Richard as valuable commodity

We've been talking off and on about the exorbitant prices of books about Richard these days and about the profit that the various cities expect to make if he's buried there, but the Richard-as-product craze also extends to the auction houses. One of his letters (involving a dispute between some of the Earl of Westmoreland's tenants) has sold for 21,250 pounds ($33,766):

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/books-manuscripts/richard-iii-king-of-england-signet-5624294-details.aspx


Apparently, it's a very rare document. The fact that it's written on paper rather than on vellum makes its survival almost a miracle.

Carol

Can anyone read the letter in its entirety? I can only make out familiar
phrases like "Right trusty and welbeloved, we grete you wele."

A J

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> We've been talking off and on about the exorbitant prices of books about
> Richard these days and about the profit that the various cities expect to
> make if he's buried there, but the Richard-as-product craze also extends to
> the auction houses. One of his letters (involving a dispute between some of
> the Earl of Westmoreland's tenants) has sold for 21,250 pounds ($33,766):
>
>
> http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/books-manuscripts/richard-iii-king-of-england-signet-5624294-details.aspx
>
> Apparently, it's a very rare document. The fact that it's written on paper
> rather than on vellum makes its survival almost a miracle.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity


> Can anyone read the letter in its entirety? I can only make out familiar
> phrases like "Right trusty and welbeloved, we grete you wele."

The description says it's in a secretarial hand and indeed it doesn't look
like Richard's writing, but look at the signature - it appears to be of a
piece with the initial R of the letter. So either Richard signed it before
it was written, doodling in that initial R, or his secretary wrote the R in
a similat hand to Rcihard's signature and Richard then linked his signature
into it, or it was the *secretary* who wrote both the initial R, and the
signature.

I have wