the shots.

There's an article about it here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html
He may have been unapposed, but he was unapposed in part because he turned
up with so many troops that people were too scared to oppose him.

I think that's somewhere we don't want to go on this forum.; we could be here for years.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:22
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> I don't think so. He didn't land in London anyway and his wife was the
> Protestant daughter of the extremely unpopular James II. The point is, by
> this time it was Parliament, not the monarchy, which called the shots.

There's an article about it here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html
He may have been unapposed, but he was unapposed in part because he turned
up with so many troops that people were too scared to oppose him.

pansydobersby wrote:

> But doesn't treason, by definition, mean betraying your own country (and its king, whose subject you are)? Whoever happens to be the King of course gets to say that their enemy is a traitor, but from the point of view of history it would be hard to argue that - for example - Margaret of Anjou and her die-hard Lancastrians were guilty of treason against Edward IV.

Carol responds:

The Tudors (and Margaret Beaufort) would have considered Henry VI the rightful king. Edward IV, who (rightly) considered himself the rightful king, considered the Tudors traitors, executing Owen. Edmund was imprisoned by William Herbert, a Welsh Yorkist to whom Edward gave what had been Jasper Tudor's title, Earl of Pembroke, given him by Henry VI (whom Edward later called a usurper even though he was just a reinstated puppet and because he considered himself the rightful king). Jasper Tudor, who had fought on the Lancastrian side at Mortimer's Cross, was also guilty of treason in Edward's view. He remained in touch with Margaret of Anjou and she was trying to reach him in April 1471 but failed, so her troops were forced to fight the Battle of Tewkesbury without his aid. He fled to Brittany, taking Henry, not yet a traitor, with him. When, in 1483, Jasper and Henry rebelled against Richard, who (rightly) considered himself the rightful king, they became "rebels and traitors," in particular Henry, who "usurpeth upon himself the name and title of royal estate of this realm of England, whereunto he hath no manner interest, right, title, or colour, as every man well knoweth." If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Henry was regarded as a fugitive English subject by Edward IV. In a clause of the Treaty of Picquigny Louis XI agreed to hand him back, so he wasn't regarded as French - a bit like a modern extradition treaty. But he escaped to Brittany and Edward was arguably too lazy to follow it up. To say that he wasn't an English subject because he'd fled to France/Brittany is no excuse. The same with John de Vere.
>
Carol responds:

I agree. We might as well say that Richard lost his status as an English subject when he sought exile in Burgundy in 1470. Or Francis Lovell and John of Lincoln when they did the same in (IIRC) 1486.

Henry and Jasper Tudor both considered themselves the rightful holders of English earldoms (Richmond and Pembroke, respectively). Those titles could only be held by English subjects.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a
bit of Digest)


> If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

Whereas I believe that anybody Welshy had a perfect right to rebel against
an English rule which had been imposed on them by force, unless they had
personally sworn fealty. Do you believe that the American settlers
committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

[None of it was Richard's fault, of course - he was just dealing with what
fate had handed him.]

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> I agree. We might as well say that Richard lost his status as an English
> subject when he sought exile in Burgundy in 1470. Or Francis Lovell and
> John of Lincoln when they did the same in (IIRC) 1486.

But then surely if they *didn't*, if having been born English means that you
have to owe fealty to whoever's on the throne, that makes Richard a traitor
to Henry VI, and Lovell and Lincoln traitors to Henry VII.

I'll leave others to answer the second part of your question. William Wallace based his assertion of innocence on that fact that he had not sworn fealty to Edward I. That didn't take him far. William I, Henry VII based their right to the throne on conquest, hence any successors of George of Clarence can be discounted. From the afternoon of 22nd August 1485 Henry Tudor was king by right of conquest; to rebel against him was treason. What was wrong was him pre-dating his reign to before the day of the battle. Kings are kings by right of conquest or inheritance (if they have not be conquered or set aside), not based on whether fealty has been sworn. Were this not the case, there would still be Anglo-Saxons claiming the right to rebel. 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:39
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a
bit of Digest)

> If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

Whereas I believe that anybody Welshy had a perfect right to rebel against
an English rule which had been imposed on them by force, unless they had
personally sworn fealty. Do you believe that the American settlers
committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

[None of it was Richard's fault, of course - he was just dealing with what
fate had handed him.]

It think we can say that Lovell and Lincoln were traitors to Henry VII who had taken his throne by right of conquest. Richard, however, could contend that his brother Edward was rightful heir to the throne ahead of Henry VI; that's entirely different. Henry VII had no such claim when he set out to claim the throne from Richard.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:42
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> I agree. We might as well say that Richard lost his status as an English
> subject when he sought exile in Burgundy in 1470. Or Francis Lovell and
> John of Lincoln when they did the same in (IIRC) 1486.

But then surely if they *didn't*, if having been born English means that you
have to owe fealty to whoever's on the throne, that makes Richard a traitor
to Henry VI, and Lovell and Lincoln traitors to Henry VII.

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know exactly what you mean. If you were at the very top it was treason when it suited you; like you wouldn't dream of executing 'one of the family' you quietly bumped them off (even Clarence in a way - hey what if he was spirited to Burgundy and a substitute coffined, just thought that one up?!). You can perhaps see why LizI agonised so long over publicly executing Mary Queen of Scots. Treason in the heart is indeed a different thing, and one can levy that at MB, Morton, Stanley, Buckingham, anyone who stood to lose out. Very difficult to tease out though. And one could say H7 was/had to be the most open?
> A good point about Perkin Warbeck etc.
> One could write a whole book on it.  

Carol responds:

Treason was in fact clearly defined by the treason act of 1351:

"When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife [of] the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or *if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm,* or elsewhere, and thereof be probably [provably] attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: . . . , and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty: . ."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2

Certainly, the concept of treason was more personal at that time than it is now. Essentially, it meant betrayal by those who owed their allegiance to the king, whether the traitor was plotting to murder the king or a close associate, waging war against the king, or just corresponding with the king's enemy with intent to aid them. Conspiring with the French to invade England (and then actually doing so) with intent to overthrow and kill the king was certainly treason.

Carol

Carol

Well the Daily Mail thinks Richard was a hunchback.  :-)
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:22
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> I don't think so. He didn't land in London anyway and his wife was the
> Protestant daughter of the extremely unpopular James II. The point is, by
> this time it was Parliament, not the monarchy, which called the shots.

There's an article about it here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html
He may have been unapposed, but he was unapposed in part because he turned
up with so many troops that people were too scared to oppose him.

I agree. It only becomes potentially more complex when you have two claimants who think they have an equal or superior inherited right to the throne (say Richard of York and Henry VI), or there is some issue such as religion (in later centuries). And Henry VII certainly didn't fit either of those bills.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:49
Subject: Henry Tudor's treason (Was: Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 



Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know exactly what you mean. If you were at the very top it was treason when it suited you; like you wouldn't dream of executing 'one of the family' you quietly bumped them off (even Clarence in a way - hey what if he was spirited to Burgundy and a substitute coffined, just thought that one up?!). You can perhaps see why LizI agonised so long over publicly executing Mary Queen of Scots. Treason in the heart is indeed a different thing, and one can levy that at MB, Morton, Stanley, Buckingham, anyone who stood to lose out. Very difficult to tease out though. And one could say H7 was/had to be the most open?
> A good point about Perkin Warbeck etc.
> One could write a whole book on it.  

Carol responds:

Treason was in fact clearly defined by the treason act of 1351:

"When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the Kingâ¬"s Companion, or the Kingâ¬"s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife [of] the Kingâ¬"s eldest Son and Heir; or *if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the Kingâ¬"s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm,* or elsewhere, and thereof be probably [provably] attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: . . . , and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the Kingâ¬"s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty: . ."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2

Certainly, the concept of treason was more personal at that time than it is now. Essentially, it meant betrayal by those who owed their allegiance to the king, whether the traitor was plotting to murder the king or a close associate, waging war against the king, or just corresponding with the king's enemy with intent to aid them. Conspiring with the French to invade England (and then actually doing so) with intent to overthrow and kill the king was certainly treason.

Carol

Carol

Claire said:

I believe that anybody Welshy had a perfect right to rebel against
an English rule which had been imposed on them by force, unless they had
personally sworn fealty. Do you believe that the American settlers
committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

[None of it was Richard's fault, of course - he was just dealing with what
fate had handed him.]
 
Liz replied:
 
Being rather more "Welshy" than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment.  However Tudor was more English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person.  Let's face it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard did.  He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.
 
As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by hostile forces) rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)


> Kings are kings by right of conquest or inheritance (if they have not be
> conquered or set aside), not based on whether fealty has been sworn. Were
> this not the case, there would still be Anglo-Saxons claiming the right to
> rebel.

There *are*, at least a few - I used to know a guy who acknowledged no king
after Harold Godwinson.

I do recall there is a rather good moment in the wonderful 'John Adams' when the delegates realise that they are commiting treason against George III and the retribution that could be taken against them. It demonstrated how incredibly brave they were and indeed how reluctant because they did still have ties with England.
I think your point about the Native Americans is very valid Liz, and of course applies to the Aborigines in Australia who were subject to similar imposition without any warning or choice. 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:03
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


 



Claire said:

I believe that anybody Welshy had a perfect right to rebel against
an English rule which had been imposed on them by force, unless they had
personally sworn fealty. Do you believe that the American settlers
committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

[None of it was Richard's fault, of course - he was just dealing with what
fate had handed him.]
 
Liz replied:
 
Being rather more "Welshy" than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment.  However Tudor was more English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person.  Let's face it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard did.  He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.
 
As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by hostile forces) rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Back to Ivanhoe! Is Hereward still hiding in the marshes?



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:17
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Kings are kings by right of conquest or inheritance (if they have not be
> conquered or set aside), not based on whether fealty has been sworn. Were
> this not the case, there would still be Anglo-Saxons claiming the right to
> rebel.

There *are*, at least a few - I used to know a guy who acknowledged no king
after Harold Godwinson.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)


> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
Claire wrote:

> He may have thought he was - Carol found a story about him searching the Tower, looking for the bodies of the two boys, which suggests that he initially believed that Richard was a murderous usurper. What he thought he knew about Richard would have come from his mother, and the French court.

Carol responds:

Actually, I can't find the source of that story and it may have been the writer's assumption. Nor would it mean that he necessarily believed that Richard had murdered his nephews. Since they were a greater threat to Henry than to Richard, Henry would logically have searched for them dead or alive (just as he immediately seized Edward of Warwick and his sister, placing them in his mother's custody before moving Edward permanently to the Tower). Please don't read into a statement whose source I've repeatedly stated that I can't find or remember more than I (or the writer) intended.

I do *not* believe that Henry thought Richard was a usurping murderer. Unless Morton kept the details of Richard's claim from him, which is entirely possible, he would have known that Richard was not a usurper, and he must also have known that the rumors of the "Princes" deaths *none knew how* were fabricated for the sole purpose of persuading the dissident Yorkists to abandon the cause of Edward V and join his (if he also agreed to marry the boys' sister).

Carol

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)



> Back to Ivanhoe! Is Hereward still hiding in the marshes?

Dunno. This guy belonged to the Principality of the Far Isles (the British
end of the Society for Creative Anachronisms). Generally speaking when the
Principality (and I believe also the SCA) drink a loyal toast to the king,
they mean Richard.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> Please don't read into a statement whose source I've repeatedly stated
> that I can't find or remember more than I (or the writer) intended.

Yesterday or the day before you said you thought the source was Bacon?

> I do *not* believe that Henry thought Richard was a usurping murderer.
> Unless Morton kept the details of Richard's claim from him, which is
> entirely possible, he would have known that Richard was not a usurper,

I.e., it's "entirely possible" that he *did* think Richard was a usurper.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> ...Do you believe that the American settlers
> committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

Weds writes:

Yes (and I'm American). And so did fat King George. He declared them in rebellion before the Continental Congress declared themselves in rebellion.

Claire,  I don't mind the typo!
 
Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as  Welsh at all.  He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile.  I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt  would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned).  After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else.  Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.
 
Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that.  Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz



________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Exactly - don't forget he walked with a stoop as well :) 



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:55
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


 

Well the Daily Mail thinks Richard was a hunchback.  :-)
 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 21:22
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> I don't think so. He didn't land in London anyway and his wife was the
> Protestant daughter of the extremely unpopular James II. The point is, by
> this time it was Parliament, not the monarchy, which called the shots.

There's an article about it here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html
He may have been unapposed, but he was unapposed in part because he turned
up with so many troops that people were too scared to oppose him.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> It's always seemed to me that it was a joke - he was experimenting to see just how much the nobles would let him get away with - bearing in mind that he followed it up by ordering his nobles to ride into London two to a horse. But it was a very nasty joke which people died of.
>
Carol responds:

A joke that led to the execution and/or imprisonment of men who fought for the rightful king? Parliament was not amused (even the pro-Tudor Croyland chronicler was appalled), and the "joke" was on Henry when he later had to reverse that bill for fear that men would hesitate to fight for *him!"

"Treason Act of 1495 (11 Henry VII, c. 1)

"An Acte that noe person going with the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason

"From hensfourth no manner of persone ne persones whatsoever he or they be, that attend upon the King and sovereign lord of this lande for the tyme being in his persone and do him true and feithfull service of alliegeaunce in the same, or be in other places by his comaundement, in his werres within this lande or without, that for the same dede and true service or alliegeaunce he or they be
in no wise convycte or atteynt of high treason ne of other offences for that cause by Acte of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of lawe, wherby he or any of theym shall lose or forfeit life landes tenementes rentis possessions hereditamentis godes catelles or eny other thingis, but to be for that dede and service utterly discharged of any vexacion trouble or losse; and if any Acte or Actis or other processe of the lawe hereafter therupon for the same happen to be
made contrary to this ordynaunce, that then that Acte or Actes or other processes of the lawe whatsoever they shall be, stande and be utterly voide.

"Provided alwey that no persone ne persones shall take any benefite or
avauntage by this Acte which shall hereafter declyne from his or their seid alliegeaunce."

http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/STATS/TREASON2.HTM

The act, which I believe is still on the statute books, would have been unnecessary if Henry had not illegally and unethically backdated his reign to condemn men who had served the rightful king as traitors. It was an act of tyranny, pure and simple, presenting Richard III as "the duke of Gloucester" rebelling against his rightful sovereign, King Henry. As [] wrote to [] regarding this cunning means of attainting a king and his supporters, "ther was many gentlemen agaynst it, but it wold not be, for yt was the Kings
pleasure."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tlm1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22malicious,+compassed,+greate+and+heynous+offence%22&source=bl&ots=rs-l9vvJLJ&sig=EmE2eUZt7zD7K9BczYHUNsH6zPI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RThOUYnNLM_DiwKwlIHIBw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=Plumpton&f=false

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/c2p2t6r (Click the link for page 31)

I would quote his list of the men attainted, starting with "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester," but the digitized version contains too many errors.

Some joke!

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Of course, he would know that hre was almost certainly illegitimate, so his claim wasn't very good either - but it was better than Henry's. But then if his elder brother was still alive and hadn't renounced the throne, would he be committing treason against his brother?

Carol responds:

I'd say no because Edward V had never been crowned and had been deposed. Repealing Richard III's Titulus made both of them legitimate and Edward's claim was superior to Richard's, but if Edward didn't press his claim (and, living or dead, he didn't), the only person against whom he would be committing treason was Henry, who, as Stephen noted, was both de jure and de facto king. His flawed claim and his real status as a usurper would not have mattered.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:27 AM
Subject: Making a king a "traitor" (Was: Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> A joke that led to the execution and/or imprisonment of men who fought for
> the rightful king?

I did say it was a *nasty* joke - like Morton's Fork. *I* find it funny, in
a very dark way, therefore it's demonstrably possible for it to be found
funny, therefore it's possible that Henry found it funny.

> "Treason Act of 1495 (11 Henry VII, c. 1)

Thanks for the text - I hope you didn't have to type it out by hand.

> The act, which I believe is still on the statute books, would have been
> unnecessary if Henry had not illegally and unethically

Unethical it certainly was, but I don't think it can have been illegal -
since they had to bring in an act ten years later to *make* it illegal.

How did Edward regard people who fought for Henry VI, btw? I don't know.
Who were the people Tiptoft executed, and why?

> presenting Richard III as "the duke of Gloucester" rebelling against his
> rightful sovereign, King Henry.

That too sounds like a nasty joke - along with getting people to call him
Highness. He was only 27 - I suspect he was rather immature.

> Some joke!

Personal humour is always difficult to explain. I was in love with a guy
named Eric who had been horribly abused, and a bent policeman in Glasgow
turned the press against him and made the press think that *he* was an
abuser, in part by giving slanted information at a press conference. Asked
how Eric had met his principal abuser, who was about to go on trial, this
policeman replied that they had "met in a gents' lavatory", leading the
journalists to assume they had been adult partners in perversion, whereas in
fact Eric had been 13 and had been taken there for this guy to rape. This
bit of verbal sharp practice added greatly to the suffering of somebody I
loved more than life, and may have contributed to his early detah from a
heart attack - but nevertheless, in a *very* dark way, I still find it
funny. I think it's to do with how cleverly the joke (in this case, a kind
of pun) is constructed, rather than its content or its effect.

Carol earlier:

> > I agree. We might as well say that Richard lost his status as an English subject when he sought exile in Burgundy in 1470. Or Francis Lovell and John of Lincoln when they did the same in (IIRC) 1486.

Claire responded:

> But then surely if they *didn't*, if having been born English means that you have to owe fealty to whoever's on the throne, that makes Richard a traitor to Henry VI, and Lovell and Lincoln traitors to Henry VII.
>
Carol responds:

Exactly. In fact, Warwick passed a bill of attainder against both Richard and Edward while they were in Burgundy, Henry VI himself being incapable of dictating it. And Lovell and Lincoln were on that list of traitors in the Plumpton letter I quoted earlier. I hit Send prematurely. The writer was not [] but someone named T. Betanson and the recipient was Sir Robert Plumpton. Others, living and dead, included "Richard late Duke of Gloucester," the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Surrey, Lord Ferrers, Lord Zouch, Richard Ratcliffe, Robert Brackenbury, William Catesby, Humphrey Stafford, John Kendall, and Edward Brampton (who probably wasn't even there). That's not the whole list, just some of the more familiar names of the men Henry attainted after Bosworth. Lincoln was pardoned but attainted again after his death at Stoke. Lovell just remained on the list of "traitors."

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:01 AM
Subject: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and
a bit of Digest)


> Exactly. In fact, Warwick passed a bill of attainder against both Richard
> and Edward while they were in Burgundy, Henry VI himself being incapable
> of dictating it. And Lovell and Lincoln were on that list of traitors in
> the Plumpton letter I quoted earlier.

OK, but then we're talking about treason as a convenient legal fiction
(*very* fictional, in the case of the 21/22 August thing), rather than as a
crime which has actual moral status.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yesterday or the day before you said you thought the source was Bacon?

Carol responds:

I checked and it isn't Bacon. It must be a modern source, but I can't find it online and don't have time to check my books. If anyone knows where the idea that Henry searched for but couldn't fine the boys comes from, please let me know. To me it seems eminently logical that he would immediately search the Tower and interrogate the Tower personnel because it was in his interest to know where they were (and above all to prove that they were dead if he could).

If I find the source, I'll let you know. Till then, let's not consider it as anything more than a supposition as to what he might have done.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Whereas I believe that anybody Welshy had a perfect right to rebel against an English rule which had been imposed on them by force, unless they had personally sworn fealty. Do you believe that the American settlers committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

Carol responds:

Technically, yes. They owed fealty to the Crown of England and it was legally treason to make war against the king (see the Treason Act of 1351 that I quoted earlier). Which is not to say that I wouldn't have committed treason with them (or I might have been a Tory; I really don't know). Or that I wouldn't have rebelled against a bad king, whether he was the weak Henry VI or the tyrannical usurper Henry VII. But I would have known that I was committing treason and would have clung to the hope that being a woman (literally( would save my neck.

You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that the Hanoverians would as well.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:


> Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism went.

Carol responds:

He wanted to be that occupying power himself--and succeeded. If he had seen himself as Welsh, he would have called himself Henry ap Edmund. Nope. He wanted the crown of England and before that, he claimed his English earldom (though he didn't dare face Edward to ask for it!). He used his bit of Welshness for propaganda purposes and to buy Rhys ap Thomas's loyalty. You don't see him presenting himself as Prince of Wales and successor to Owain Glyndwr or Llwellyn ap Gruffydd, do you?

And even Rhys ap Thomas was willing to acknowledge a king of England (as long as he got the best bargain he could out of the situation).

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> If I find the source, I'll let you know. Till then, let's not consider it
> as anything more than a supposition as to what he might have done.

OK. If anyone *can* find a near-contemporary original for it then it's
important, because it would mean Henry himself didn't kill them, and would
be fairly good evidence that Richard didn't either because you would think
that if he *had*, Henry would have been able to find out about it once the
Tower staff were under his control.

Note, the article calls the King. "Roman Catholic"..... Back to our older argument!

On Mar 23, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> I don't think so. He didn't land in London anyway and his wife was the
> Protestant daughter of the extremely unpopular James II. The point is, by
> this time it was Parliament, not the monarchy, which called the shots.

There's an article about it here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html
He may have been unapposed, but he was unapposed in part because he turned
up with so many troops that people were too scared to oppose him.

> OK, but then we're talking about treason as a convenient legal fiction (*very* fictional, in the case of the 21/22 August thing), rather than as a crime which has actual moral status.
>
Carol responds:

I don't know about "we," but I'm talking about treason as it was legally defined by Parliament and as Richard, Henry, and their contemporaries would have defined it. It did, of course, contain a moral component (subjects were supposed to be loyal to their king, not try to harm him), but it also had a strictly legal component in that it applied to (as Stephen would put it) the de jure or de facto king. Whatever his claim to the throne, once he was crowned an anointed, it was treason to act against him. What Richard called treason and what Henry through a legal fiction called treason are not the same thing. The attainder of an anointed king and his loyal followers did not qualify as treason under the existing law. As Plumpton's correspondent dared to point out, Parliament agreed to it unwillingly because Henry gave them no choice. And his illegal move forced them to write another law later to make sure that his own illegal action didn't set a precedent that could be used against him.

You asked if I typed that whole law. Nope. Thank goodness for cut and paste!

Carol

Carol

T must be OK then.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:32
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Back to Ivanhoe! Is Hereward still hiding in the marshes?

Dunno. This guy belonged to the Principality of the Far Isles (the British
end of the Society for Creative Anachronisms). Generally speaking when the
Principality (and I believe also the SCA) drink a loyal toast to the king,
they mean Richard.

If you take treason as a moral issue rather than a legal one then I don't know where you'd put 'writing on Westminster Bridge' or 'setting fire to one of HM ships'. We're full circle back to Pansy's treason in the heart versus open declarations.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 1:20
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:01 AM
Subject: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and
a bit of Digest)

> Exactly. In fact, Warwick passed a bill of attainder against both Richard
> and Edward while they were in Burgundy, Henry VI himself being incapable
> of dictating it. And Lovell and Lincoln were on that list of traitors in
> the Plumpton letter I quoted earlier.

OK, but then we're talking about treason as a convenient legal fiction
(*very* fictional, in the case of the 21/22 August thing), rather than as a
crime which has actual moral status.

By the nineteenth century this had of course included the Government (ie Parliament) - eg the Cato Street Conspiracy. The Crown and Goernment came under the same bracket.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 1:27
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Whereas I believe that anybody Welshy had a perfect right to rebel against an English rule which had been imposed on them by force, unless they had personally sworn fealty. Do you believe that the American settlers committed treason when they rebelled against the crown?

Carol responds:

Technically, yes. They owed fealty to the Crown of England and it was legally treason to make war against the king (see the Treason Act of 1351 that I quoted earlier). Which is not to say that I wouldn't have committed treason with them (or I might have been a Tory; I really don't know). Or that I wouldn't have rebelled against a bad king, whether he was the weak Henry VI or the tyrannical usurper Henry VII. But I would have known that I was committing treason and would have clung to the hope that being a woman (literally( would save my neck.

You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that the Hanoverians would as well.

Carol

Going off very slightly on a tangent, it's interesting that both Bolingbroke and Edward returned from exile saying that they had just come to claim their duchies. That way it was harder to claim that they had transgressed against the Crown or intended to. Edward purposely copied Bolingbroke in doing so. Henry never tried to disguise his intent by saying he'd just come to pitch a tent here.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 


> OK, but then we're talking about treason as a convenient legal fiction (*very* fictional, in the case of the 21/22 August thing), rather than as a crime which has actual moral status.
>
Carol responds:

I don't know about "we," but I'm talking about treason as it was legally defined by Parliament and as Richard, Henry, and their contemporaries would have defined it. It did, of course, contain a moral component (subjects were supposed to be loyal to their king, not try to harm him), but it also had a strictly legal component in that it applied to (as Stephen would put it) the de jure or de facto king. Whatever his claim to the throne, once he was crowned an anointed, it was treason to act against him. What Richard called treason and what Henry through a legal fiction called treason are not the same thing. The attainder of an anointed king and his loyal followers did not qualify as treason under the existing law. As Plumpton's correspondent dared to point out, Parliament agreed to it unwillingly because Henry gave them no choice. And his illegal move forced them to write another law later to make sure that his own illegal action didn't set a precedent
that could be used against him.

You asked if I typed that whole law. Nope. Thank goodness for cut and paste!

Carol

Carol

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> Henry never tried to disguise his intent by saying he'd just come to pitch
> a tent here.

In some respects, he was frighteningly honest. He didn't make any bones
about claiming the throne by conquest, and as for the business about
pre-dating his reign, he might as well have held up a placard saying "I'm
going to do any damn' thing you let me get away with". [I've realised that
I think what I find funny about that is mainly the lateral thinking that's
involved.] I was reading something in Kendall the other day where Henry,
some years into his reign, openly admitted to a Spanish diplomat that he
preferred to keep his subjects poor because it kept them from getting above
themselves - it's not like he ever pretended to be anything other than a
ruthless corporate managment type.

I've always found Kendall's brief section on Henry's character much
better-written and more fun to read than his efforts to shoe-horn sparkly
little Richard into the outline of a rough-hewn Puritan. I especially like
this on Henry: "He was staggeringly objective; he permitted himself neither
emotions, illusions, nor commitments to principle. Like a true adventurer
he travelled without baggage; hence, he could use both hands to keep his
crown on his head" - and I think it was Kendall who said that seldom in
history could anyone have been given so much credit for being somebody's
grandfather.

[Just because I quite like Henry as a person and think he was certainly no
worse a person than Edward IV, doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that he
wasn't really cut out to be king - I just wish he'd married his Maud and
settled down to a nice quiet happy life as an accountant somewhere.]

It's slightly contradicted, though, by the same Spanish diplomat, Ayala,
saying "He likes to be much spoken of, and to be highly appreciated by the
whole world" (and that he "failed in this, because he is not a great man"),
which suggests that Henry permitted himself the emotions of vanity and
insecurity.

Very!!! Can't wait to hear more. So Edmund B was MB's uncle, which would have made ET her cousin? Wow it's complex but does throw a light on MB's ambition, that is, if she knew.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:26
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Carol, did Edward ever attaint Tudor? I remember reading somewhere that he sent "spies" to Brittany and possibly member of the Clergy to try to get him back.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> > OK, but then we're talking about treason as a convenient legal fiction (*very* fictional, in the case of the 21/22 August thing), rather than as a crime which has actual moral status.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about "we," but I'm talking about treason as it was legally defined by Parliament and as Richard, Henry, and their contemporaries would have defined it. It did, of course, contain a moral component (subjects were supposed to be loyal to their king, not try to harm him), but it also had a strictly legal component in that it applied to (as Stephen would put it) the de jure or de facto king. Whatever his claim to the throne, once he was crowned an anointed, it was treason to act against him. What Richard called treason and what Henry through a legal fiction called treason are not the same thing. The attainder of an anointed king and his loyal followers did not qualify as treason under the existing law. As Plumpton's correspondent dared to point out, Parliament agreed to it unwillingly because Henry gave them no choice. And his illegal move forced them to write another law later to make sure that his own illegal action didn't set a precedent that could be used against him.
>
> You asked if I typed that whole law. Nope. Thank goodness for cut and paste!
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

JAH takes a clue from the Tydder's standard - but we must wait until 1 July for more. No dispensation between MB and her "cousin", which would make their son illegitimate.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



Very!!! Can't wait to hear more. So Edmund B was MB's uncle, which would have made ET her cousin? Wow it's complex but does throw a light on MB's ambition, that is, if she knew.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:26
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Ouch! But she would see her son as doubly descended from EIII through John of Gaunt (even though the Beauforts could not inherit) - a sort of disinherited Henry IV. Is JAH bringing out new book then?



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

JAH takes a clue from the Tydder's standard - but we must wait until 1 July for more. No dispensation between MB and her "cousin", which would make their son illegitimate.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Very!!! Can't wait to hear more. So Edmund B was MB's uncle, which would have made ET her cousin? Wow it's complex but does throw a light on MB's ambition, that is, if she knew.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:26
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Oh yes:
http://ljash.webs.com/listofpublications.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



Ouch! But she would see her son as doubly descended from EIII through John of Gaunt (even though the Beauforts could not inherit) - a sort of disinherited Henry IV. Is JAH bringing out new book then?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



JAH takes a clue from the Tydder's standard - but we must wait until 1 July for more. No dispensation between MB and her "cousin", which would make their son illegitimate.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Very!!! Can't wait to hear more. So Edmund B was MB's uncle, which would have made ET her cousin? Wow it's complex but does throw a light on MB's ambition, that is, if she knew.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:26
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Many thanks



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 14:06
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

Oh yes:
http://ljash.webs.com/listofpublications.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Ouch! But she would see her son as doubly descended from EIII through John of Gaunt (even though the Beauforts could not inherit) - a sort of disinherited Henry IV. Is JAH bringing out new book then?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

JAH takes a clue from the Tydder's standard - but we must wait until 1 July for more. No dispensation between MB and her "cousin", which would make their son illegitimate.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Very!!! Can't wait to hear more. So Edmund B was MB's uncle, which would have made ET her cousin? Wow it's complex but does throw a light on MB's ambition, that is, if she knew.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:26
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Does this mean that Catherine of Valois was not his mother, or that she had two lovers? Methinks you could have started another topic!

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Claire, I don't mind the typo!

Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.

Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).

Liz

________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
a bit of Digest)

> Being rather more "Welshy"

It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!

> than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.

Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
went.

> As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> hostile forces)

And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
they choose to.

> rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> originally choose to repudiate their nationality.

Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
monarch is a traitor, so must they be.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Going off very slightly on a tangent, it's interesting that both Bolingbroke and Edward returned from exile saying that they had just come to claim their duchies. That way it was harder to claim that they had transgressed against the Crown or intended to. Edward purposely copied Bolingbroke in doing so. Henry never tried to disguise his intent by saying he'd just come to pitch a tent here.

Carol responds:

Or claim his late father's earldom. And there's also the fact that Edward was already an anointed king with the right to (re)claim the crown--as opposed to an exile who had spent most of his life sponging off foreign courts never having done a day's work in his life. (The contrast to Richard need not even be made.)

Carol

"ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Carol, did Edward ever attaint Tudor? I remember reading somewhere that he sent "spies" to Brittany and possibly member of the Clergy to try to get him back.

Carol responds:

Jasper Tudor was attainted, but I don't think he ever attainted Henry, who had not openly stated his "claim" and was at that point nothing more than a pawn and a nuisance to all concerned. He did try at one to bring him back, but he didn't make a concerted effort. Yet another way in which Edward failed Richard (or his own heir if Edward V had actually ruled. Henry with French aid would certainly have attacked an England weakened by infighting under a child king. Imagine Richard fighting at Bosworth as Lord Protector. Whether he lived or died, he would be a hero today).

Carol

That's a very good point which few ever mention Carol. Edward apparently called him 'the only imp left of Henry VI's brood' but did little to pursue him after Picquigny. Apparently he faked having a fever when about to be put on a boat from St Malo to England and the Breton Chancellor intervened to save him. Sounds like our Henry. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 14:35
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

"ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Carol, did Edward ever attaint Tudor? I remember reading somewhere that he sent "spies" to Brittany and possibly member of the Clergy to try to get him back.

Carol responds:

Jasper Tudor was attainted, but I don't think he ever attainted Henry, who had not openly stated his "claim" and was at that point nothing more than a pawn and a nuisance to all concerned. He did try at one to bring him back, but he didn't make a concerted effort. Yet another way in which Edward failed Richard (or his own heir if Edward V had actually ruled. Henry with French aid would certainly have attacked an England weakened by infighting under a child king. Imagine Richard fighting at Bosworth as Lord Protector. Whether he lived or died, he would be a hero today).

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If you take treason as a moral issue rather than a legal one then I don't know where you'd put 'writing on Westminster Bridge' or 'setting fire to one of HM ships'. We're full circle back to Pansy's treason in the heart versus open declarations.

Carol responds:

But "treason in the heart" is not the reason that men were attainted and lost their heads to the axeman--or worse, if they were commoners. What's at stake here is what did or did not legally constitute treason to a fifteenth-century king.

If we want to talk about treachery and betrayal, that's another matter, altogether personal and not the concern of English law, e.g., the Treason Act of 1351, which focused on actions and provable intentions. Admittedly, *Richard* took treason personally because, in his view and his experience, it was based on treachery and he believed in loyalty and other chivalric values (as the more cynical and practical Henry did not). But Richard's feelings on the matter, as expressed in "the most untrue creature living" and "Treason, treason, treason!" (if he really said that) do not change the laws that he lived under.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> Or claim his late father's earldom. And there's also the fact that Edward
> was already an anointed king with the right to (re)claim the crown--as
> opposed to an exile who had spent most of his life sponging off foreign
> courts never having done a day's work in his life. (The contrast to
> Richard need not even be made.)

See, this is what bugs me and which I think will make us look bad to outside
readers. Richard didn't go down to the local Employment Agency and sign up
for interviews - he was *given* work, on a plate (which he then did very
well, but that's not the point). Nobody gave Henry work, he was just kept
dangling until Britanny or France found a use for him, he was never given a
chance to be anything other than what he became - but you present it as if
having a royal brother who loaded him with jobs was a virtue in Richard, and
as if not having one was a vice in Henry. If Henry had had a doting kingly
brother to shower him with lands and titles and jobs, no doubt he'd have
turned out differently (although probably still not as well as Richard,
since Henry doesn't seme to have had much if anything in the way of a social
conscience).

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason
(Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


> That's a very good point which few ever mention Carol. Edward apparently
> called him 'the only imp left of Henry VI's brood' but did little to
> pursue him after Picquigny. Apparently he faked having a fever when about
> to be put on a boat from St Malo to England and the Breton Chancellor
> intervened to save him. Sounds like our Henry.

Would Edward have killed him, I wonder? Henry evidently thought he *might*,
and I supposed the death of Henry VI wouldn't have filled him with
confidence.

How do we know the fever was faked?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> and "Treason, treason, treason!" (if he really said that)

Perhaps he'd just heard about Rhys ap Thomas. If Rhys was a convinced Welsh
nationalist then he was a double agent and the confidence trick he played on
Richard, though cruel, was just a spy's stock in trade. But if, as it
sounds like, he betrayed him just in hopes of personal advancement then he
was a con artist for gain and a total scumbag - that was treason which was
morally as well as technically treachery, if you like.

I think we're saying the same really. Only those brave enough to commit an act of treason were at risk of paying the penalty for it. Treason of the heart which could be converted to demonstrable treason was better sniffed out in subsequent centuries by specialists such as Walsingham and Cecil. Those with treason in the heart in Richard's day had to wait their opportunity as epitomised by MB and John Morton. And treason is of course an act designed to undermine and overthrow the king. So Richard was quite right in his reaction; in fact for many too lenient in his ways of redressing it.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 14:45
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If you take treason as a moral issue rather than a legal one then I don't know where you'd put 'writing on Westminster Bridge' or 'setting fire to one of HM ships'. We're full circle back to Pansy's treason in the heart versus open declarations.

Carol responds:

But "treason in the heart" is not the reason that men were attainted and lost their heads to the axeman--or worse, if they were commoners. What's at stake here is what did or did not legally constitute treason to a fifteenth-century king.

If we want to talk about treachery and betrayal, that's another matter, altogether personal and not the concern of English law, e.g., the Treason Act of 1351, which focused on actions and provable intentions. Admittedly, *Richard* took treason personally because, in his view and his experience, it was based on treachery and he believed in loyalty and other chivalric values (as the more cynical and practical Henry did not). But Richard's feelings on the matter, as expressed in "the most untrue creature living" and "Treason, treason, treason!" (if he really said that) do not change the laws that he lived under.

Carol

Perhaps it was brought on by fear of his eventual fate; it was certainly very convenient? Were he not to be executed, he would certainly be securely imprisoned. He wouldn't have been exiled, he already was, so I don't think Edward was bringing him home to offer him a Dukedom. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:05
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason
(Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

> That's a very good point which few ever mention Carol. Edward apparently
> called him 'the only imp left of Henry VI's brood' but did little to
> pursue him after Picquigny. Apparently he faked having a fever when about
> to be put on a boat from St Malo to England and the Breton Chancellor
> intervened to save him. Sounds like our Henry.

Would Edward have killed him, I wonder? Henry evidently thought he *might*,
and I supposed the death of Henry VI wouldn't have filled him with
confidence.

How do we know the fever was faked?

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> In some respects, he [Henry Tudor] was frighteningly honest. He didn't make any bones about claiming the throne by conquest, and as for the business about pre-dating his reign, he might as well have held up a placard saying "I'm going to do any damn' thing you let me get away with". [snip] it's not like he ever pretended to be anything other than a ruthless corporate managment type. [snip]

Carol responds:

Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI. I think she mentions this palpably false claim in "The Maligned King."

I think Ayala's comment sums Henry up. He claimed to be king by right of conquest because he knew his "Lancastrian" claim was too shaky to stand, and he didn't want to be king in right of his wife because *her* claim was also shaky (her brothers might be alive and her legitimacy would always be questioned whether or not Titulus Regius was burned and "forgot." He later had Parliament declare that if she died childless, a child of his second wife would be his legal heir, claiming through him instead of the child's mother (as Henry VIII ended up doing--and, of course, the legitimacy of his rule was questioned and he became even more tyrannical than his father).

I meant to say that Henry VII was chronically insecure, never knowing when the next rebellion would occur or the next Pretender (which, by the way, means "claimant," not "one who pretends to have a claim but doesn't") would show up--the first king to have his own personal body guard. And, of course, he kept what was left of the nobility on a short leash.

And you're right in saying that he was wholly unprepared to be king, never having sat in a council meeting or held an administrative position (or a job of any kind) in his life. He must have been wholly reliant on Morton to formulate his laws, letters, and petitions for him.

As Ayala said, he was not a great man. And, yes, vanity and insecurity pretty much sums him up. I suspect that it would also have summed up Edward V had he been allowed to rule, but at least he'd had a classical education and his father was a king.

Give me hardworking, loyal, justice-loving, occasionally humorous Richard, who appreciated the pageantry of Christmas, Corpus Christi, and coronations.

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason
(Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


> Perhaps it was brought on by fear of his eventual fate; it was certainly
> very convenient? Were he not to be executed, he would certainly be
> securely imprisoned. He wouldn't have been exiled, he already was, so I
> don't think Edward was bringing him home to offer him a Dukedom.

If he had done, perhaps that would have solved everything - since I think
Henry was motivated in large part by not having many (or possibly *any*)
other surviveable options. If Edward had said to him "You can come home and
here's a nice safe well-paid admin. job so long as you shut up and behave
yourself", would Henry have accepted, I wonder? Would his mother?

And why, if she was so keen to see her son again, didn't MB join him on the
continent? Was there anything to stop her from doing so, other than a
desire to keep on meddling in English plitics?

I doubt it would have stopped our Margaret. No doubt Stanley would have made sure her actions didn't damage him - he'd got a good job with Edward. Have you read Stephen's posts today?



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:27
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason
(Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

> Perhaps it was brought on by fear of his eventual fate; it was certainly
> very convenient? Were he not to be executed, he would certainly be
> securely imprisoned. He wouldn't have been exiled, he already was, so I
> don't think Edward was bringing him home to offer him a Dukedom.

If he had done, perhaps that would have solved everything - since I think
Henry was motivated in large part by not having many (or possibly *any*)
other surviveable options. If Edward had said to him "You can come home and
here's a nice safe well-paid admin. job so long as you shut up and behave
yourself", would Henry have accepted, I wonder? Would his mother?

And why, if she was so keen to see her son again, didn't MB join him on the
continent? Was there anything to stop her from doing so, other than a
desire to keep on meddling in English plitics?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she
> left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI. I think she mentions
> this palpably false claim in "The Maligned King."

That too surely has to be a joke, because he'd know there was no hope of
convincing anyone (unless Henry VI had a thing for little girls?)..

> --the first king to have his own personal body guard.

When did he start having a personal bodyguard? Don't forget that shortly
after Henry VII took the throne, James III of Scotland was murdered by some
of his own officers, hunted down and dragged out of hiding to be slaughtered
like a sheep, which probably made other monarchs feel very nervous.

> And you're right in saying that he was wholly unprepared to be king, never
> having sat in a council meeting or held an administrative position (or a
> job of any kind) in his life. He must have been wholly reliant on Morton
> to formulate his laws, letters, and petitions for him.

Which probably explains a lot about Henry's government....

> Give me hardworking, loyal, justice-loving, occasionally humorous Richard,
> who appreciated the pageantry of Christmas, Corpus Christi, and
> coronations.

I think Ross's idea that Richard was a hypocrite because of the liveliness
of his court is a result of him trying, like Kendall, to see Richard as a
Puritan, or as presenting himself as a Puritan. That then sits oddly with
records suggesting he liked expensive clothes and sparkly things. But the
key I think is that Richard's criticism of the adultery etc of Edward's
court springs not from a Puritanical dislike of sexual license and general
excess, but from the strong feelings which we later see him express about
how husbands should treat their wives. He wasn't saying "These men are
enjoying themselves in licentious ways instead of keeping themselves pure"
but "These men are publicly betraying and humiliating their wives instead of
honouring them as they should." We've no reason to think he had anything
against dancing and fancy doublets.

As to the Hooper ring (if genuine), if the msyterious mistress was the
mother of Richard of Eastwell then Richard must have had a mistress while he
was married, at least briefly, But if Richard of Eastwell *wasn't*
Richard's son then, even if the Hopper ring story is genuine, we've no
reason to think he ever slept around after he was married. There's nothing
in the Hopper story to say the lady was his *current* mistress - she could
have been a mistress from before his marriage, perhaps the mother of one or
both of his bastards, and have decided to move from the north to Kent, so he
invited her to travel south with his party.

 
Carol wrote:

Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI. I think she mentions this palpably false claim in "The Maligned King."

I think Ayala's comment sums Henry up. He claimed to be king by right of conquest because he knew his "Lancastrian" claim was too shaky to stand, and he didn't want to be king in right of his wife because *her* claim was also shaky (her brothers might be alive and her legitimacy would always be questioned whether or not Titulus Regius was burned and "forgot." He later had Parliament declare that if she died childless, a child of his second wife would be his legal heir, claiming through him instead of the child's mother (as Henry VIII ended up doing--and, of course, the legitimacy of his rule was questioned and he became even more tyrannical than his father).

I meant to say that Henry VII was chronically insecure, never knowing when the next rebellion would occur or the next Pretender (which, by the way, means "claimant," not "one who pretends to have a claim but doesn't") would show up--the first king to have his own personal body guard. And, of course, he kept what was left of the nobility on a short leash.

And you're right in saying that he was wholly unprepared to be king, never having sat in a council meeting or held an administrative position (or a job of any kind) in his life. He must have been wholly reliant on Morton to formulate his laws, letters, and petitions for him.

As Ayala said, he was not a great man. And, yes, vanity and insecurity pretty much sums him up. I suspect that it would also have summed up Edward V had he been allowed to rule, but at least he'd had a classical education and his father was a king.

Give me hardworking, loyal, justice-loving, occasionally humorous Richard, who appreciated the pageantry of Christmas, Corpus Christi, and coronations.


 
Liz replied:
 
Great post Carol and doesn't it sound so much as though Morton was really pulling the strings? 

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.

Carol responds:

I know that the validity or even the existence of their marriage has been questioned (by Richard III among others), but Edmund and Jasper Tudor seem to have regarded Owen as their father, taking his surname English style.

If they (or Edmund, anyway) were the children of Edumnd Beaufort, their illegitimacy would be a fact, not a speculation, and Henry Tudor's claim to the throne no stronger since Beaufort considered himself barred from the succession and in any case, his claim if he had one would not have passed to an illegitimate son.

So, two questions. What is J A-H trying to accomplish with this new complication and what relationship would Margaret Beaufort be to Edmund Tudor if his father were really Edmund Beaufort? First cousins?

Carol

1) I don't know yet - but 1 July isn't far away.
2) Yes - CdeV's "partner" would have been the Edmund who was the 2nd Duke, brother of MB's father. In this case, she and young Edmund would have been first cousins marrying, without a dispensation and having a posthumous son.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:33 PM
Subject: Edmund Tudor a Beaufort? (Was: Henry Tudor's treason)





--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.

Carol responds:

I know that the validity or even the existence of their marriage has been questioned (by Richard III among others), but Edmund and Jasper Tudor seem to have regarded Owen as their father, taking his surname English style.

If they (or Edmund, anyway) were the children of Edumnd Beaufort, their illegitimacy would be a fact, not a speculation, and Henry Tudor's claim to the throne no stronger since Beaufort considered himself barred from the succession and in any case, his claim if he had one would not have passed to an illegitimate son.

So, two questions. What is J A-H trying to accomplish with this new complication and what relationship would Margaret Beaufort be to Edmund Tudor if his father were really Edmund Beaufort? First cousins?

Carol

It's JAH's revenge smear campaign against the Tudors. They were descended from the illegitimate child of an illicit relationship, or the second bastard Conqueror. Sell that one to the newspapers - could make him a fortune. Can see Starkey puffing now.
 
Only joking folks.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 17:55
Subject: Re: Edmund Tudor a Beaufort? (Was: Henry Tudor's treason)

 

1) I don't know yet - but 1 July isn't far away.
2) Yes - CdeV's "partner" would have been the Edmund who was the 2nd Duke, brother of MB's father. In this case, she and young Edmund would have been first cousins marrying, without a dispensation and having a posthumous son.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:33 PM
Subject: Edmund Tudor a Beaufort? (Was: Henry Tudor's treason)

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> She definitely was his mother. Whether she married Owen Tudor has long been a moot point. Should make for an interesting discussion.

Carol responds:

I know that the validity or even the existence of their marriage has been questioned (by Richard III among others), but Edmund and Jasper Tudor seem to have regarded Owen as their father, taking his surname English style.

If they (or Edmund, anyway) were the children of Edumnd Beaufort, their illegitimacy would be a fact, not a speculation, and Henry Tudor's claim to the throne no stronger since Beaufort considered himself barred from the succession and in any case, his claim if he had one would not have passed to an illegitimate son.

So, two questions. What is J A-H trying to accomplish with this new complication and what relationship would Margaret Beaufort be to Edmund Tudor if his father were really Edmund Beaufort? First cousins?

Carol

Carol earlier:

> > Or claim his late father's earldom. And there's also the fact that Edward was already an anointed king with the right to (re)claim the crown--as opposed to an exile who had spent most of his life sponging off foreign courts never having done a day's work in his life. (The contrast to Richard need not even be made.)

Claire responded:

> [snip] Richard didn't go down to the local Employment Agency and sign up for interviews - he was *given* work, on a plate (which he then did very well, but that's not the point). Nobody gave Henry work, he was just kept dangling until Britanny or France found a use for him, he was never given a chance to be anything other than what he became - but you present it as if having a royal brother who loaded him with jobs was a virtue in Richard, and as if not having one was a vice in Henry. [snip]

Carol responds:

I think you may be misreading me. I'm not talking about virtue and vice, only qualifications. Richard, thanks to his circumstances (and, in contrast to brother George, his willingness to work hard and loyally for Edward and the House of York) whereas Henry Tudor had no opportunity (again, the result of circumstances) to learn any administrative skills. As you say, he was "kept dangling until Brittany or France found a use for him"--or, as I said earlier, a pawn for them and a minor nuisance to Edward. No one took his feeble claim seriously until circumstances worked in his favor (and against Richard). But he came to the throne against all odds and without qualification either by blood or by experience (in marked contrast to Richard, who had both). Just his Titulus Regius with Richard's.

If you want me to name a vice in Henry, it was probably stinginess. But I agree with your earlier assessment (and Ayala's) that he was also vain and insecure--wanting to be a great man and failing. Richard, I think, had the makings of a great man and a fine king, but circumstances worked against him.

What Henry did have (aside from persistence, which is a virtue) is luck. And Richard, unfortunately, was unlucky if not from birth then from the moment of Edward's death. Also, Richard trusted too much and Henry trusted no one but his mother and his kingmaker, Morton. Given Henry's circumstances, both before and after he usurped the throne, it's hard to blame him for his suspicious nature, but it doesn't make him particularly likeable. I can't imagine him writing a charming letter to his chancellor trying to talk his solicitor out of what he sees as an infatuation, for example. He's too busy trying to hold onto his throne and his life and (presumably) learning how to be a king when he has never been taught the requisite skills. No wonder he resorted at times (as in the backdating of his reign to attaint men who had served their rightful king as "traitors") to intimidation.

I am not trying to make Henry look bad. I am trying to view him objectively and figure him out. I have no feelings about him one way or the other except the wish that Edward had dealt with him instead of neglecting his duty (as usual) and leaving him "dangling."

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:33 PM
Subject: Edmund Tudor a Beaufort? (Was: Henry
Tudor's treason)



> So, two questions. What is J A-H trying to accomplish with this new
> complication and what relationship would Margaret Beaufort be to Edmund
> Tudor if his father were really Edmund Beaufort? First cousins?

If he thinks it's true then I suppose he's not trying to accomplish anything
except to illuminate the truth, but it sounds to me as if this probably
originated with a tired clerk writing about the E Tudor/M Beaufort marriage
and getitng the names mixed up.

Carol earlier:

> > Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI. I think she mentions this palpably false claim in "The Maligned King."

Claire responded:

> That too surely has to be a joke, because he'd know there was no hope of convincing anyone (unless Henry VI had a thing for little girls?).. [snip]

Carol again:

First, I agree with your comments about Ross and Kendall's confusing Richard's disapproval of adultery with a kind of proto-Puritanism and completely misunderstanding that he could enjoy pageantry and fine clothes without being hypocritical. I don't for a moment believe that he had a mistress after marriage, which *would* make him a hypocrite.

As for Henry's claim to be the son of Henry VI being a joke, it clearly wasn't. It was the French court's idea of bolstering his weak claim even if it involved a falsehood. (Of course, it also involved the equally false idea that "the Duke of Gloucester" was perpetrating "heinous" deeds against Henry, his rightful sovereign.)

Not a joke so much as a desperate bid for support from any diehard Lancastrians who hadn't already joined him, just as the rumor that Richard's nephews were dead (with the unstated implication that he killed them) was a desperate (and somewhat more successful) bid to get the disaffected Yorkists to join him. Edward Woodville may or may not have believed it. He originally joined forces with Tudor thinking that Tudor would help him depose Richard and put Edward V on the throne. Imagine his surprise when he found out that Tudor wanted to be king himself!

Anyway, see Annette's book for the full story behind this improbable and short-lived claim.

Carol

The fact that Henry ransacked the place doesn't, in my view, prove him innocent of the princes' deaths. It's a case of well, he would, wouldn't he'. It would look good. In modern murders, the innocent' husband, who pleads so eloquently for his wife to return, is often her murderer. That's how I feel, anyway. The boys' disappearance then allowed Henry to point a bony finger at Richard and repeat the calumny. He did it! He did it! He killed my Speckled Jim! Sorry, Blackadder fan here.

Maybe I'm giving Henry a bad name (what the heck, the fellow deserves it) and maybe he genuinely sought the boys (which I doubt), but I'm still pleased there were pretenders to give him sharp bites on the backside! I wish they'd bitten harder.

Sandra

I borrowed this over Christmas and can hardly wait for her new edition.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)




Carol earlier:

> > Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI. I think she mentions this palpably false claim in "The Maligned King."

Claire responded:

> That too surely has to be a joke, because he'd know there was no hope of convincing anyone (unless Henry VI had a thing for little girls?).. [snip]

Carol again:

First, I agree with your comments about Ross and Kendall's confusing Richard's disapproval of adultery with a kind of proto-Puritanism and completely misunderstanding that he could enjoy pageantry and fine clothes without being hypocritical. I don't for a moment believe that he had a mistress after marriage, which *would* make him a hypocrite.

As for Henry's claim to be the son of Henry VI being a joke, it clearly wasn't. It was the French court's idea of bolstering his weak claim even if it involved a falsehood. (Of course, it also involved the equally false idea that "the Duke of Gloucester" was perpetrating "heinous" deeds against Henry, his rightful sovereign.)

Not a joke so much as a desperate bid for support from any diehard Lancastrians who hadn't already joined him, just as the rumor that Richard's nephews were dead (with the unstated implication that he killed them) was a desperate (and somewhat more successful) bid to get the disaffected Yorkists to join him. Edward Woodville may or may not have believed it. He originally joined forces with Tudor thinking that Tudor would help him depose Richard and put Edward V on the throne. Imagine his surprise when he found out that Tudor wanted to be king himself!

Anyway, see Annette's book for the full story behind this improbable and short-lived claim.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> I think you may be misreading me. I'm not talking about virtue and vice,
> only qualifications.

Oh, right, OK, sorry. Henry had had an Eton education, hadn't he, so I
suppose he had been taught to read Latin and to analyse information, and he
must have been bright to do as good a job as he did, but yes, he was as
untried and untrained as a manager as he was as a soldier.

> If you want me to name a vice in Henry, it was probably stinginess.

I'd say it was lack of empathy, the inability (or perhaps just
disinclination) to put himself in other people's shoes. I don't think he
was an intentionally unkind man - the fact that he put off executing Warwick
and Warbeck for so long suggests that he would much have preferred not to
have to do so. And he was capable of flashes of great generosity - he gave
a fortune to a pretty girl whose beauty had made him smile, and another to
some peasant children because he liked their singing. This generosity was a
bit selfish - he gave money to people according to how much they pleased
him, not how much they needed it - but it shows that when people pleased him
his instinctive response was to want to please them back, which is an
amiable characteristic.

But other than sparing Lambert Simnel I can't think of any instances (Tudor
guy if you're reading this - can you?) where he showed signs of having
thought about what other people needed and then acted on it apparently out
of disinterested concern, in the way that we see Richard do all the time.
That reburial of the battlefield dead which you found is an especially fine
example because it shows Richard being concerned about the fate of ordinary
working-class soldiers, on both sides, and openly saying how sad he thinks
it is that their lives were cut short, and how affecting he finds their lack
of proper burial.

An American friend of mine has suggested that we ought to put up pages
giving all those examples we have of Richard's own words, and if so I think
that one about the soldiers deserves pride of place.

> Richard, I think, had the makings of a great man and a fine king, but
> circumstances worked against him.

Yes, although I fear he wasn't very good with money. That's why imo one of
the greatest tragedies in English history is that Henry didn't end up as
Richard's Lord Chancellor - *if only* Edward had offered Henry a job instead
of a cell, and he'd accepted! They would have been an unbeatable
combination.

> What Henry did have (aside from persistence, which is a virtue) is luck.
> And Richard, unfortunately, was unlucky if not from birth then from the
> moment of Edward's death.

Certainly from the moment of his son's investiture at York. That must have
seemed like a high point, despite all the difficulties which attended it,
but after that it was downhill all the way, poor bugger, and his life became
one long slow train-wreck.

> Also, Richard trusted too much and Henry trusted no one but his mother and
> his kingmaker, Morton. Given Henry's circumstances, both before and after
> he usurped the throne, it's hard to blame him for his suspicious nature,
> but it doesn't make him particularly likeable. I can't imagine him writing
> a charming letter to his chancellor trying to talk his solicitor out of
> what he sees as an infatuation, for example.

I don't know - I don't think I've seen any examples of his personal style in
writing letters. Are there any, or was he too suspicious to commit his
thoughts to paper?

> He's too busy trying to hold onto his throne and his life and (presumably)
> learning how to be a king when he has never been taught the requisite
> skills. No wonder he resorted at times (as in the backdating of his reign
> to attaint men who had served their rightful king as "traitors") to
> intimidation.

Yes. His life was a bit of a train wreck too, even though he survived for
longer than Richard - especially as it included being married to Lizzie York
and her gambling habit, instead of to his Maudie. Nobody picked up my
question as to whether Henry's Maud Herbert was the same one who married
Northumberland, or Wednesday's about whether she died in 1465 or 1495. If
it's the same Maud it adds horrible new layers of complication -
Northumberland might have refrained from attacking Henry because he didn't
want to to kill his wife's childhood friend' Henry might have sent
Northumberland to Thirsk to be killed out of sexual jealousy; Norhtumberland
might have been a brute who beat his wife and Henry sent ghim to his death
to protect or avenge her....

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> The fact that Henry ransacked the place doesn't, in my view, prove him
> innocent of the princes' deaths. It's a case of well, he would, wouldn't
> he'. It would look good. In modern murders, the innocent' husband, who
> pleads so eloquently for his wife to return, is often her murderer.

Yo, but as for Richard, the advantage in their being dead would lie in their
being *known* to be dead/ If he killed them, why would he not just announce
their deaths and blame it on Richard?

Claire said:
 
Henry had had an Eton education, hadn't he,
 
Liz replied:
 
Interestingly, Eton does not appear to acknowledge him as an old boy although several people from the 15th century are mentioned as such, including Thomas Rotherham.  I'm not sure at what age Eton took pupils in those days, nowadays it's 13, and Henry fled to France didn't he when he was 14?
 
Maybe they think he wasn't there long enough?   

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> Interestingly, Eton does not appear to acknowledge him as an old boy

Hm - I saw a reference only a few days ago to him having been there.

> although several people from the 15th century are mentioned as such,
> including Thomas Rotherham. I'm not sure at what age Eton took pupils in
> those days, nowadays it's 13, and Henry fled to France didn't he when he
> was 14?

> Maybe they think he wasn't there long enough?

Could be, yes - if he was there for less than a year he may not count. In
that case he didn't have a chance to learn much.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> and a bit of Digest)
>
>
> > Interestingly, Eton does not appear to acknowledge him as an old boy
>
> Hm - I saw a reference only a few days ago to him having been there.
>
> > although several people from the 15th century are mentioned as such,
> > including Thomas Rotherham. I'm not sure at what age Eton took pupils in
> > those days, nowadays it's 13, and Henry fled to France didn't he when he
> > was 14?
>
> > Maybe they think he wasn't there long enough?
>
> Could be, yes - if he was there for less than a year he may not count. In
> that case he didn't have a chance to learn much.
>

But, hang on - I thought Eton started out as a charity school?

Pansy said:  But, hang on - I thought Eton started out as a charity school?

Liz replied:
 
Yes, I'd forgotten about that. 
 
The school website doesn't seem to have a chronological  history (bizarely)  but this is from Wiki.  Perhaps's Henry's Eton background is yet another piece of Tudor propaganda?
 
 
History


________________________________


Eton College was founded by Henry VI as a charity school to provide free education to seventy poor boys who would then go on to King's College, Cambridge, founded by the same King in 1441. Henry took Winchester College as his model, visiting on many occasions, borrowing its Statutes and removing its Headmaster and some of the Scholars to start his new school.
When Henry VI founded the school, he granted it a large number of endowments, including much valuable land, a plan for formidable buildi said:ngs (Henry intended the nave of the College Chapel to be the longest in Europe) and several religious relics, supposedly including a part of the True Cross and the Crown of Thorns.[11] He persuaded the then Pope, Eugene IV, to grant him a privilege unparalleled anywhere in England: the right to grant indulgences to penitents on the Feast of the Assumption. The school also came into possession of one of England's Apocalypse manuscripts.

However, when Henry was deposed by Edward IV in 1461, the new king annulled all grants to the school and removed most of its assets and treasures to St George's Chapel, Windsor, on the other side of the River Thames. Legend has it that Edward's mistress, Jane Shore, intervened on the school's behalf. She was able to save a good part of the school,[12] although the royal bequest and the number of staff were much reduced.
 
Here's the whole piece
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Etonian

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] Henry had had an Eton education, hadn't he, so I
> suppose he had been taught to read Latin and to analyse information, [snip]

Carol responds:

A brief and interrupted stint at Eton, I think. It could only have been during Henry VI's readeption and other sources say that Jasper Tudor took him to court at that time. I could be mistaken, though, so Hilary or anyone else who's read the various Tudor biographies please feel free to correct me.

Claire:

> [snip} Nobody picked up my question as to whether Henry's Maud Herbert was the same one who married Northumberland, or Wednesday's about whether she died in 1465 or 1495. [snip]

Carol responds:

Actually, I did answer the first part of the question, but I'm reconsidering my answer. Northumberland's wife Maud was the daughter of the William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke murdered by Warwick, the man who had been Henry Tudor's guardian, so theoretically (if we're being romantic) she could have been Henry's childhood sweetheart--or, at any rate, his idea of a suitable bride despite (or because of?) her family's Yorkist affinities. Her brother, another William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was Richard's son-in-law (who happened to be loyal to Richard and was guarding that part of Wales for him). But Maud had been married to Northumberland some time between 1473 and 1476, (a bit or information that apparently hadn't made its way to Henry in France or Brittany), so even if William Herbert's men hadn't scared off Henry's messengers, the message would have been futile.

As for when she died, I don't know. I've heard that she died about two months before Bosworth, but I don't recall the source (it was a message on this forum, but I mean the source that poster cited) and I've also heard 1495, in which case, she would have survived her husband, who was murdered in 1489.

by the way, does anyone besides me wish that fifteenth-century parents had been more imaginative in naming their children instead of constantly duplicating names? If only they had followed the example of Viscount Lovell's mother, who named one of her daughters after an obscure saint named Frideswide!

Carol

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
> Liz replied:
>  
> Yes, I'd forgotten about that. 
>  
> The school website doesn't seem to have a chronological  history (bizarely)  but this is from Wiki.  Perhaps's Henry's Eton background is yet another piece of Tudor propaganda?
>  
>  

I do know that in the 16th (or perhaps 17th, I'm not sure) century they also had higher-ranking pupils with separate accommodations, but I did think this was a later development - does anyone know if they already had such pupils in the 15th century?

I couldn't find Henry here, anyway:
books.google.com/books?id=RtjOAAAAMAAJ

No mention of Eton in Thomas Penn's Winter King on H7. And in Jones and Underwood's MB Henry is with Herbert or Jasper until forced to flee in 1470. Margaret is cited as a patron of Eton though. 



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 21:16
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
> Liz replied:
>  
> Yes, I'd forgotten about that. 
>  
> The school website doesn't seem to have a chronological  history (bizarely)  but this is from Wiki.  Perhaps's Henry's Eton background is yet another piece of Tudor propaganda?
>  
>  

I do know that in the 16th (or perhaps 17th, I'm not sure) century they also had higher-ranking pupils with separate accommodations, but I did think this was a later development - does anyone know if they already had such pupils in the 15th century?

I couldn't find Henry here, anyway:
books.google.com/books?id=RtjOAAAAMAAJ

Carol said:

by the way, does anyone besides me wish that fifteenth-century parents had been more imaginative in naming their children instead of constantly duplicating names? If only they had followed the example of Viscount Lovell's mother, who named one of her daughters after an obscure saint named Frideswide!

Liz replied:
 
It's not just 15th century.  When I was doing my Whittington family history I found 7 generations opf ancestors all called Edward! 
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (102)
Recent Activity: * New Members 10 * New Photos 5 * New Links 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma, next son after maternal granddad etc, so a dominant name would come down through the ages until the descendants of the eldest didn't survive and 'new' names crept in. So you don't get George again until the eighteenth/nineteenth century or Charles (which went out with the Stuarts) till then either. Very boring, so many Johns, Williams and Thomas, let alone the Annes and Elizabeths. Edward was fairly unusual so you're lucky. And the dominant name on both sides of my family is  - Richard  hurrah!! Joking aside, Richard continued to be a dominant name all through the sixteenth century, which perhaps tells us that he must have left a good legacy (not many Adolfs around).  It's worth a study on its own. You don't name your children after someone who has left a bad legacy.     



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 21:35
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


 

Carol said:

by the way, does anyone besides me wish that fifteenth-century parents had been more imaginative in naming their children instead of constantly duplicating names? If only they had followed the example of Viscount Lovell's mother, who named one of her daughters after an obscure saint named Frideswide!

Liz replied:
 
It's not just 15th century.  When I was doing my Whittington family history I found 7 generations opf ancestors all called Edward! 
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (102)
Recent Activity: * New Members 10 * New Photos 5 * New Links 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,

Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
*think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.

If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
called Harveyina.

Yes; if your maternal grandparents came from a very good family they would take precedence over the paternal, or hook their surname on as a second name for child -  though not until late eighteenth century. All this of course did not apply to the royal family, never did. I would profess to knowing nothing whatsoever about Scottish customs. (Bear in mind that the census enumerator in England often got it wrong, as they were until 1911 taking down how people pronounced things; so Stockley became Stockey etc).   
 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,

Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
*think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.

If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
called Harveyina.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> No mention of Eton in Thomas Penn's Winter King on H7. And in Jones and
> Underwood's MB Henry is with Herbert or Jasper until forced to flee in
> 1470. Margaret is cited as a patron of Eton though.

Hmm. Well, I've been looking at Kendall and Pamela Tudor-Craig and the
novel He Who Plays the King, so maybe it was in the novel!

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> theoretically (if we're being romantic) she could have been Henry's
> childhood sweetheart--or, at any rate, his idea of a suitable bride
> despite (or because of?) her family's Yorkist affinities.

I understood that they had been intended to marry, like Richard and Anne,
but I don't remember what the source is. The trouble is that I've been
reading up around Richard for so long, without expecting ever to need to
cite sources or that it would be of interest to anybody except me and a few
of my friends, that the origins of a lot of the stuff I came across are lost
30 and even 40 years in the past.

> so even if William Herbert's men hadn't scared off Henry's messengers, the
> message would have been futile.

What message?

> As for when she died, I don't know. I've heard that she died about two
> months before Bosworth, but I don't recall the source (it was a message on
> this forum, but I mean the source that poster cited) and I've also heard
> 1495, in which case, she would have survived her husband, who was murdered
> in 1489.

Yes. Wednesday was asking if there was any new evidence either way.

> by the way, does anyone besides me wish that fifteenth-century parents had
> been more imaginative in naming their children instead of constantly
> duplicating names? If only they had followed the example of Viscount
> Lovell's mother, who named one of her daughters after an obscure saint
> named Frideswide!

When I was about 22 I used to do "The Wars of the Roses explained" as a sort
of party trick, and I began by explaining that nearly all the men were
called Edward, Richard or Henry.

Claire wrote
"Overthrowing somebody else's government and causing a lot of needless deaths
to preserve your own life is ignoble and selfish, but not quite as bad imo
as doing it out of naked ambition".

MB and Morton holds that dubious honor.


Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 23, 2013, at 4:04 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 8:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> > And even if one allows
> that Henry *himself* didn't commit treason, he certanily connived in it with
> those who *did* owe fealty to Richard.
>
> Yes - he connived with his mother in spreading subversion. and collaborated
> with Rhys ap Thomas who *was* a traitor, since he swore loyalty with the
> intent to deceive, and seems to have done so out of ambition rather than
> sincere political belief.
>
> > There was no over-riding reason for Henry to invade other than he thought
> > he
> should be king. He wasn't over-throwing a blood-thirsty tyrant.
>
> He may have thought he was - Carol found a story about him searching the
> Tower, looking for the bodies of the two boys, which suggests that he
> initially believed that Richard was a murderous usurper. What he thought he
> knew about Richard would have come from his mother, and the French court.
>
> > Henry didn't
> invade because Richard refused to give up advisors who were pillaging the
> country and raiding the Treasury. No, Henry invaded, not because Richard was
> a bad king, but solely because, if Richard was King, then Henry *wasn't*.
>
> Sort of, but you also have to bear in mind that Henry didn't have many
> options. He couldn't come home, except at the head of an army, and France
> only wanted him if he was causing trouble for England. He didn't have many
> transferable skills that we know of, so he couldn't go off and become a
> physician or a strolling player - he had to do what France wanted.
> Overthrowing somebody else's government and causing a lot of needless deaths
> to preserve your own life is ignoble and selfish, but not quite as bad imo
> as doing it out of naked mabition.
>
>

I don't see it as a joke at all. Just shrewd malevolence.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 23, 2013, at 4:16 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> > Liz replied:
>
> > A sly ploy is putting it mildly. I have to say that to me it is one of
> > the most disgusting things he did, and utterly contemptible.
>
> It's always seemed to me that it was a joke - he was experimenting to see
> just how much the nobles would let him get away with - bearing in mind that
> he followed it up by ordering his nobles to ride into London two to a horse.
> But it was a very nasty joke which people died of.
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> > Claire wrote
"Overthrowing somebody else's government and causing a lot of needless
deaths
to preserve your own life is ignoble and selfish, but not quite as bad imo
as doing it out of naked ambition".

> MB and Morton holds that dubious honor.

Eee - possibly. Or Morton was so fanatically attached to Lancaster that he
was willing to promote a candidate with a very tenuous connection if no
other was available, I'm not sure. It certainly seems to apply to Rhys ap
Thomas (and how horrible that Richard was apparently killed not even by an
honourable and commited opponent but by a chancer on the make). But in any
case, it occurs to me that it's probably true of Warwick, as well.

When our Whittingtons got here, they went haywire. We have a Virginia California. Off site, Liz, I would love to see where you have traced, and see it there might be some family connection. At the very least, I might be steered into or away from, and save time.
My sister-in-law, when we compared family trees, were actually something 8th cousins......life is funny!

On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma, next son after maternal granddad etc, so a dominant name would come down through the ages until the descendants of the eldest didn't survive and 'new' names crept in. So you don't get George again until the eighteenth/nineteenth century or Charles (which went out with the Stuarts) till then either. Very boring, so many Johns, Williams and Thomas, let alone the Annes and Elizabeths. Edward was fairly unusual so you're lucky. And the dominant name on both sides of my family is - Richard hurrah!! Joking aside, Richard continued to be a dominant name all through the sixteenth century, which perhaps tells us that he must have left a good legacy (not many Adolfs around). It's worth a study on its own. You don't name your children after someone who has left a bad legacy.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 21:35
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)




Carol said:

by the way, does anyone besides me wish that fifteenth-century parents had been more imaginative in naming their children instead of constantly duplicating names? If only they had followed the example of Viscount Lovell's mother, who named one of her daughters after an obscure saint named Frideswide!

Liz replied:

It's not just 15th century. When I was doing my Whittington family history I found 7 generations opf ancestors all called Edward!
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (102)
Recent Activity: * New Members 10 * New Photos 5 * New Links 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ý Unsubscribe ý Terms of Use ý Send us Feedback
.

My great great grandmother was born Henrietta Temperance O'Quinn. My other GGM was Flora. So, one of my great aunts was Floretta. She hated it. We must have some Welsh, as I had two other great aunts from some group named Gladwys and Nelwyn.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,

Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
*think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.

If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
called Harveyina.

Eh? Katherine of Valois had another lover?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 6:41 AM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> JA-H's update is interesting on this point - he suggests that Owen Tudor was not Edmund's father but Edmund Beaufort was, with the evidence in his next project.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> Claire, I don't mind the typo!
>
> Personally I don't think Tudor thought of himself as Welsh at all. He was more English than anything, grew up amidst the (English mostly) upper classes and then was in exile. I think he cynically used his Welsh heritage, such as it was, to stir up some of the Principality which he felt would want to throw off the English yoke (rightly as far as I'm concerned). After all, without his disgruntled Welsh he would have been a man with an army of French mercenaries and nothing else. Even the Tudors would find that a bit more difficult to spin.
>
> Totally agree about the Native Americans and as to the others, well yes they were traitors really I suppose but, despite (or maybe because of ?) having studied American History in depth many years ago, I don't have strong feelings about that. Of course I don't want to pay taxes either but I draw the line at rebellion :-).
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2013, 22:29
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> From: liz williams
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and
> a bit of Digest)
>
> > Being rather more "Welshy"
>
> It was a typo! The 'y' key is just above the 'h' key!
>
> > than Henry Tudor, I agree with that sentiment. However Tudor was more
> > English than anything and was hardly a put-upon Welsh person. Let's face
> > it, he himself "put upon" the Welsh just as much if not more than Richard
> > did. He used his alleged Welshness (including the accident of his
> > birthplace) when it suited him but he did bugger all for the Principality.
>
> Yes. But if he saw himself as Welsh, nevertheless I don't think he owed
> allegiance to what was, from a Welsh perspective, an occupying power - even
> if he subsequently turned out to be a damp squib as far as Welsh nationalism
> went.
>
> > As for the Americans, isn't that rather different unless of course you are
> > referring to Native Americans (who did indeed have rule imposed on them by
> > hostile forces)
>
> And who are therefore imo not obliged to owe allegiance to the US unless
> they choose to.
>
> > rather than the settlers who actually chose to go there but did not
> > originally choose to repudiate their nationality.
>
> Indeed, but then they chose to rebel against a crown they had previously
> acknowledged, because they didn't want to pay taxes. I'm not saying they
> were wrong to do so, just that if anybody who rebels against their legal
> monarch is a traitor, so must they be.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma, next son after maternal granddad etc, so a dominant name would come down through the ages until the descendants of the eldest didn't survive and 'new' names crept in. So you don't get George again until the eighteenth/nineteenth century or Charles (which went out with the Stuarts) till then either. Very boring, so many Johns, Williams and Thomas, let alone the Annes and Elizabeths. Edward was fairly unusual so you're lucky. And the dominant name on both sides of my family is  - Richard  hurrah!! Joking aside, Richard continued to be a dominant name all through the sixteenth century, which perhaps tells us that he must have left a good legacy (not many Adolfs around).  It's worth a study on its own. You don't name your children after someone who has left a bad legacy.     

Carol responds:

Interesting, but I don't think that's the pattern we see in the Plantagenets. I think that the first son, Henry "Lord Harry" in the rhyme), who apparently died around age four or earlier, was named for the king. Edward *could* have been named for Edward III; Edmund for Edmund, Earl of Cambridge, his paternal great-grandfather; George for Saint George, the patron saint of England; and the daughters, including the short-lived Ursula, also for saints. I've always wondered why, if Richard is named for his father, they waited so long to use that name (with a a William, a John, and a Thomas also dying in infancy before Richard was born). It seems likely that he was named for one of his godfathers (or both, if Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and his son, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick were his godfathers. It's a shame that there's no record of his baptism. Whether that's because he was baptized in haste because Cecily was afraid of losing yet another infant or because the Fotheringhay records were lost or destroyed, I don't know. Or maybe, unlike the cathedral in Rouen where both Edward and Edmund were baptized, the little Fotheringhay church or chapel never kept any records.

It's also clear that Edward, George, and Richard all named children after each other (and Edward named one after himself, making at one point three cousins named Edward!). Edward's son George died in childhood and George's son Richard at two weeks old. Both Edward and George had a daughter named Margaret after their sister, but Edward's Margaret lived only a short time. Of Edward's other daughters, Elizabeth was clearly named for her mother; Mary (who died at fourteen) probably for the Virgin Mary; Cecily undoubtedly for her paternal grandmother; Anne probably for the saint rather than Edward's rather troublesome sister; and Catherine and Bridget also for saints. No Jaquetta (the maternal grandmother), I notice!

Anyway, that's my theory. Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolial Duchess," thinks that Margaret's brother Edmund and sister Anne were named for Mortimer relatives, which is plausible (especially Anne being named for her paternal grandmother). She suggests that George and Margaret were named for saints (I agree), but if she mentions the others, I can't find them.

Anyway, I've actually given this apparently frivolous topic a lot of thought, not sure why. I agree with you that the continued popularity of the name Richard seems to suggest a lingering affection for him--though, of course, there were other reasons to name your son Richard, and no one close to Henry did so--unless Sharon Kay Penman is right that once EoY's daughter Cecily escaped the court after her second husband, chosen for her by Henry as the first had been by Richard, died and she married a commoner for love, she named her children Margaret (for Margaret of York, not Margaret Beaufort, I hope!) and Richard (for her uncle, the rightful king, I hope, and not her little brother, who may or may not have been Perkin Warbeck. In any case, that Richard was named for our Richard).

For the fun of it, I Googled popular names in the UK. Richard was in the top ten in 1964, 1974, and 1994 but then went out of style. As of 2010, George and Harry were in the top ten--whether Harry is because of Prince Harry or Harry Potter I won't try to guess. But if those two fifteenth-century names can come back into fashion (along with Mohammed and Alfie), we can have hopes for Richard, Given the current craze for all things Richard, I wouldn't be surprised if it tops the list for 2013.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> It's also clear that Edward, George, and Richard all named children after
> each other (and Edward named one after himself, making at one point three
> cousins named Edward!). Edward's son George died in childhood and George's
> son Richard at two weeks old.

If they were naming them in age order (were they?) that argues against the
theory that someone mentioned, that Richard and Anne had a son before Edward
of Middleham, and he died, because if so *he* should have been Edward and
the second son George. Unless they named the second son after the first -
that did actually happen once in my family but I'd think it's pretty
unusual.

> Anyway, that's my theory. Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of
> York: The Diabolial Duchess,"

Why diabolical?

> --unless Sharon Kay Penman is right that once EoY's daughter Cecily
> escaped the court after her second husband, chosen for her by Henry as the
> first had been by Richard, died and she married a commoner for love, she
> named her children Margaret (for Margaret of York, not Margaret Beaufort,
> I hope!) and Richard (for her uncle, the rightful king, I hope, and not
> her little brother, who may or may not have been Perkin Warbeck. In any
> case, that Richard was named for our Richard).

Should that be EoY's *sister* Cecily?

> For the fun of it, I Googled popular names in the UK. Richard was in the
> top ten in 1964, 1974, and 1994 but then went out of style. As of 2010,
> George and Harry were in the top ten--whether Harry is because of Prince
> Harry or Harry Potter I won't try to guess. But if those two
> fifteenth-century names can come back into fashion (along with Mohammed
> and Alfie), we can have hopes for Richard, Given the current craze for all
> things Richard, I wouldn't be surprised if it tops the list for 2013.

There's also the popularity of Richard Hammond, who is a rather similar
physical type to our Richard - small and sprightly with a mop of rather
fluffy brown hair.

Carol wrote:

> > so even if William Herbert's men hadn't scared off Henry's messengers, the message would have been futile.

Claire responded:

> What message?

Carol responds:

"To my lady Maud Herbert, greetings. For the love I bear you from our youth, I wish to present a proposal of marriage" . . . or however they would say it. In essence, "Hey, Maud! Remember me, old Harry Tudor? I was wondering if you'd like to get married?"

The messengers who tried to deliver it couldn't get through because her brother, the Earl of Pembroke, was Richard's son-in-law and loyal to him (a fact Henry may not have known)--and of course, Maud wouldn't have been there to receive the letter in any case. You mentioned reading things and not remembering the source. I have the same problem. I know that I read this quite recently, but I can't recall which of the many books I'm reading or rereading serially or simultaneously it appeared in. I've started taking notes and trying to arrange them chronologically, but I don't know how well that will work. i suppose I could also keep a virtual file of quotations, at least the ones I can copy and paste. Sigh. I thought I left all that behind me when I finished my dissertation!

Speaking of sources, it's a shame that Hearne's Chronicle, which is unabashedly Yorkist but written during the Tudor era, cuts off with the marriage of Anne Neville to Edward of Lancaster. I would love to know what he said about Richard, especially since he's critical of the Lancastrian (read Tudor?) chroniclers, apparently including Vergil, whom he seems to accuse obliquely of burning documents.

Carol

"Yes. His life was a bit of a train wreck too, even though he survived for
longer than Richard - especially as it included being married to Lizzie York
and her gambling habit, instead of to his Maudie. Nobody picked up my
question as to whether Henry's Maud Herbert was the same one who married
Northumberland, or Wednesday's about whether she died in 1465 or 1495. If
it's the same Maud it adds horrible new layers of complication -
Northumberland might have refrained from attacking Henry because he didn't
want to to kill his wife's childhood friend' Henry might have sent
Northumberland to Thirsk to be killed out of sexual jealousy; Norhtumberland
might have been a brute who beat his wife and Henry sent ghim to his death
to protect or avenge her...."

Good god!!! A whole novel here and more!!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 3:52 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> and a bit of Digest)
>
> > I think you may be misreading me. I'm not talking about virtue and vice,
> > only qualifications.
>
> Oh, right, OK, sorry. Henry had had an Eton education, hadn't he, so I
> suppose he had been taught to read Latin and to analyse information, and he
> must have been bright to do as good a job as he did, but yes, he was as
> untried and untrained as a manager as he was as a soldier.
>
> > If you want me to name a vice in Henry, it was probably stinginess.
>
> I'd say it was lack of empathy, the inability (or perhaps just
> disinclination) to put himself in other people's shoes. I don't think he
> was an intentionally unkind man - the fact that he put off executing Warwick
> and Warbeck for so long suggests that he would much have preferred not to
> have to do so. And he was capable of flashes of great generosity - he gave
> a fortune to a pretty girl whose beauty had made him smile, and another to
> some peasant children because he liked their singing. This generosity was a
> bit selfish - he gave money to people according to how much they pleased
> him, not how much they needed it - but it shows that when people pleased him
> his instinctive response was to want to please them back, which is an
> amiable characteristic.
>
> But other than sparing Lambert Simnel I can't think of any instances (Tudor
> guy if you're reading this - can you?) where he showed signs of having
> thought about what other people needed and then acted on it apparently out
> of disinterested concern, in the way that we see Richard do all the time.
> That reburial of the battlefield dead which you found is an especially fine
> example because it shows Richard being concerned about the fate of ordinary
> working-class soldiers, on both sides, and openly saying how sad he thinks
> it is that their lives were cut short, and how affecting he finds their lack
> of proper burial.
>
> An American friend of mine has suggested that we ought to put up pages
> giving all those examples we have of Richard's own words, and if so I think
> that one about the soldiers deserves pride of place.
>
> > Richard, I think, had the makings of a great man and a fine king, but
> > circumstances worked against him.
>
> Yes, although I fear he wasn't very good with money. That's why imo one of
> the greatest tragedies in English history is that Henry didn't end up as
> Richard's Lord Chancellor - *if only* Edward had offered Henry a job instead
> of a cell, and he'd accepted! They would have been an unbeatable
> combination.
>
> > What Henry did have (aside from persistence, which is a virtue) is luck.
> > And Richard, unfortunately, was unlucky if not from birth then from the
> > moment of Edward's death.
>
> Certainly from the moment of his son's investiture at York. That must have
> seemed like a high point, despite all the difficulties which attended it,
> but after that it was downhill all the way, poor bugger, and his life became
> one long slow train-wreck.
>
> > Also, Richard trusted too much and Henry trusted no one but his mother and
> > his kingmaker, Morton. Given Henry's circumstances, both before and after
> > he usurped the throne, it's hard to blame him for his suspicious nature,
> > but it doesn't make him particularly likeable. I can't imagine him writing
> > a charming letter to his chancellor trying to talk his solicitor out of
> > what he sees as an infatuation, for example.
>
> I don't know - I don't think I've seen any examples of his personal style in
> writing letters. Are there any, or was he too suspicious to commit his
> thoughts to paper?
>
> > He's too busy trying to hold onto his throne and his life and (presumably)
> > learning how to be a king when he has never been taught the requisite
> > skills. No wonder he resorted at times (as in the backdating of his reign
> > to attaint men who had served their rightful king as "traitors") to
> > intimidation.
>
> Yes. His life was a bit of a train wreck too, even though he survived for
> longer than Richard - especially as it included being married to Lizzie York
> and her gambling habit, instead of to his Maudie. Nobody picked up my
> question as to whether Henry's Maud Herbert was the same one who married
> Northumberland, or Wednesday's about whether she died in 1465 or 1495. If
> it's the same Maud it adds horrible new layers of complication -
> Northumberland might have refrained from attacking Henry because he didn't
> want to to kill his wife's childhood friend' Henry might have sent
> Northumberland to Thirsk to be killed out of sexual jealousy; Norhtumberland
> might have been a brute who beat his wife and Henry sent ghim to his death
> to protect or avenge her....
>
>

He was kicked out because of his habit of hiding money under the bed.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:20 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: liz williams
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> > and a bit of Digest)
> >
> >
> > > Interestingly, Eton does not appear to acknowledge him as an old boy
> >
> > Hm - I saw a reference only a few days ago to him having been there.
> >
> > > although several people from the 15th century are mentioned as such,
> > > including Thomas Rotherham. I'm not sure at what age Eton took pupils in
> > > those days, nowadays it's 13, and Henry fled to France didn't he when he
> > > was 14?
> >
> > > Maybe they think he wasn't there long enough?
> >
> > Could be, yes - if he was there for less than a year he may not count. In
> > that case he didn't have a chance to learn much.
> >
>
> But, hang on - I thought Eton started out as a charity school?
>
>

Carol earlier"

> > It's also clear that Edward, George, and Richard all named children after each other (and Edward named one after himself, making at one point three cousins named Edward!). Edward's son George died in childhood and George's son Richard at two weeks old.

Claire responded:

> If they were naming them in age order (were they?) that argues against the theory that someone mentioned, that Richard and Anne had a son before Edward of Middleham, and he died, because if so *he* should have been Edward and the second son George. Unless they named the second son after the first - that did actually happen once in my family but I'd think it's pretty unusual.

Carol responds:

I don't think they were in age order though all three first sons were Edward. (Or first surviving son--George's first stillborn son was unnamed.) Edward's and George's second sons were both Richard (though George's baby lived only two weeks). Edward's son George (also short-lived) was his third son.

I think you're referring to an article by Michael Hicks that I mentioned a while back called "One Prince or Two?" which (I think) suggested that Richard and Anne may have had an earlier son, born ca. 1473, but lost him before Edward was born in 1476 (the current dating based on Rous's statement that Edward of Middleham was seven at his investiture--chroniclers get children's ages wrong all the time, though. One Burgundian chroncler has Richard and George as eleven and twelve rather than eight and eleven while they were in Burgundy.) Anyway, I don't have Hicks's article though I read it once; it's listed in the Ricardian index on the main Society website. I'm pretty sure that the theory has been discredited. Several of the letters in "Road to Bosworth" (one book that's hard to confuse with others!) speak of Edward of Middleham as Richard's "first-born son," but whether he would use that term for a first *surviving* son, I don't know.

Carol responds:
> > Anyway, that's my theory. Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess,"

Claire responded:

> Why diabolical?

Carol responds:

It's not Weightman's own view; it's the view of her that appears in the Tudor chronicles. The phrase is Edward Hall's. He says lovely things like "this diabolicall duches" is "lyke a dogge revertynge to her olde vomyte" and "lyke a spider that dayly weaueth [weaveth] when hys calle [web?] is tarne [torn?]." Hall says that even though she knows that her brother Richard had utterly destroyed her House, she nevertheless is not content with the malice of her parents (I guess that includes Cecily!) that almost overthrew the House of Lancaster (funny that Edward isn't mentioned) or with the {supposed} union of the Houses of York and Lancaster in the marriage of EoY and Henry Tudor. Instead of accepting this state of affairs, she continually invents mischief against the king (Henry( and "in her fury and frantyke moode" works in every possible way to "sucke his bloude and co[m]pass his destruccion."

It's true that Margaret tried to overthrow Tudor, whom she obviously regarded as a usurper and probably held responsible for the death of her last and youngest brother. It's also true that she harbored Yorkist fugitives (friends and supporters of Richard), backed the Lambert Simnel rebellion, supported Perkin Warbeck (whom she called her "dear nephew"), and gave refuge to Edmund de la Pole (and, IIRc, his younger brother Richard). That in itself would explain why Henry thought of her as an enemy (she was) and why his chroniclers saw her as diabolical. What they didn't know, or didn't wish to concede, was that she may well have been sheltering Edward's sons, sent to her by Richard, and trying to put one of them, or her other nephew, Warwick, on the throne in Henry's place. In other words, rather than merely harassing Henry out of malice and a desire for revenge, she may well have been trying to restore the House of York in whatever form possible. She and Lincoln may at first have preferred little Warwick as a candidate since he knew Lincoln and would be more malleable than Edward's sons, but after Lincoln's death and Warwick's prolonged imprisonment, she may have decided to go with her nephew Richard. Whether her older nephew Edward was dead from whatever cause (other than murder) or just intractable, I can't guess, but it hardly seems credible that she would spend so much time, effort, and money supporting imposter after imposter, especially when she had de la Pole nephews who could be regarded as Richard's true heirs with Yorkist blood but with a different name. Why not just use them instead of pretenders if the Plantagenet nephews were all dead?

Anyway, regardless of her motives, she was a thorn in Henry's side.

Claire:
> Should that be EoY's *sister* Cecily?

Carol:
Yes. Sorry!

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> I think you're referring to an article by Michael Hicks that I mentioned a
> while back called "One Prince or Two?"

Yes.

> which (I think) suggested that Richard and Anne may have had an earlier
> son, born ca. 1473, but lost him before Edward was born in 1476 (the
> current dating based on Rous's statement that Edward of Middleham was
> seven at his investiture--chroniclers get children's ages wrong all the
> time, though.

Baker, who is less contemporary than Rous but still close enough in time to
have potentially had access to direct evidence, says he was ten.

> speak of Edward of Middleham as Richard's "first-born son," but whether he
> would use that term for a first *surviving* son, I don't know.

Instinct says no but I wouldn't bet on it.

> It's not Weightman's own view; it's the view of her that appears in the
> Tudor chronicles. The phrase is Edward Hall's. He says lovely things like
> "this diabolicall duches" is "lyke a dogge revertynge to her olde vomyte"
> and "lyke a spider that dayly weaueth [weaveth] when hys calle [web?] is
> tarne [torn?]."

Well, a caul is the amniotic sack, if a baby is born with the sack over its
head, so a calle may well be a web, by analogy with a thin piece of cloudy
fabric/tissue.

> she continually invents mischief against the king (Henry( and "in her fury
> and frantyke moode"

A description which suggests real grief for Richard - or is it that with a
Lancastrian (sort of) king on the English throne, Burgundy had lost a vital
ally?

> Whether her older nephew Edward was dead from whatever cause (other than
> murder) or just intractable, I can't guess, but it hardly seems credible
> that she would spend so much time, effort, and money supporting imposter
> after imposter, especially when she had de la Pole nephews who could be
> regarded as Richard's true heirs with Yorkist blood but with a different
> name. Why not just use them instead of pretenders if the Plantagenet
> nephews were all dead?

That's a very good point. Do we know whether there was any reason why the
English/Welsh people would be more enthused about Edward's sons than about a
de la Pole?

> > Should that be EoY's *sister* Cecily?

> Yes. Sorry!

You had me very confused there for a while.

I think Richard's niece Anne St Leger, who married George Manners 12th Lord Roos, had a son named Richard. She may had named him after her grandfather though.
 
Helen


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


 

From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> It's also clear that Edward, George, and Richard all named children after
> each other (and Edward named one after himself, making at one point three
> cousins named Edward!). Edward's son George died in childhood and George's
> son Richard at two weeks old.

If they were naming them in age order (were they?) that argues against the
theory that someone mentioned, that Richard and Anne had a son before Edward
of Middleham, and he died, because if so *he* should have been Edward and
the second son George. Unless they named the second son after the first -
that did actually happen once in my family but I'd think it's pretty
unusual.

> Anyway, that's my theory. Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of
> York: The Diabolial Duchess,"

Why diabolical?

> --unless Sharon Kay Penman is right that once EoY's daughter Cecily
> escaped the court after her second husband, chosen for her by Henry as the
> first had been by Richard, died and she married a commoner for love, she
> named her children Margaret (for Margaret of York, not Margaret Beaufort,
> I hope!) and Richard (for her uncle, the rightful king, I hope, and not
> her little brother, who may or may not have been Perkin Warbeck. In any
> case, that Richard was named for our Richard).

Should that be EoY's *sister* Cecily?

> For the fun of it, I Googled popular names in the UK. Richard was in the
> top ten in 1964, 1974, and 1994 but then went out of style. As of 2010,
> George and Harry were in the top ten--whether Harry is because of Prince
> Harry or Harry Potter I won't try to guess. But if those two
> fifteenth-century names can come back into fashion (along with Mohammed
> and Alfie), we can have hopes for Richard, Given the current craze for all
> things Richard, I wouldn't be surprised if it tops the list for 2013.

There's also the popularity of Richard Hammond, who is a rather similar
physical type to our Richard - small and sprightly with a mop of rather
fluffy brown hair.

Hi Carol, Tucked away in there I did say it didn't seem to apply to the Plantagenets, but it did to the gentry and those below. I've got between 20,000 and 30,000 names dating back to 1450ish and Richard was always popular, particularly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when you'd have thought it was quite a brave name to give. To cheer you up, Henry was always low down the ranks!



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 2:31
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma, next son after maternal granddad etc, so a dominant name would come down through the ages until the descendants of the eldest didn't survive and 'new' names crept in. So you don't get George again until the eighteenth/nineteenth century or Charles (which went out with the Stuarts) till then either. Very boring, so many Johns, Williams and Thomas, let alone the Annes and Elizabeths. Edward was fairly unusual so you're lucky. And the dominant name on both sides of my family is  - Richard  hurrah!! Joking aside, Richard continued to be a dominant name all through the sixteenth century, which perhaps tells us that he must have left a good legacy (not many Adolfs around).  It's worth a study on its own. You don't name your children after someone who has left a bad legacy.     

Carol responds:

Interesting, but I don't think that's the pattern we see in the Plantagenets. I think that the first son, Henry "Lord Harry" in the rhyme), who apparently died around age four or earlier, was named for the king. Edward *could* have been named for Edward III; Edmund for Edmund, Earl of Cambridge, his paternal great-grandfather; George for Saint George, the patron saint of England; and the daughters, including the short-lived Ursula, also for saints. I've always wondered why, if Richard is named for his father, they waited so long to use that name (with a a William, a John, and a Thomas also dying in infancy before Richard was born). It seems likely that he was named for one of his godfathers (or both, if Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and his son, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick were his godfathers. It's a shame that there's no record of his baptism. Whether that's because he was baptized in haste because Cecily was afraid of losing yet another
infant or because the Fotheringhay records were lost or destroyed, I don't know. Or maybe, unlike the cathedral in Rouen where both Edward and Edmund were baptized, the little Fotheringhay church or chapel never kept any records.

It's also clear that Edward, George, and Richard all named children after each other (and Edward named one after himself, making at one point three cousins named Edward!). Edward's son George died in childhood and George's son Richard at two weeks old. Both Edward and George had a daughter named Margaret after their sister, but Edward's Margaret lived only a short time. Of Edward's other daughters, Elizabeth was clearly named for her mother; Mary (who died at fourteen) probably for the Virgin Mary; Cecily undoubtedly for her paternal grandmother; Anne probably for the saint rather than Edward's rather troublesome sister; and Catherine and Bridget also for saints. No Jaquetta (the maternal grandmother), I notice!

Anyway, that's my theory. Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolial Duchess," thinks that Margaret's brother Edmund and sister Anne were named for Mortimer relatives, which is plausible (especially Anne being named for her paternal grandmother). She suggests that George and Margaret were named for saints (I agree), but if she mentions the others, I can't find them.

Anyway, I've actually given this apparently frivolous topic a lot of thought, not sure why. I agree with you that the continued popularity of the name Richard seems to suggest a lingering affection for him--though, of course, there were other reasons to name your son Richard, and no one close to Henry did so--unless Sharon Kay Penman is right that once EoY's daughter Cecily escaped the court after her second husband, chosen for her by Henry as the first had been by Richard, died and she married a commoner for love, she named her children Margaret (for Margaret of York, not Margaret Beaufort, I hope!) and Richard (for her uncle, the rightful king, I hope, and not her little brother, who may or may not have been Perkin Warbeck. In any case, that Richard was named for our Richard).

For the fun of it, I Googled popular names in the UK. Richard was in the top ten in 1964, 1974, and 1994 but then went out of style. As of 2010, George and Harry were in the top ten--whether Harry is because of Prince Harry or Harry Potter I won't try to guess. But if those two fifteenth-century names can come back into fashion (along with Mohammed and Alfie), we can have hopes for Richard, Given the current craze for all things Richard, I wouldn't be surprised if it tops the list for 2013.

Carol

Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> I think Richard's niece Anne St Leger, who married George Manners 12th Lord Roos, had a son named Richard. She may had named him after her grandfather though.
>  
> Helen

Carol responds:

Interesting, especially since Richard executed her father (with good reason) for treason. But since Anne never knew her grandfather, it seems odd that she would name a son for him. There's always the possibility of a godfather, as well. Still, it's intriguing! And she, of course, is one of the female descendants of Cecily Neville who passed on the MtDNA that the scientists used to determine Richard's identity, so it's a nice coincidence if she really did name her son for her uncle.

Carol

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:08
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


> Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI.

Interestingly, Jones suggests that this was imposed upon him by his French backers, who wanted to "sell" a more obviously viable candidate.  He argues that Henry probably went along with it only reluctantly for fear that it might compromise his efforts to hoover up disaffected Yorkist support...

Jonathan



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:08
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


 
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> In some respects, he [Henry Tudor] was frighteningly honest. He didn't make any bones about claiming the throne by conquest, and as for the business about pre-dating his reign, he might as well have held up a placard saying "I'm going to do any damn' thing you let me get away with". [snip] it's not like he ever pretended to be anything other than a ruthless corporate managment type. [snip]

Carol responds:

Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI. I think she mentions this palpably false claim in "The Maligned King."

I think Ayala's comment sums Henry up. He claimed to be king by right of conquest because he knew his "Lancastrian" claim was too shaky to stand, and he didn't want to be king in right of his wife because *her* claim was also shaky (her brothers might be alive and her legitimacy would always be questioned whether or not Titulus Regius was burned and "forgot." He later had Parliament declare that if she died childless, a child of his second wife would be his legal heir, claiming through him instead of the child's mother (as Henry VIII ended up doing--and, of course, the legitimacy of his rule was questioned and he became even more tyrannical than his father).

I meant to say that Henry VII was chronically insecure, never knowing when the next rebellion would occur or the next Pretender (which, by the way, means "claimant," not "one who pretends to have a claim but doesn't") would show up--the first king to have his own personal body guard. And, of course, he kept what was left of the nobility on a short leash.

And you're right in saying that he was wholly unprepared to be king, never having sat in a council meeting or held an administrative position (or a job of any kind) in his life. He must have been wholly reliant on Morton to formulate his laws, letters, and petitions for him.

As Ayala said, he was not a great man. And, yes, vanity and insecurity pretty much sums him up. I suspect that it would also have summed up Edward V had he been allowed to rule, but at least he'd had a classical education and his father was a king.

Give me hardworking, loyal, justice-loving, occasionally humorous Richard, who appreciated the pageantry of Christmas, Corpus Christi, and coronations.

Carol

No fewer than three (St.Leger, Constable and Slingsby) of the seventeen "relevant husbands" were executed.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)




Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> I think Richard's niece Anne St Leger, who married George Manners 12th Lord Roos, had a son named Richard. She may had named him after her grandfather though.
>
> Helen

Carol responds:

Interesting, especially since Richard executed her father (with good reason) for treason. But since Anne never knew her grandfather, it seems odd that she would name a son for him. There's always the possibility of a godfather, as well. Still, it's intriguing! And she, of course, is one of the female descendants of Cecily Neville who passed on the MtDNA that the scientists used to determine Richard's identity, so it's a nice coincidence if she really did name her son for her uncle.

Carol

Carol earlier:

> > Unless you also count his claim, cited and proven by Annette before she left the group, to be the younger son of Henry VI.
>
> Interestingly, Jones suggests that this was imposed upon him by his French backers, who wanted to "sell" a more obviously viable candidate. He argues that Henry probably went along with it only reluctantly for fear that it might compromise his efforts to hoover up disaffected Yorkist support...

Carol responds:

I agree that it was imposed by his French backers, who were wholly Lancastrian in their sympathies and well aware of the weakness of Henry's Lancastrian claim. I just checked Annette's book, "The Maligned King," which quotes Jones, to determine the timing of this audacious proclamation and found that it was November 1484, a full year after Buckingham's Rebellion when the serious attempts to recruit the disaffected Yorkists with rumors that Richard's nephews were dead and promises to marry their sister. I suspect you're right that Henry was reluctant since both his enemies and his supporters would know immediately that the claim was false (as Richard's response in the famous attainder makes abundantly clear). But, then, Henry later backdated his reign and encouraged false statements about Richard, so he clearly wasn't averse to lying when it suited his purposes. On the other hand, it seems clear that at this time, whatever he hoped for the future, he was pretty much a French puppet--do what we say or we won't provide ships or money.

Carol

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> No fewer than three (St.Leger, Constable and Slingsby) of the seventeen "relevant husbands" were executed.

Carol responds:

I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant husbands" in your cryptic message. And who were Constable and Slingsby? It sounds as if you mean that Richard executed three of the seventeen husbands of his sisters and nieces, but clearly that's not the case for his sisters Elizabeth and Margaret (Anne was already dead when he executed St. Leger), and he didn't execute any nephews by marriage that I know of. Also, I don't think that the sisters and nieces add up to anything close to seventeen.

Carol

The husbands of the mtDNA line - Constable in 1536 and Slingsby over a century later.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)




"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> No fewer than three (St.Leger, Constable and Slingsby) of the seventeen "relevant husbands" were executed.

Carol responds:

I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant husbands" in your cryptic message. And who were Constable and Slingsby? It sounds as if you mean that Richard executed three of the seventeen husbands of his sisters and nieces, but clearly that's not the case for his sisters Elizabeth and Margaret (Anne was already dead when he executed St. Leger), and he didn't execute any nephews by marriage that I know of. Also, I don't think that the sisters and nieces add up to anything close to seventeen.

Carol

Stephen, just discovered this by googling, one was executed I think it was Slingsby, was the other one? They were obviously not executed by Richard though.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The husbands of the mtDNA line - Constable in 1536 and Slingsby over a century later.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)
>
>
>
>
> "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > No fewer than three (St.Leger, Constable and Slingsby) of the seventeen "relevant husbands" were executed.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant husbands" in your cryptic message. And who were Constable and Slingsby? It sounds as if you mean that Richard executed three of the seventeen husbands of his sisters and nieces, but clearly that's not the case for his sisters Elizabeth and Margaret (Anne was already dead when he executed St. Leger), and he didn't execute any nephews by marriage that I know of. Also, I don't think that the sisters and nieces add up to anything close to seventeen.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The husbands of the mtDNA line - Constable in 1536 and Slingsby over a century later.

Carol responds:

Thank you for the clarification! I thought you meant that Richard executed the husbands of female relatives (other than sister Anne's widower, who deserved his fate).

Carol

Constable by Henry VIII and Slingsby by the Commonwealth.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)



Stephen, just discovered this by googling, one was executed I think it was Slingsby, was the other one? They were obviously not executed by Richard though.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The husbands of the mtDNA line - Constable in 1536 and Slingsby over a century later.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)
>
>
>
>
> "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > No fewer than three (St.Leger, Constable and Slingsby) of the seventeen "relevant husbands" were executed.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant husbands" in your cryptic message. And who were Constable and Slingsby? It sounds as if you mean that Richard executed three of the seventeen husbands of his sisters and nieces, but clearly that's not the case for his sisters Elizabeth and Margaret (Anne was already dead when he executed St. Leger), and he didn't execute any nephews by marriage that I know of. Also, I don't think that the sisters and nieces add up to anything close to seventeen.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I found something on the internet about a (Sir?) Henry Wyatt who was alleged to have been pals withTudor at Eton so maybe the Wyatts made it up



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 22:21
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> No mention of Eton in Thomas Penn's Winter King on H7. And in Jones and
> Underwood's MB Henry is with Herbert or Jasper until forced to flee in
> 1470. Margaret is cited as a patron of Eton though.

Hmm. Well, I've been looking at Kendall and Pamela Tudor-Craig and the
novel He Who Plays the King, so maybe it was in the novel!

Temperance?  And did she live up to her name?
 
My grandfather's first wife (who died) had a brother called Midsummer John Birch.  I don't know but can only assume he was born on or around 21 June!
 
Gwladys is very Welsh!


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 1:33
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

My great great grandmother was born Henrietta Temperance O'Quinn. My other GGM was Flora. So, one of my great aunts was Floretta. She hated it. We must have some Welsh, as I had two other great aunts from some group named Gladwys and Nelwyn.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,

Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
*think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.

If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
called Harveyina.









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think (and am prepared to be corrected) that naming a child after an older dead sibling is a Victorian thing.  It happened in my family too - in the Scottish bit actually.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 3:12
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

snip>  If they were naming them in age order (were they?) that argues against the
theory that someone mentioned, that Richard and Anne had a son before Edward
of Middleham, and he died, because if so *he* should have been Edward and
the second son George. Unless they named the second son after the first -
that did actually happen once in my family but I'd think it's pretty
unusual.

Hasn't Annette caught Henry Wyatt out in a lie too. Something about Richard imprisoning him which wasn't true. I can't remember the details.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I found something on the internet about a (Sir?) Henry Wyatt who was alleged to have been pals withTudor at Eton so maybe the Wyatts made it up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 22:21
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)
>
>  
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> and a bit of Digest)
>
> > No mention of Eton in Thomas Penn's Winter King on H7. And in Jones and
> > Underwood's MB Henry is with Herbert or Jasper until forced to flee in
> > 1470. Margaret is cited as a patron of Eton though.
>
> Hmm. Well, I've been looking at Kendall and Pamela Tudor-Craig and the
> novel He Who Plays the King, so maybe it was in the novel!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter. Richard and Edward really were descended from a Welsh Prince. If JAH is right then H7 has no Welsh blood what so ever!!

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Temperance?  And did she live up to her name?
>  
> My grandfather's first wife (who died) had a brother called Midsummer John Birch.  I don't know but can only assume he was born on or around 21 June!
>  
> Gwladys is very Welsh!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>" <>
> Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 1:33
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)
>
> My great great grandmother was born Henrietta Temperance O'Quinn. My other GGM was Flora. So, one of my great aunts was Floretta. She hated it. We must have some Welsh, as I had two other great aunts from some group named Gladwys and Nelwyn.
>
> On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> and a bit of Digest)
>
> > That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> > son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,
>
> Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
> on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
> Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
> *think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.
>
> If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
> the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
> 'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
> called Harveyina.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

And that novel "will" be written by Philippa Gregory!



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 4:33
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 
"Yes. His life was a bit of a train wreck too, even though he survived for
longer than Richard - especially as it included being married to Lizzie York
and her gambling habit, instead of to his Maudie. Nobody picked up my
question as to whether Henry's Maud Herbert was the same one who married
Northumberland, or Wednesday's about whether she died in 1465 or 1495. If
it's the same Maud it adds horrible new layers of complication -
Northumberland might have refrained from attacking Henry because he didn't
want to to kill his wife's childhood friend' Henry might have sent
Northumberland to Thirsk to be killed out of sexual jealousy; Norhtumberland
might have been a brute who beat his wife and Henry sent ghim to his death
to protect or avenge her...."

Good god!!! A whole novel here and more!!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 3:52 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> and a bit of Digest)
>
> > I think you may be misreading me. I'm not talking about virtue and vice,
> > only qualifications.
>
> Oh, right, OK, sorry. Henry had had an Eton education, hadn't he, so I
> suppose he had been taught to read Latin and to analyse information, and he
> must have been bright to do as good a job as he did, but yes, he was as
> untried and untrained as a manager as he was as a soldier.
>
> > If you want me to name a vice in Henry, it was probably stinginess.
>
> I'd say it was lack of empathy, the inability (or perhaps just
> disinclination) to put himself in other people's shoes. I don't think he
> was an intentionally unkind man - the fact that he put off executing Warwick
> and Warbeck for so long suggests that he would much have preferred not to
> have to do so. And he was capable of flashes of great generosity - he gave
> a fortune to a pretty girl whose beauty had made him smile, and another to
> some peasant children because he liked their singing. This generosity was a
> bit selfish - he gave money to people according to how much they pleased
> him, not how much they needed it - but it shows that when people pleased him
> his instinctive response was to want to please them back, which is an
> amiable characteristic.
>
> But other than sparing Lambert Simnel I can't think of any instances (Tudor
> guy if you're reading this - can you?) where he showed signs of having
> thought about what other people needed and then acted on it apparently out
> of disinterested concern, in the way that we see Richard do all the time.
> That reburial of the battlefield dead which you found is an especially fine
> example because it shows Richard being concerned about the fate of ordinary
> working-class soldiers, on both sides, and openly saying how sad he thinks
> it is that their lives were cut short, and how affecting he finds their lack
> of proper burial.
>
> An American friend of mine has suggested that we ought to put up pages
> giving all those examples we have of Richard's own words, and if so I think
> that one about the soldiers deserves pride of place.
>
> > Richard, I think, had the makings of a great man and a fine king, but
> > circumstances worked against him.
>
> Yes, although I fear he wasn't very good with money. That's why imo one of
> the greatest tragedies in English history is that Henry didn't end up as
> Richard's Lord Chancellor - *if only* Edward had offered Henry a job instead
> of a cell, and he'd accepted! They would have been an unbeatable
> combination.
>
> > What Henry did have (aside from persistence, which is a virtue) is luck.
> > And Richard, unfortunately, was unlucky if not from birth then from the
> > moment of Edward's death.
>
> Certainly from the moment of his son's investiture at York. That must have
> seemed like a high point, despite all the difficulties which attended it,
> but after that it was downhill all the way, poor bugger, and his life became
> one long slow train-wreck.
>
> > Also, Richard trusted too much and Henry trusted no one but his mother and
> > his kingmaker, Morton. Given Henry's circumstances, both before and after
> > he usurped the throne, it's hard to blame him for his suspicious nature,
> > but it doesn't make him particularly likeable. I can't imagine him writing
> > a charming letter to his chancellor trying to talk his solicitor out of
> > what he sees as an infatuation, for example.
>
> I don't know - I don't think I've seen any examples of his personal style in
> writing letters. Are there any, or was he too suspicious to commit his
> thoughts to paper?
>
> > He's too busy trying to hold onto his throne and his life and (presumably)
> > learning how to be a king when he has never been taught the requisite
> > skills. No wonder he resorted at times (as in the backdating of his reign
> > to attaint men who had served their rightful king as "traitors") to
> > intimidation.
>
> Yes. His life was a bit of a train wreck too, even though he survived for
> longer than Richard - especially as it included being married to Lizzie York
> and her gambling habit, instead of to his Maudie. Nobody picked up my
> question as to whether Henry's Maud Herbert was the same one who married
> Northumberland, or Wednesday's about whether she died in 1465 or 1495. If
> it's the same Maud it adds horrible new layers of complication -
> Northumberland might have refrained from attacking Henry because he didn't
> want to to kill his wife's childhood friend' Henry might have sent
> Northumberland to Thirsk to be killed out of sexual jealousy; Norhtumberland
> might have been a brute who beat his wife and Henry sent ghim to his death
> to protect or avenge her....
>
>

Not particularly..... I really haven't any idea if she over-tippled, but she married twice (Civil War Widow) and had five children with each. That would have driven me to drink, name or no name!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:48 PM
To:
Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry Tudor's treason



Temperance? And did she live up to her name?

My grandfather's first wife (who died) had a brother called Midsummer John Birch. I don't know but can only assume he was born on or around 21 June!

Gwladys is very Welsh!

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 1:33
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

My great great grandmother was born Henrietta Temperance O'Quinn. My other GGM was Flora. So, one of my great aunts was Floretta. She hated it. We must have some Welsh, as I had two other great aunts from some group named Gladwys and Nelwyn.

On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com><mailto:whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>> wrote:

From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,

Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
*think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.

If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
called Harveyina.



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Precisely - that would be a revelation and I can hardly wait for 1 July.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry Tudor's treason



Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter. Richard and Edward really were descended from a Welsh Prince. If JAH is right then H7 has no Welsh blood what so ever!!

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Temperance? And did she live up to her name?
>
> My grandfather's first wife (who died) had a brother called Midsummer John Birch. I don't know but can only assume he was born on or around 21 June!
>
> Gwladys is very Welsh!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> To: "<>
> Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 1:33
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)
>
> My great great grandmother was born Henrietta Temperance O'Quinn. My other GGM was Flora. So, one of my great aunts was Floretta. She hated it. We must have some Welsh, as I had two other great aunts from some group named Gladwys and Nelwyn.
>
> On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
> and a bit of Digest)
>
> > That's because until the late nineteenth century you called your eldest
> > son after paternal granddad, your eldest daughter after paternal grandma,
>
> Unless the family had aspirations and decided to go posh. I have a relative
> on one of the English sides of my family, mid 19th C, working/peasant class,
> Northamptonshire, who is down in the census as Letmaratha although we
> *think* her name was probably Letitia or Lettice Marietta.
>
> If you have relatives in north-east Scotland you also have to bear in mind
> the custom of choosing a male name for an unborn baby and then just bunging
> 'ina' on the end if it turns out to be a girl. One of my lot, 1900-ish, was
> called Harveyina.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:
>
> I found something on the internet about a (Sir?) Henry Wyatt who was alleged to have been pals with Tudor at Eton so maybe the Wyatts made it up

Carol responds:

Henry Wyattt is the father of the poet, Sir Thomas Wyatt. Stories about Henry Wyatt's privations in prison after he was arrested for treason against Richard III, which have since been proven false, are all over the Internet thanks to an article in the old Dictionary of National Biography, available on the Internet and widely quoted. The stories have been corrected in the new DNB entry, but too late to undo the damage.

The old DNB article, which recounts the legends about the imprisonment as true but doesn't mention Eton, can be found here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wyatt,_Thomas_%281503%3F-1542%29_%28DNB00%29

The partially corrected New DNB article, which I can't access, is here:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/30/101030111/

I'm guessing that "in Eton with Henry Tudor" is a fabrication, too, especially since this Henry was born in 1460 (according to Wikipedia--pardon the source) and was too young to be in Eton in 1471, the only point at which Tudor could have been there.

Interestingly, both Thomas Wyatt and his son (another Thomas) were imprisoned by the Tudors and the younger Thomas was executed for treason. One of the older Thomas's friends was another poet, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, a descendant of two men who served under Richard III (but at least publicly apologetically about his family's "treason"). Thomas Wyatt's most famous poem, "Whoso list to hunt, I know where is an hind" is about Anne Boleyn. (The message is "hands off; she belongs to the king.")

I just discovered that Annette wrote an article called "The Questionable Legacy of Henry Wyatt," one of the treasures to be found on the NSW RIII Society website, which can be found here:

http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/?p=6088

Annette dismisses the legend that the two Henrys attended Eton together along with the more lurid tales of Henry Wyatt's imprisonment (fed by a cat in one version!)in the Tower of London. Another version has Richard personally interrogating him and supervising the torture.

Annette cites a letter written by the elder Thomas to his son which proves that Henry's imprisonment was in *Scotland*. She states that after the younger Thomas's execution for treason by Henry VIII, the family tried to rehabilitate its reputation by exaggerating the grandfather's sufferings for Henry Tudor during the reign of the supposedly tyrannical Richard III (along with the grandfather's virtues). The idea that Henry was imprisoned in the Tower of London instead of Scotland (a mistake by a descendant) dates from 1702.

According to Annette, the new DNB article still contains errors (such as having Henry Wyatt participate in Buckingham's Rebellion). It seems more likely, according to one of Annette's sources, Agnes Conway*, that he was spying for Tudor along the Scottish border (he was, sad to say, a Yorkshireman) and was caught by a Scottish baron with Yorkist sympathies, who would have been responsible for both the imprisonment and the torture (if any). Annette considers it likely that Henry Wyatt himself invented the story of an interview by "the tirant" (Richard, somehow inexplicably in Scotland at this time), whose friends, according to the legend, had all deserted him.

Anyway, what remains after all the exaggeration is stripped away is that Henry Wyatt, a Tudor spy and confidant, was imprisoned in Scotland and apparently tortured, during the reign of Richard III. But we can dismiss the cat, the time spent with Henry Tudor at Eton, and, above all, the interrogation and supervision of the torture by Richard, as family legend that grew in the telling, in part because of the family's need for rehabilitation after one member committed treason against Henry VIII and in part reflecting the legend of Richard himself.

* Agnes Conway, Henry VII's Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485–1498 (Cambridge, 1932), pp.7-8

Carol

This is the new one
 
 Sir Henry Wyatt
Wyatt's father, Sir Henry Wyatt (c.14601536), politician and courtier, was a younger son of Richard Wyatt, of Yorkshire, and Margaret, the daughter and heir of William Bailif, of Reigate. His skill as a soldier and reliability as a financier made him one of the longest-serving courtiers of Henry VII and Henry VIII. His support for Henry Tudor began before 1483, and he probably participated in Buckingham's unsuccessful revolt against Richard III in that year. Family legend has it that he was imprisoned and interrogated by Richard III himself, and that during his imprisonment he was fed on pigeons brought to him by a cat. After the victory of Henry VII at Bosworth he received a number of grants and favours. In 1485 he became keeper of Norwich Castle and gaol, and before September 1486 he was made clerk of the king's jewels. He succeeded to the increasingly influential position of master of the king's jewels in June 1488, combining the office with that
of clerk of the king's mint. By 1494 he was keeper of the change, assayer of the money and coinage, and comptroller of the mint.

From these grants and offices came sufficient wealth to purchase in 1492 Allington Castle in Kent. Sir Henry retained his Yorkshire links, however, and in March 1487 he became joint bailiff and constable of Conisbrough Castle in Yorkshire. In June of that year he fought against the pretender Lambert Simnel in the battle of Stoke-on-Trent. He became governor of the city and castle of Carlisle in 1494, and at some point was captured and held to ransom by the Scots, for which he was reimbursed by a grant on 22 August 1515. This two yeres and more prisonment in Scotland, in Irons and Stoks' (Muir, 40), referred to by Sir Thomas Wyatt in a letter to his son, may have occurred between 1494 and 1496. By June 1496, however, Sir Henry wrote to the king from Carlisle to discuss preparations for putting down the rebellion of Perkin Warbeck, and in June 1497 he was present at the battle of Blackheath. About 1502 he married Anne Skinner. Thomas Scott's anecdotes
of the family (BL, Wyatt papers, 29) present her as a powerful overseer of the household, who caught the abbot of Boxley in a compromising position with one of her maids, and stocked him. They had two sons, Thomas and Henry (who is assumed to have died in infancy), and a daughter, Margaret, who married Sir Anthony Lee, MP for Buckinghamshire. Her portrait by Holbein survives in the Metropolitan Museum of New York.

Sir Henry became a privy councillor in 1504, and was granted arms in 15078. He was an executor of Henry VII's will, and remained in high office in the reign of Henry VIII. Having been granted livery by virtue of his office as master of the king's jewel house at the funeral of Henry VII in May 1509, he was made knight of the Bath at the coronation of Henry VIII, and was appointed to the new privy council. He was commissioner of the peace for Middlesex and Surrey from 1509 to 1515. He established close ties with his Kentish neighbours the Boleyns of Hever Castle (Sir Henry became captain of Norwich Castle jointly with Thomas Boleyn in 1511), and with Thomas Cromwell, who became one of his executors. His military activity also ensured his continuing favour: with a retinue of 102 he accompanied the king to Calais in 1513, and was made knight-banneret after the battle of the Spurs in August 1513. In 1519 he again attended Henry VIII to Calais. In 1520 it
fell to him to transport gold and silver plate sufficient for the banquet at the Field of Cloth of Gold. He attended Henry at Canterbury during his reception of Charles V in May 1522, and was by that date sheriff of Kent.

By the later 1520s Sir Henry began to ease out of public life. He stood down as master of the jewels in 1524, and founded a chantry at Milton in Kent in that year; by 1528 he resigned as treasurer of the king's chamber and was succeeded by Sir Brian Tuke. By 1533 his retirement was complete, and his health was failing. In that year his son Thomas deputized for him as ewerer at the coronation of Anne Boleyn. From his retirement in Allington he learned of his son's imprisonment in May 1536, and wrote to thank both Cromwell and the king for his release. He died on 10 November of that year. His will provides for his burial at Milton nere unto dame Anee my wyfe' (TNA: PRO, PROB 11/26, fols. 49v50r) and for the continuance of his chantry there. A portrait by Holbein survives in the Louvre, and another, showing the cat supposed to have fed him during his imprisonment, is in the possession of the earl of Romney.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 21:45
Subject: The Wyatts, the Tudors, and a mythical Richard III (Was: Henry Tudor's treason)

 
liz williams wrote:
>
> I found something on the internet about a (Sir?) Henry Wyatt who was alleged to have been pals with Tudor at Eton so maybe the Wyatts made it up

Carol responds:

Henry Wyattt is the father of the poet, Sir Thomas Wyatt. Stories about Henry Wyatt's privations in prison after he was arrested for treason against Richard III, which have since been proven false, are all over the Internet thanks to an article in the old Dictionary of National Biography, available on the Internet and widely quoted. The stories have been corrected in the new DNB entry, but too late to undo the damage.

The old DNB article, which recounts the legends about the imprisonment as true but doesn't mention Eton, can be found here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wyatt,_Thomas_%281503%3F-1542%29_%28DNB00%29

The partially corrected New DNB article, which I can't access, is here:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/30/101030111/

I'm guessing that "in Eton with Henry Tudor" is a fabrication, too, especially since this Henry was born in 1460 (according to Wikipedia--pardon the source) and was too young to be in Eton in 1471, the only point at which Tudor could have been there.

Interestingly, both Thomas Wyatt and his son (another Thomas) were imprisoned by the Tudors and the younger Thomas was executed for treason. One of the older Thomas's friends was another poet, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, a descendant of two men who served under Richard III (but at least publicly apologetically about his family's "treason"). Thomas Wyatt's most famous poem, "Whoso list to hunt, I know where is an hind" is about Anne Boleyn. (The message is "hands off; she belongs to the king.")

I just discovered that Annette wrote an article called "The Questionable Legacy of Henry Wyatt," one of the treasures to be found on the NSW RIII Society website, which can be found here:

http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/?p=6088

Annette dismisses the legend that the two Henrys attended Eton together along with the more lurid tales of Henry Wyatt's imprisonment (fed by a cat in one version!)in the Tower of London. Another version has Richard personally interrogating him and supervising the torture.

Annette cites a letter written by the elder Thomas to his son which proves that Henry's imprisonment was in *Scotland*. She states that after the younger Thomas's execution for treason by Henry VIII, the family tried to rehabilitate its reputation by exaggerating the grandfather's sufferings for Henry Tudor during the reign of the supposedly tyrannical Richard III (along with the grandfather's virtues). The idea that Henry was imprisoned in the Tower of London instead of Scotland (a mistake by a descendant) dates from 1702.

According to Annette, the new DNB article still contains errors (such as having Henry Wyatt participate in Buckingham's Rebellion). It seems more likely, according to one of Annette's sources, Agnes Conway*, that he was spying for Tudor along the Scottish border (he was, sad to say, a Yorkshireman) and was caught by a Scottish baron with Yorkist sympathies, who would have been responsible for both the imprisonment and the torture (if any). Annette considers it likely that Henry Wyatt himself invented the story of an interview by "the tirant" (Richard, somehow inexplicably in Scotland at this time), whose friends, according to the legend, had all deserted him.

Anyway, what remains after all the exaggeration is stripped away is that Henry Wyatt, a Tudor spy and confidant, was imprisoned in Scotland and apparently tortured, during the reign of Richard III. But we can dismiss the cat, the time spent with Henry Tudor at Eton, and, above all, the interrogation and supervision of the torture by Richard, as family legend that grew in the telling, in part because of the family's need for rehabilitation after one member committed treason against Henry VIII and in part reflecting the legend of Richard himself.

* Agnes Conway, Henry VII's Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 14851498 (Cambridge, 1932), pp.7-8

Carol

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I think (and am prepared to be corrected) that naming a child after an older dead sibling is a Victorian thing.  It happened in my family too - in the Scottish bit actually.

Carol responds:

It predates the Victorians. Percy Shelley (born 1792) had a sister who shared her dead sister's name. But duplicate names occurred among *living* family members in the fifteenth century, especially when one was legitimate and the other illegitimate. The Pastons had two sons with the same first name, both legitimate. I love this sentence from a BBC website:

"John Paston the Elder and John Paston the Younger:

"John Snr's two sons, both imaginatively named John (just to make our lives easier), inherited a legal nightmare centred on the manors of Caister Castle, Coton and Hellesdon."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/pastonletters_01.shtml

Carol

Illegitimacy is entirely another thing. I've yet to find two living legitimate children with the same name but the closest I've got is John and Jhon - honest, mid- sixteenth century, and later of course Mary and Mary Ann (mid-Victorian).



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 23:14
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I think (and am prepared to be corrected) that naming a child after an older dead sibling is a Victorian thing.  It happened in my family too - in the Scottish bit actually.

Carol responds:

It predates the Victorians. Percy Shelley (born 1792) had a sister who shared her dead sister's name. But duplicate names occurred among *living* family members in the fifteenth century, especially when one was legitimate and the other illegitimate. The Pastons had two sons with the same first name, both legitimate. I love this sentence from a BBC website:

"John Paston the Elder and John Paston the Younger:

"John Snr's two sons, both imaginatively named John (just to make our lives easier), inherited a legal nightmare centred on the manors of Caister Castle, Coton and Hellesdon."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/pastonletters_01.shtml

Carol

liz williams wrote:
>
> This is the new one
>  
> " Sir Henry Wyatt
> "Wyatt's father, Sir Henry Wyatt (c.1460â€"1536), politician and courtier, was a younger son of Richard Wyatt, of Yorkshire, and Margaret, the daughter and heir of William Bailif, of Reigate. His skill as a soldier and reliability as a financier made him one of the longest-serving courtiers of Henry VII and Henry VIII. His support for Henry Tudor began before 1483, and he probably participated in Buckingham's unsuccessful revolt against Richard III in that year. Family legend has it that he was imprisoned and interrogated by Richard III himself, and that during his imprisonment he was fed on pigeons brought to him by a cat. [snip]"

Carol responds:

Well, I guess that's better than nothing, but too bad the author doesn't note that the imprisonment was in Scotland (where Richard didn't go during the period involved). Still, if we encounter anyone citing this legend, we know where to point them.

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Illegitimacy is entirely another thing. I've yet to find two living legitimate children with the same name but the closest I've got is John and Jhon - honest, mid- sixteenth century, and later of course Mary and Mary Ann (mid-Victorian).

Carol responds:

Sorry if I was unclear. The Paston brothers (John the Elder and John the Younger) were both legitimate AFAIK. There was a Sir John in there somewhere, too. My statement about legitimate and illegitimate sons having the same name was a separate point. I suspect that it applies to daughters, as well.

Carol

Sorry!  Were they the children of two different mothers? That was not uncommon.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 23:32
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 


Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Illegitimacy is entirely another thing. I've yet to find two living legitimate children with the same name but the closest I've got is John and Jhon - honest, mid- sixteenth century, and later of course Mary and Mary Ann (mid-Victorian).

Carol responds:

Sorry if I was unclear. The Paston brothers (John the Elder and John the Younger) were both legitimate AFAIK. There was a Sir John in there somewhere, too. My statement about legitimate and illegitimate sons having the same name was a separate point. I suspect that it applies to daughters, as well.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Sorry!  Were they the children of two different mothers? That was not uncommon.

Carol responds:

Nope. Same father and same mother, John (Sr.) and Margaret (Mauteby) Paston. Here's the link again if you're interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/pastonletters_01.shtml

I own "The Paston Letters," but it's been a long time since I read it. I do remember that it was hard to keep all the John Pastons straight.

Carol

Claire M Jordan wrote:
//snip//
"Sort of, but you also have to bear in mind that Henry didn't have many
options. He couldn't come home, except at the head of an army, and France
only wanted him if he was causing trouble for England. He didn't have many
transferable skills that we know of, so he couldn't go off and become a
physician or a strolling player - he had to do what France wanted.
Overthrowing somebody else's government and causing a lot of needless deaths
to preserve your own life is ignoble and selfish, but not quite as bad imo
as doing it out of naked mabition."

Doug here:
The problem, to me at least, is rather "chicken and eggy". Was it that Henry
couldn't come home *because* he was so closely involved with the French who
wanted to use him against Richard or was it that he was so closely involved
with the French because he couldn't go home? *I* feel there's definitely a
difference, but that may be just me.
Why *did* Henry remain in France instead of going to, say, Italy or Germany?
Why did he accept all that suuport from the French if his intentions were
merely to stay alive and *not* grab the English throne at the first
opportunity? Did he ever try to "cut a deal" with Edward IV so that he could
return? I know MB was likely angling with EW to have Henry marry Elizabeth
as part of the deal behind "Buckingham's Rebellion", but was any effort made
to get Richard to allow Henry back?
Because if there wasn't, then the ball is once again in Henry's court - why
not?
Do you know of any good bio of Henry - one that's preferably *not* of the
"Hail the Conquering Hero!"-type?
Doug
(I'm sorry about the delay - been sick)

Hilary Jones wrote:

That's very sound reasoning Doug. You could try to remove an annointed King
by saying you had a better right but Henry certainly didn't have that. He
was what, nineteenth in line to the throne after Richard? As for William III
we're into an entirely different situation where he was encouraged/invited
to take the throne by a Parliament who had fought a war to get rid of a
monarch with Catholic sympathies. Power had by this time passed from the
monarch to Parliament; that's why the war was fought."

Doug here:
That's it exactly. In the 15th century Parliament was just beginning to get
its' legs in actively participating in governing. The entirety of the
government was still in the monarch's hands; from appointing Sherriffs,
magistrates in the Counties, heads of Departments, governors of castles down
to approving those hired by his appointees. If I'm not mistaken, most Bills
were still drawn up by the King (or one of his officials) before being
introduced in Parliament.
By the time of William III, Parliament and monarch were, at the very least,
equal partners - even if the monarchs involved didn't particularly like it!
Doug
(with my apologies for being late in replying - I've been sick)

Claire M Jordan wrote:

"But then surely if they *didn't*, if having been born English means that
you have to owe fealty to whoever's on the throne, that makes Richard a
traitor to Henry VI, and Lovell and Lincoln traitors to Henry VII."

Doug here:
This is what I mean about the *why* of "treason" offering possible
extenuating circumstances for committing it.
Henry VI claimed the throne because his father was king. Henry V for the
same reason, *but* Henry IV based *his* claim on the falsehood that the son
of Edward III from whom he traced his descent, Edmund, was the eldest, when
he clearly wasn't. Henry IV wanted to maintain his legitimate descent as
*the* reason for taking the throne from Richard II and/or *not* passing it
on to the Mortimers. There's that.
Then there's the plain fact that Henry VI just wasn't cut out to be a 15th
century king. He relied almost totally on advisors without bothering to keep
an eye on what was done by them in *his* name, he preferred the cloister to
the Court, wasn't a good judge of character or even a a fair-to-middling
military leader. He was also subject to an illness that *required* good
advisors to be there when/if Henry became ill.
Opposed to Henry, at first only in the sense of being almost his opposite,
was Richard, Duke of York, who, by the by, had the better "legitimate" claim
to the throne. I put "legitimate" in parentheses because, had Henry been
more like Richard, Duke of York, I tend to think there never would have been
a War of the Roses and had Richard tried to get the throne based *solely* on
his being *more* legitimate", he would have failed.
That's what those involved had to decide - do I support Henry VI *solely*
because he's been crowned and annointed, but is otherwise totally unfit to
be king or do I support Richard, Duke of York and by supporting him, commit
treason?
The same reasoning would apply to those who rebelled against Henry VII. As
Stephen pointed out in another post, Henry had his own Titulus Regius passed
so Henry was, after that Bill was enacted, not only King "de facto" (because
of Bosworth), he was also king "de jure" (because Parliament said, so
there!). The "de jure" part of Henry's claim only mattered so long as the
"de facto" part could be maintained. Hence the rebellions and plotting
against him.
Treason was treason, simply because, until Parliament came into its' own,
there just wasn't any other way to remove/control a monarch. Which is why,
in my view, it's extremely important to look at the *why* behind the
treason.
Doug
Doug.

Claire M Jordan wrote:

"Eee - possibly. Or Morton was so fanatically attached to Lancaster that he
was willing to promote a candidate with a very tenuous connection if no
other was available, I'm not sure."
//snip//

Doug here:
My view of Morton is that he was less a fanatical Lancastrian than he was a
fanatical Mortonian...

Haha! Ain't that the truth!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 11:23 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
> "Eee - possibly. Or Morton was so fanatically attached to Lancaster that he
> was willing to promote a candidate with a very tenuous connection if no
> other was available, I'm not sure."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> My view of Morton is that he was less a fanatical Lancastrian than he was a
> fanatical Mortonian...
>
>

Carol wrote:


//snip//
"You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion
against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of
Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would
have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that
the Hanoverians would as well."

Doug here:
Agree completely with you on the legal term and definition and that we can't
change those to meet our personal wishes.
However, during a period of history when there just wasn't any other way of
removing/controlling a criminally incompetent, or just plain criminal,
monarch, what was a person to do?
I guess, basically, what it boils down to for me is that I want know *why*
someone felt there was no other option available *except* rebellion. My
contention is that Richard III's reign was too short for opposition to
develop *based on anything other* than his being "Richard III" and *not*
Henry, or Edward (V) if one was a supporter of the Woodvilles. Thus there
was no valid reason to commit treason against Richard.
While Henry VII may have been king both by right of "de jure" (Parliament)
and "de facto" (Bosworth), he still wasn't "legitimately" the king - that
was *still* based on lineage and Henry didn't have it. A rebellion against
Henry to place a brother of his wife on the throne, or a de la Pole(?) or
even Edward of Warwick would still have been "treason", but there *would*
have been the justification of a return to "legitimacy" on their part.
I don't know if that would be enough to get *me* to buckle on my sword, but
then I was born in 1950 and not 1450...
Doug

Thomas Penn The Winter King  So well written a lot of people thought it was fiction! And he's certainly no hero. Trouble is it starts in earnest in 1497 but he does give a chapter to the earlier bits. He quotes Commynes, who met him in France as saying he was almost penniless and his claim to the throne 'non-existent'. He told C that since the age of five his life had been 'an interminabl sequence of suffering, evasion and prison'. Apparently he had a cast in one eye so he didn't seem to look at you - perhaps the media could do something with that? And no Eton. Apparently Francis of Brittany, who had no sons, encouraged him to stay there to annoy Louis XI. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 2:31
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 


Claire M Jordan wrote:
//snip//
"Sort of, but you also have to bear in mind that Henry didn't have many
options. He couldn't come home, except at the head of an army, and France
only wanted him if he was causing trouble for England. He didn't have many
transferable skills that we know of, so he couldn't go off and become a
physician or a strolling player - he had to do what France wanted.
Overthrowing somebody else's government and causing a lot of needless deaths
to preserve your own life is ignoble and selfish, but not quite as bad imo
as doing it out of naked mabition."

Doug here:
The problem, to me at least, is rather "chicken and eggy". Was it that Henry
couldn't come home *because* he was so closely involved with the French who
wanted to use him against Richard or was it that he was so closely involved
with the French because he couldn't go home? *I* feel there's definitely a
difference, but that may be just me.
Why *did* Henry remain in France instead of going to, say, Italy or Germany?
Why did he accept all that suuport from the French if his intentions were
merely to stay alive and *not* grab the English throne at the first
opportunity? Did he ever try to "cut a deal" with Edward IV so that he could
return? I know MB was likely angling with EW to have Henry marry Elizabeth
as part of the deal behind "Buckingham's Rebellion", but was any effort made
to get Richard to allow Henry back?
Because if there wasn't, then the ball is once again in Henry's court - why
not?
Do you know of any good bio of Henry - one that's preferably *not* of the
"Hail the Conquering Hero!"-type?
Doug
(I'm sorry about the delay - been sick)

Hope you're better! Yes, Edward IV only had six Parliaments, two of them after 1475 and having just read the Rolls, they seem to be an interminable list of attainder reversals, grants to cronies, avoidance of taxation by cronies, and street paving issues. Besides them Richard's one Parliament was indeed enlightened.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 2:40
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

That's very sound reasoning Doug. You could try to remove an annointed King
by saying you had a better right but Henry certainly didn't have that. He
was what, nineteenth in line to the throne after Richard? As for William III
we're into an entirely different situation where he was encouraged/invited
to take the throne by a Parliament who had fought a war to get rid of a
monarch with Catholic sympathies. Power had by this time passed from the
monarch to Parliament; that's why the war was fought."

Doug here:
That's it exactly. In the 15th century Parliament was just beginning to get
its' legs in actively participating in governing. The entirety of the
government was still in the monarch's hands; from appointing Sherriffs,
magistrates in the Counties, heads of Departments, governors of castles down
to approving those hired by his appointees. If I'm not mistaken, most Bills
were still drawn up by the King (or one of his officials) before being
introduced in Parliament.
By the time of William III, Parliament and monarch were, at the very least,
equal partners - even if the monarchs involved didn't particularly like it!
Doug
(with my apologies for being late in replying - I've been sick)

Spot on. Perhaps Richard should have made him Archbishop of Canterbury?



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 3:23
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 


Claire M Jordan wrote:

"Eee - possibly. Or Morton was so fanatically attached to Lancaster that he
was willing to promote a candidate with a very tenuous connection if no
other was available, I'm not sure."
//snip//

Doug here:
My view of Morton is that he was less a fanatical Lancastrian than he was a
fanatical Mortonian...

I agree, and you can apply the same extended logic to justified rebellion/treason eg the American colonies, which was an example also raised.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 4:01
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 


Carol wrote:

//snip//
"You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion
against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of
Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would
have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that
the Hanoverians would as well."

Doug here:
Agree completely with you on the legal term and definition and that we can't
change those to meet our personal wishes.
However, during a period of history when there just wasn't any other way of
removing/controlling a criminally incompetent, or just plain criminal,
monarch, what was a person to do?
I guess, basically, what it boils down to for me is that I want know *why*
someone felt there was no other option available *except* rebellion. My
contention is that Richard III's reign was too short for opposition to
develop *based on anything other* than his being "Richard III" and *not*
Henry, or Edward (V) if one was a supporter of the Woodvilles. Thus there
was no valid reason to commit treason against Richard.
While Henry VII may have been king both by right of "de jure" (Parliament)
and "de facto" (Bosworth), he still wasn't "legitimately" the king - that
was *still* based on lineage and Henry didn't have it. A rebellion against
Henry to place a brother of his wife on the throne, or a de la Pole(?) or
even Edward of Warwick would still have been "treason", but there *would*
have been the justification of a return to "legitimacy" on their part.
I don't know if that would be enough to get *me* to buckle on my sword, but
then I was born in 1950 and not 1450...
Doug

You're right. I looked it up in 'Blood and Roses' It's apparently extremely rare and thought to be because both were named after a different godfather, each of which had the name John. I've never come across it tll now, but you did sometimes get it when the husband remarried and you have two 'eldest' sons from each marriage. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 0:25
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Sorry!  Were they the children of two different mothers? That was not uncommon.

Carol responds:

Nope. Same father and same mother, John (Sr.) and Margaret (Mauteby) Paston. Here's the link again if you're interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/pastonletters_01.shtml

I own "The Paston Letters," but it's been a long time since I read it. I do remember that it was hard to keep all the John Pastons straight.

Carol

You know, much of the Declaration of Independence catalogs the injustices the Continental Congress thought King George was subjecting the colonies to. The delegates signing it knew full well that if the colonies lost the war, the Crown would destroy those who had signed.

It just occurred to me that certain parallels might be drawn between Richard, Duke of York/his army fighting Margaret Anjou/her army. Good government was the problem then, as it was later for the Colonies. Trouble is, York, et. al. didn't/couldn't put why they were fighting into a legal document, regardless a lot of merchants and others were saying, "She and her lot are destroying England; go get her!"

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, and you can apply the same extended logic to justified rebellion/treason eg the American colonies, which was an example also raised.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 4:01
> Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
>  
>
>
> Carol wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion
> against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of
> Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would
> have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that
> the Hanoverians would as well."
>
> Doug here:
> Agree completely with you on the legal term and definition and that we can't
> change those to meet our personal wishes.
> However, during a period of history when there just wasn't any other way of
> removing/controlling a criminally incompetent, or just plain criminal,
> monarch, what was a person to do?
> I guess, basically, what it boils down to for me is that I want know *why*
> someone felt there was no other option available *except* rebellion. My
> contention is that Richard III's reign was too short for opposition to
> develop *based on anything other* than his being "Richard III" and *not*
> Henry, or Edward (V) if one was a supporter of the Woodvilles. Thus there
> was no valid reason to commit treason against Richard.
> While Henry VII may have been king both by right of "de jure" (Parliament)
> and "de facto" (Bosworth), he still wasn't "legitimately" the king - that
> was *still* based on lineage and Henry didn't have it. A rebellion against
> Henry to place a brother of his wife on the throne, or a de la Pole(?) or
> even Edward of Warwick would still have been "treason", but there *would*
> have been the justification of a return to "legitimacy" on their part.
> I don't know if that would be enough to get *me* to buckle on my sword, but
> then I was born in 1950 and not 1450...
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

America at this time was lucky to have a group of literate, intelligent men who could articulate the issues and who were brave enough to take the huge risks. But it was the Age of Reason; I doubt there were a dozen people in fifteenth century England who could have spelled it out in such a way, or the ones that could were ones with a very vested interest. 



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:19
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

You know, much of the Declaration of Independence catalogs the injustices the Continental Congress thought King George was subjecting the colonies to. The delegates signing it knew full well that if the colonies lost the war, the Crown would destroy those who had signed.

It just occurred to me that certain parallels might be drawn between Richard, Duke of York/his army fighting Margaret Anjou/her army. Good government was the problem then, as it was later for the Colonies. Trouble is, York, et. al. didn't/couldn't put why they were fighting into a legal document, regardless a lot of merchants and others were saying, "She and her lot are destroying England; go get her!"

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, and you can apply the same extended logic to justified rebellion/treason eg the American colonies, which was an example also raised.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 4:01
> Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
>  
>
>
> Carol wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion
> against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of
> Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would
> have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that
> the Hanoverians would as well."
>
> Doug here:
> Agree completely with you on the legal term and definition and that we can't
> change those to meet our personal wishes.
> However, during a period of history when there just wasn't any other way of
> removing/controlling a criminally incompetent, or just plain criminal,
> monarch, what was a person to do?
> I guess, basically, what it boils down to for me is that I want know *why*
> someone felt there was no other option available *except* rebellion. My
> contention is that Richard III's reign was too short for opposition to
> develop *based on anything other* than his being "Richard III" and *not*
> Henry, or Edward (V) if one was a supporter of the Woodvilles. Thus there
> was no valid reason to commit treason against Richard.
> While Henry VII may have been king both by right of "de jure" (Parliament)
> and "de facto" (Bosworth), he still wasn't "legitimately" the king - that
> was *still* based on lineage and Henry didn't have it. A rebellion against
> Henry to place a brother of his wife on the throne, or a de la Pole(?) or
> even Edward of Warwick would still have been "treason", but there *would*
> have been the justification of a return to "legitimacy" on their part.
> I don't know if that would be enough to get *me* to buckle on my sword, but
> then I was born in 1950 and not 1450...
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

We need just such a group again - right now, this very minute!!!! Unfortunately, our system of education has "dumbed down" education, and we have a very large group who are low information livers of life, much less voters!!!!



On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:24 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



America at this time was lucky to have a group of literate, intelligent men who could articulate the issues and who were brave enough to take the huge risks. But it was the Age of Reason; I doubt there were a dozen people in fifteenth century England who could have spelled it out in such a way, or the ones that could were ones with a very vested interest.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:19
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)



You know, much of the Declaration of Independence catalogs the injustices the Continental Congress thought King George was subjecting the colonies to. The delegates signing it knew full well that if the colonies lost the war, the Crown would destroy those who had signed.

It just occurred to me that certain parallels might be drawn between Richard, Duke of York/his army fighting Margaret Anjou/her army. Good government was the problem then, as it was later for the Colonies. Trouble is, York, et. al. didn't/couldn't put why they were fighting into a legal document, regardless a lot of merchants and others were saying, "She and her lot are destroying England; go get her!"

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, and you can apply the same extended logic to justified rebellion/treason eg the American colonies, which was an example also raised.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 4:01
> Subject: Re: Re: Henry Tudor's treason Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> ý
>
>
> Carol wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "You can't invent your own subjective definition of treason. Rebellion
> against the king, however good the cause, is still treason by act of
> Parliament. That's how Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII would
> have defined it. So would their Tudor and Stuart successors. I suspect that
> the Hanoverians would as well."
>
> Doug here:
> Agree completely with you on the legal term and definition and that we can't
> change those to meet our personal wishes.
> However, during a period of history when there just wasn't any other way of
> removing/controlling a criminally incompetent, or just plain criminal,
> monarch, what was a person to do?
> I guess, basically, what it boils down to for me is that I want know *why*
> someone felt there was no other option available *except* rebellion. My
> contention is that Richard III's reign was too short for opposition to
> develop *based on anything other* than his being "Richard III" and *not*
> Henry, or Edward (V) if one was a supporter of the Woodvilles. Thus there
> was no valid reason to commit treason against Richard.
> While Henry VII may have been king both by right of "de jure" (Parliament)
> and "de facto" (Bosworth), he still wasn't "legitimately" the king - that
> was *still* based on lineage and Henry didn't have it. A rebellion against
> Henry to place a brother of his wife on the throne, or a de la Pole(?) or
> even Edward of Warwick would still have been "treason", but there *would*
> have been the justification of a return to "legitimacy" on their part.
> I don't know if that would be enough to get *me* to buckle on my sword, but
> then I was born in 1950 and not 1450...
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Thomas Penn The Winter King So well written a lot of people thought it was
fiction! And he's certainly no hero. Trouble is it starts in earnest in 1497
but he does give a chapter to the earlier bits."
//snip//

Doug here:
Thank you for the reccomendation; it's been added to my list! My opinion of
Henry isn't very high, as you may have guessed, but before I make any
judgements I really should know *something* about him!
As for Morton, I look at him as being extremely talented and knowing it. His
support for the Lancastrians made it unlikely that he'd ever be more than
Bishop of Ely under Edward IV or Richard, which is *one* reason I think he
supported retaining Edward (V). With a minor as king and a Protector who was
that in name only, there'd be many opportunities for Morton's "talents".
When the Council decided Edward (V) *was* the result of a bigamous marriage
and Richard accepted the crown, the *only* place left for Morton was Tudor -
faux Lancastrian claims notwithstanding. I tend to think the major reason
"Buckingham's Rebellion" occurred when it did was an more an attempt to get
rid of Richard *before* the information that was later published in Titulus
Regius had a chance to spread.
Somehow I just can't see Edward or Richard surviving any "rescue" attempt,
but maybe I'm cynical...
Doug
(back's almost completely better, I can stand up straight now!)

Went on quite a lot if the grandfather was important and you wanted to re-inforce the name, but sometimes you did a variation like Jonathan for John, but yes mainly Victorian (though sometimes earlier) and you could have three or four goes depending on the intervals between birth and death of each child. As I said before though it doesn't really apply to the royal family. You need to look at Wilkinson and her saints for that. 
Temperance is a mainly early seventeenth century name which, like Comfort, Prudence, Patience etc  came from Protestant/Puritan/Quaker leanings; much loved by the early American colonists! Certainly told women where their place was.
 

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 19:58
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)


 

I think (and am prepared to be corrected) that naming a child after an older dead sibling is a Victorian thing.  It happened in my family too - in the Scottish bit actually.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013, 3:12
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

snip>  If they were naming them in age order (were they?) that argues against the
theory that someone mentioned, that Richard and Anne had a son before Edward
of Middleham, and he died, because if so *he* should have been Edward and
the second son George. Unless they named the second son after the first -
that did actually happen once in my family but I'd think it's pretty
unusual.

From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)

> Interestingly, Jones suggests that this was imposed upon him by his French
> backers, who wanted to "sell" a more obviously viable candidate. He
> argues that Henry probably went along with it only reluctantly for fear
> that it might compromise his efforts to hoover up disaffected Yorkist
> support...

I'm back, one replacement hard drive later, except my video card is also
dying whichy means everything comes out too huge to fit on the screen
properly....

Anyway, while I was in the technological wilderness I was wondering, do we
know whether Henry was already planning a future invasion at the point at
which Edward IV tried to get custory of him, or did Edward *cause* the later
invasion by making Henry think that the kings of England would go on trying
to kill him unless he became king himself?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, that's my theory. Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolial Duchess," thinks that Margaret's brother Edmund and sister Anne were named for Mortimer relatives, which is plausible (especially Anne being named for her paternal grandmother). She suggests that George and Margaret were named for saints (I agree), but if she mentions the others, I can't find them.
>

Did Weightman also mention the possibility that Margaret may have been thus named as a gesture of good will towards the Queen, or was this in another book I read recently? I can't remember.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> I think (and am prepared to be corrected) that naming a child after an
> older dead sibling is a Victorian thing. It happened in my family too -
> in the Scottish bit actually.

Ah, yes - and mine was in north-east Scotland in the 1860s/70s.

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)


> Hasn't Annette caught Henry Wyatt out in a lie too. Something about
Richard imprisoning him which wasn't true. I can't remember the details.

He wasn't lying - he spoke of being imprisoned and tortured by a "tyrant",
not named, and because of the date and because he was a Lancastrian some
later writers assumed this was Richard, but it's clear from Wyatt's own
account that this took place in Scotland, so it couldn't have been Richard.

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry
Tudor's treason

> Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter.

Honestly? Richard was descended from somebody called Black Gladys?

Sounds about right - Gwladys the black (haired), Pugh the post, my cousin was known as Idris the Speed because when he got chance to drive the train he went as fast as he could.
 
And of course there's the old joke about Dai Central 'Eating ..


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry Tudor's treason

 
From: ricard1an
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry
Tudor's treason

> Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter.

Honestly? Richard was descended from somebody called Black Gladys?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> Hope you're better!

Seconded.

> Yes, Edward IV only had six Parliaments, two of them after 1475 and having
> just read the Rolls, they seem to be an interminable list of attainder
> reversals, grants to cronies, avoidance of taxation by cronies, and street
> paving issues. Besides them Richard's one Parliament was indeed
> enlightened.

But I fear this may be a key to why at least some people felt justified in
committing treason against Richard. They would expect him to be just Edward
redux, and therefore a bit of a menace, and he didn't get to reign long
enough to prove to them that he was a great improvement over his brother.

Yes, she was Llewellyn the Great's daughter by one of his concubines. In medieval Wales illegimate children had the same rights as legimate children. Also women had more rights than they did in England. She was married to Reginald De Braose, a Marcher Lord. I don't think that they had any children, when he died she married a member of the Mortimer family. Off the top of my head I think his name was Ralph. They obviously had children and one of her descendants married Philippa daughter of Lionel of Clarence and I think that Anne Mortimer, Richard of York's mother was her daughter. So even if H7 is Owen Tudor's grandson, and I think that JAH has some different ideas, Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales while H7 maybe descended from his steward.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry
> Tudor's treason
>
> > Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter.
>
> Honestly? Richard was descended from somebody called Black Gladys?
>

".......... Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales ......"
.......... and from Alfred (via both parents), Malcolm III and Brian Boru (thanks, Marie). A good set of ancestors.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry Tudor's treason



Yes, she was Llewellyn the Great's daughter by one of his concubines. In medieval Wales illegimate children had the same rights as legimate children. Also women had more rights than they did in England. She was married to Reginald De Braose, a Marcher Lord. I don't think that they had any children, when he died she married a member of the Mortimer family. Off the top of my head I think his name was Ralph. They obviously had children and one of her descendants married Philippa daughter of Lionel of Clarence and I think that Anne Mortimer, Richard of York's mother was her daughter. So even if H7 is Owen Tudor's grandson, and I think that JAH has some different ideas, Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales while H7 maybe descended from his steward.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry
> Tudor's treason
>
> > Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter.
>
> Honestly? Richard was descended from somebody called Black Gladys?
>

But also it proves that Richard wasn't over-generous when he reversed attainders, something which I think we've all criticised him for from time to time. One bites one's lip when one reads Edward reversing Morton's attainder. His Parliaments were a whole procession of reversals, so Richard could be following his love your enemy policy. Richard was really hard on MB though, much harder than often believed.  



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:31
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

> Hope you're better!

Seconded.

> Yes, Edward IV only had six Parliaments, two of them after 1475 and having
> just read the Rolls, they seem to be an interminable list of attainder
> reversals, grants to cronies, avoidance of taxation by cronies, and street
> paving issues. Besides them Richard's one Parliament was indeed
> enlightened.

But I fear this may be a key to why at least some people felt justified in
committing treason against Richard. They would expect him to be just Edward
redux, and therefore a bit of a menace, and he didn't get to reign long
enough to prove to them that he was a great improvement over his brother.

Interesting Stephen, particularly about Alfred as they have just dug him up too.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ".......... Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales ......"
> .......... and from Alfred (via both parents), Malcolm III and Brian Boru (thanks, Marie). A good set of ancestors.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry Tudor's treason
>
>
>
> Yes, she was Llewellyn the Great's daughter by one of his concubines. In medieval Wales illegimate children had the same rights as legimate children. Also women had more rights than they did in England. She was married to Reginald De Braose, a Marcher Lord. I don't think that they had any children, when he died she married a member of the Mortimer family. Off the top of my head I think his name was Ralph. They obviously had children and one of her descendants married Philippa daughter of Lionel of Clarence and I think that Anne Mortimer, Richard of York's mother was her daughter. So even if H7 is Owen Tudor's grandson, and I think that JAH has some different ideas, Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales while H7 maybe descended from his steward.
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry
> > Tudor's treason
> >
> > > Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter.
> >
> > Honestly? Richard was descended from somebody called Black Gladys?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And what are they proposing is done to him now?....hopefully not consigned to another brown cardboard box...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting Stephen, particularly about Alfred as they have just dug him up too.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > ".......... Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales ......"
> > .......... and from Alfred (via both parents), Malcolm III and Brian Boru (thanks, Marie). A good set of ancestors.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry Tudor's treason
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, she was Llewellyn the Great's daughter by one of his concubines. In medieval Wales illegimate children had the same rights as legimate children. Also women had more rights than they did in England. She was married to Reginald De Braose, a Marcher Lord. I don't think that they had any children, when he died she married a member of the Mortimer family. Off the top of my head I think his name was Ralph. They obviously had children and one of her descendants married Philippa daughter of Lionel of Clarence and I think that Anne Mortimer, Richard of York's mother was her daughter. So even if H7 is Owen Tudor's grandson, and I think that JAH has some different ideas, Richard and Edward were descended from the most famous Prince of Wales while H7 maybe descended from his steward.
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: ricard1an
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: TOTALLY OT famiy names (was Henry
> > > Tudor's treason
> > >
> > > > Gwladys y Ddu, Richard's ancestor and Llewellyn the Great's daughter.
> > >
> > > Honestly? Richard was descended from somebody called Black Gladys?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Anything less than being locked in a convent or exiled was not hard enough ;)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> But also it proves that Richard wasn't over-generous when he reversed attainders, something which I think we've all criticised him for from time to time. One bites one's lip when one reads Edward reversing Morton's attainder. His Parliaments were a whole procession of reversals, so Richard could be following his love your enemy policy. Richard was really hard on MB though, much harder than often believed.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:31
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> > Hope you're better!
>
> Seconded.
>
> > Yes, Edward IV only had six Parliaments, two of them after 1475 and having
> > just read the Rolls, they seem to be an interminable list of attainder
> > reversals, grants to cronies, avoidance of taxation by cronies, and street
> > paving issues. Besides them Richard's one Parliament was indeed
> > enlightened.
>
> But I fear this may be a key to why at least some people felt justified in
> committing treason against Richard. They would expect him to be just Edward
> redux, and therefore a bit of a menace, and he didn't get to reign long
> enough to prove to them that he was a great improvement over his brother.
>
>
>
>

Interesting thoughts about Morton. I tend toward the speculation that he
was working for Henry Tudor almost immediately upon the death of Edward IV:
as a loyal Lancastrian, he would, I feel, have considered Edward IV a
usurper but too strong to overcome after Barnet and Tewkesbury; toward
Edward V, I think, Morton would have felt no loyalty and no compunction to
champion him: as far as Morton was concerned, Edward V was simply the son
of a usurper. Neutralizing Richard and capitalizing on the hostility
between the Woodville and other factions might have played very much into
his favor, and I'm willing to bet that, one way or the other, some time
after May 4, Edward V would have been forced to prove himself against Henry
Tudor before he was ready.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Thomas Penn The Winter King So well written a lot of people thought it
> was
> fiction! And he's certainly no hero. Trouble is it starts in earnest in
> 1497
> but he does give a chapter to the earlier bits."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Thank you for the reccomendation; it's been added to my list! My opinion
> of
> Henry isn't very high, as you may have guessed, but before I make any
> judgements I really should know *something* about him!
> As for Morton, I look at him as being extremely talented and knowing it.
> His
> support for the Lancastrians made it unlikely that he'd ever be more than
> Bishop of Ely under Edward IV or Richard, which is *one* reason I think he
> supported retaining Edward (V). With a minor as king and a Protector who
> was
> that in name only, there'd be many opportunities for Morton's "talents".
> When the Council decided Edward (V) *was* the result of a bigamous
> marriage
> and Richard accepted the crown, the *only* place left for Morton was Tudor
> -
> faux Lancastrian claims notwithstanding. I tend to think the major reason
> "Buckingham's Rebellion" occurred when it did was an more an attempt to
> get
> rid of Richard *before* the information that was later published in
> Titulus
> Regius had a chance to spread.
> Somehow I just can't see Edward or Richard surviving any "rescue" attempt,
> but maybe I'm cynical...
> Doug
> (back's almost completely better, I can stand up straight now!)
>
>
>

Yes. Carol made the very good point, not often made by the usual historians, that Richard or not, it wouldn't be long before Henry Tudor invaded to take advantage of a king in his minority. And Morton always had to be on the winning side.
There's a sort of self-destruct in this isn't there? It's very unlikely that the Woodvilles, Richard, Hastings and Buckingham would ever have been a united force supporting Edward V; they would have started to destroy one another before any invasion. Morton must have known this and seen it as his (and Henry's) chance.


________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:03
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)

Interesting thoughts about Morton.  I tend toward the speculation that he
was working for Henry Tudor almost immediately upon the death of Edward IV:
as a loyal Lancastrian, he would, I feel, have considered Edward IV a
usurper but too strong to overcome after Barnet and Tewkesbury; toward
Edward V, I think, Morton would have felt no loyalty and no compunction to
champion him:  as far as Morton was concerned, Edward V was simply the son
of a usurper.  Neutralizing Richard and capitalizing on the hostility
between the Woodville and other factions might have played very much into
his favor, and I'm willing to bet that, one way or the other, some time
after May 4, Edward V would have been forced to prove himself against Henry
Tudor before he was ready.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Thomas Penn The Winter King So well written a lot of people thought it
> was
> fiction! And he's certainly no hero. Trouble is it starts in earnest in
> 1497
> but he does give a chapter to the earlier bits."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Thank you for the reccomendation; it's been added to my list! My opinion
> of
> Henry isn't very high, as you may have guessed, but before I make any
> judgements I really should know *something* about him!
> As for Morton, I look at him as being extremely talented and knowing it.
> His
> support for the Lancastrians made it unlikely that he'd ever be more than
> Bishop of Ely under Edward IV or Richard, which is *one* reason I think he
> supported retaining Edward (V). With a minor as king and a Protector who
> was
> that in name only, there'd be many opportunities for Morton's "talents".
> When the Council decided Edward (V) *was* the result of a bigamous
> marriage
> and Richard accepted the crown, the *only* place left for Morton was Tudor
> -
> faux Lancastrian claims notwithstanding. I tend to think the major reason
> "Buckingham's Rebellion" occurred when it did was an more an attempt to
> get
> rid of Richard *before* the information that was later published in
> Titulus
> Regius had a chance to spread.
> Somehow I just can't see Edward or Richard surviving any "rescue" attempt,
> but maybe I'm cynical...
> Doug
> (back's almost completely better, I can stand up straight now!)
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

pansydobersby wrote:

> Did Weightman also mention the possibility that Margaret may have been thus named as a gesture of good will towards the Queen, or was this in another book I read recently? I can't remember.
>
Carol responds:

It's in Weightman. Took me a while to find the relevant passage:

"The new Queen [Margaret of Anjou] having found herself married to the gentle and inactive King Henry VI could not fail to regard Richard [duke or York], with all his Plantagenet inheritance and his family of five living children, as a threat to the smooth succession of her own future offspring. Her fears were not allayed when the Duke and Duchess of York paid the young Queen the compliment of naming their first child born after her accession in her honour. It was not the first time that they had sought royal favour in this manner. Five years earlier, they had called their first-born son Henry, and the King had been well pleased, but this child had died in infancy. Now they hoped to charm the Queen, but naming their new daughter Margaret appears to have made little impression on her."

Weightman, Christine (2012-07-22). Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess (Kindle Locations 777-779). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

All speculation, of course, but plausible. The part about Henry being named for the king is almost certainly true though I think he lived to be about four rather than dying in infancy (strictly speaking). I agree that the then childless Margaret of Anjou, married for just over a year at that point, could not have been happy that the Yorks had produced yet another child though she may have been glad that it was another girl.

Carol

Never asked this before but why was Henry VI's son named Edward? Was it for the Confessor? 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall and a bit of Digest)

 

pansydobersby wrote:

> Did Weightman also mention the possibility that Margaret may have been thus named as a gesture of good will towards the Queen, or was this in another book I read recently? I can't remember.
>
Carol responds:

It's in Weightman. Took me a while to find the relevant passage:

"The new Queen [Margaret of Anjou] having found herself married to the gentle and inactive King Henry VI could not fail to regard Richard [duke or York], with all his Plantagenet inheritance and his family of five living children, as a threat to the smooth succession of her own future offspring. Her fears were not allayed when the Duke and Duchess of York paid the young Queen the compliment of naming their first child born after her accession in her honour. It was not the first time that they had sought royal favour in this manner. Five years earlier, they had called their first-born son Henry, and the King had been well pleased, but this child had died in infancy. Now they hoped to charm the Queen, but naming their new daughter Margaret appears to have made little impression on her."

Weightman, Christine (2012-07-22). Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess (Kindle Locations 777-779). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

All speculation, of course, but plausible. The part about Henry being named for the king is almost certainly true though I think he lived to be about four rather than dying in infancy (strictly speaking). I agree that the then childless Margaret of Anjou, married for just over a year at that point, could not have been happy that the Yorks had produced yet another child though she may have been glad that it was another girl.

Carol

Mary asked:
> > Hasn't Annette caught Henry Wyatt out in a lie too. Something about Richard imprisoning him which wasn't true. I can't remember the details.

Claire responded:
> He wasn't lying - he spoke of being imprisoned and tortured by a "tyrant", not named, and because of the date and because he was a Lancastrian some later writers assumed this was Richard, but it's clear from Wyatt's own account that this took place in Scotland, so it couldn't have been Richard.

Carol responds:

Yes and no. It's his son Thomas the Elder (the poet infatuated with Anne Boleyn) who wrote that it took place in Scotland and referred to the unnamed "tirant." Theoretically, the "tirant" could have been James III, but why he would torture a follower of Henry Tudor is unclear. Another theory, which I mentioned in another post, is that it could have been a Scottish baron with Yorkist sympathies. Richard himself, as you say, could have had nothing to do with it.

However, Henry Wyatt was a loyal follower of Henry Tudor and could have implied to his son that Richard was personally involved. The tale grew in the telling as Richard's legend grew along with the Wyatt family's need to redeem themselves in the eyes of Tudor supporters after Thomas the Younger's execution for treason by Henry VIII. Soon, the "tirant's" identity as Richard III was established "fact," and by 1702, a plaque had been installed making the Tower of London the official site of the imprisonment.

It's just another example of what Tey calls tonypandy at Richard's expense.

Carol

Maria Torres wrote:

"Interesting thoughts about Morton. I tend toward the speculation that he
was working for Henry Tudor almost immediately upon the death of Edward IV:
as a loyal Lancastrian, he would, I feel, have considered Edward IV a
usurper but too strong to overcome after Barnet and Tewkesbury; toward
Edward V, I think, Morton would have felt no loyalty and no compunction to
champion him: as far as Morton was concerned, Edward V was simply the son
of a usurper. Neutralizing Richard and capitalizing on the hostility
between the Woodville and other factions might have played very much into
his favor, and I'm willing to bet that, one way or the other, some time
after May 4, Edward V would have been forced to prove himself against Henry
Tudor before he was ready."

Doug here:
Morton may very well have been dedicated to the Lancastrians and felt no
real loyalty to Edward IV, (V) or Richard but, absent any other evidence, I
still tend to think his first, and only real, goal was power for himself.
That he would have to wield that power in the service of another was just
the way things operated.
An interesting "what if" would be to imagine Morton being offered the
Chancellorship under an Edward (V) reign (assuming the Woodvilles managed to
sidetrack the Protectorate) - would he have accepted? *I* think he would
have and we'd never have heard of "Henry Tudor" other than perhaps as a
footnote...
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:


"Never asked this before but why was Henry VI's son named Edward? Was it for
the Confessor?"

Doug here:
That and to accentuate the Lancatrians descent from Edward III?



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's treason (Was:Kendall
and a bit of Digest)



pansydobersby wrote:

> Did Weightman also mention the possibility that Margaret may have been
> thus named as a gesture of good will towards the Queen, or was this in
> another book I read recently? I can't remember.
>
Carol responds:

It's in Weightman. Took me a while to find the relevant passage:

"The new Queen [Margaret of Anjou] having found herself married to the
gentle and inactive King Henry VI could not fail to regard Richard [duke or
York], with all his Plantagenet inheritance and his family of five living
children, as a threat to the smooth succession of her own future offspring.
Her fears were not allayed when the Duke and Duchess of York paid the young
Queen the compliment of naming their first child born after her accession in
her honour. It was not the first time that they had sought royal favour in
this manner. Five years earlier, they had called their first-born son Henry,
and the King had been well pleased, but this child had died in infancy. Now
they hoped to charm the Queen, but naming their new daughter Margaret
appears to have made little impression on her."

Weightman, Christine (2012-07-22). Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess
(Kindle Locations 777-779). Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

All speculation, of course, but plausible. The part about Henry being named
for the king is almost certainly true though I think he lived to be about
four rather than dying in infancy (strictly speaking). I agree that the then
childless Margaret of Anjou, married for just over a year at that point,
could not have been happy that the Yorks had produced yet another child
though she may have been glad that it was another girl.

Carol








------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> and I'm willing to bet that, one way or the other, some time
> after May 4, Edward V would have been forced to prove himself against
> Henry
> Tudor before he was ready.

Hah. More than a quarter of a century ago I wrote a humorous poem on that
very theme: this is it: -

Morton's Fork (or: You Can't Win Either Way, So You Might As Well
Give Up Now And Go Home To Bed)

Oh, look, isn't it shocking,
The boy-king is smeared by a slanderous lie.
His uncle's deposed him,
Men say he's disposed of him,
That he and his brother were doomed for to die.
The new king's a peasant,
His accent's unpleasant,
The voice of the foreigner orders us all;
York's claim at the best is
Far less than Lancaster's,
And this Yorkist king's a Usurper as well:
Don't you think you'd prefer Henry Tudor?

Oh, look, isn't it shocking,
The boy-king's anointed and raised up on high.
His father was lusty,
Men say bigamously,
That his mother's marriage was only a lie.
The Protector's a peasant,
His accent's unpleasant,
The voice of the foreigner orders us all;
York's claim at the best is
Far less than Lancaster's,
And this Yorkist king is a Bastard as well:
Don't you think you'd prefer Henry Tudor?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


> There's a sort of self-destruct in this isn't there? It's very unlikely
> that the Woodvilles, Richard, Hastings and Buckingham would ever have been
> a united force supporting Edward V; they would have started to destroy one
> another before any invasion.

Yes, quite. I see it as a sort of horrible prolonged family quarrel of the
"I'm not coming to your wedding because your boyfriend's cousin's stepfather
was rude to my aunty 20 years ago" variety, except that it had been going on
for so long and become so complicated they'd achieved some sort of mutual
gridlock, and they all had private armies.

Maria, I agree with your speculation. I read somewhere that after Tewkesbury MB always considered Henry to be the Lancastrian heir. I thought it was in Charles Oman's book about Warwick but it wasn't and I searched other books that I had read to no avail. JAH has said that there is no evidence that Henry backdated his reign, however, he is now looking at this again because Joan Szechtman has found some evidence, I think in the Rolls of Parliament, that Henry considered himself King since 1471. My speculation is that, if MB decided she was somehow going to get the throne for her son, she would realise that while Edward was King she would not be able to fight a battle for it. It also occurred to me that it wasn't only Edward who would stand in her way. Richard and in 1471 Clarence would not stand by and let her "invade", always assuming she could raise an army. Hastings was also on my list as he had access to men at arms and would be loyal to Edward. Buckingham was also a threat because he had a claim to the throne which was better than Henry's. In 1471 she was not able to do anything but then when Edward died I believe that she and Morton went into overdrive. Geoffrey Richardson wrote about this in his book "The Deceivers" and makes a good case for MB plotting with Morton and Stanley and reeling in Buckingham and Hastings. Speculation but something that maybe needs to be researched.

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting thoughts about Morton. I tend toward the speculation that he
> was working for Henry Tudor almost immediately upon the death of Edward IV:
> as a loyal Lancastrian, he would, I feel, have considered Edward IV a
> usurper but too strong to overcome after Barnet and Tewkesbury; toward
> Edward V, I think, Morton would have felt no loyalty and no compunction to
> champion him: as far as Morton was concerned, Edward V was simply the son
> of a usurper. Neutralizing Richard and capitalizing on the hostility
> between the Woodville and other factions might have played very much into
> his favor, and I'm willing to bet that, one way or the other, some time
> after May 4, Edward V would have been forced to prove himself against Henry
> Tudor before he was ready.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
> destama@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas Penn The Winter King So well written a lot of people thought it
> > was
> > fiction! And he's certainly no hero. Trouble is it starts in earnest in
> > 1497
> > but he does give a chapter to the earlier bits."
> > //snip//
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Thank you for the reccomendation; it's been added to my list! My opinion
> > of
> > Henry isn't very high, as you may have guessed, but before I make any
> > judgements I really should know *something* about him!
> > As for Morton, I look at him as being extremely talented and knowing it.
> > His
> > support for the Lancastrians made it unlikely that he'd ever be more than
> > Bishop of Ely under Edward IV or Richard, which is *one* reason I think he
> > supported retaining Edward (V). With a minor as king and a Protector who
> > was
> > that in name only, there'd be many opportunities for Morton's "talents".
> > When the Council decided Edward (V) *was* the result of a bigamous
> > marriage
> > and Richard accepted the crown, the *only* place left for Morton was Tudor
> > -
> > faux Lancastrian claims notwithstanding. I tend to think the major reason
> > "Buckingham's Rebellion" occurred when it did was an more an attempt to
> > get
> > rid of Richard *before* the information that was later published in
> > Titulus
> > Regius had a chance to spread.
> > Somehow I just can't see Edward or Richard surviving any "rescue" attempt,
> > but maybe I'm cynical...
> > Doug
> > (back's almost completely better, I can stand up straight now!)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Indeed, as I said elsewhere, what would her grandson have done to her in the same circumstances? Look at poor Margaret Pole. 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:45
Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)


 

Anything less than being locked in a convent or exiled was not hard enough ;)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> But also it proves that Richard wasn't over-generous when he reversed attainders, something which I think we've all criticised him for from time to time. One bites one's lip when one reads Edward reversing Morton's attainder. His Parliaments were a whole procession of reversals, so Richard could be following his love your enemy policy. Richard was really hard on MB though, much harder than often believed.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:31
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Kendall (and a bit of Digest)
>
> > Hope you're better!
>
> Seconded.
>
> > Yes, Edward IV only had six Parliaments, two of them after 1475 and having
> > just read the Rolls, they seem to be an interminable list of attainder
> > reversals, grants to cronies, avoidance of taxation by cronies, and street
> > paving issues. Besides them Richard's one Parliament was indeed
> > enlightened.
>
> But I fear this may be a key to why at least some people felt justified in
> committing treason against Richard. They would expect him to be just Edward
> redux, and therefore a bit of a menace, and he didn't get to reign long
> enough to prove to them that he was a great improvement over his brother.
>
>
>
>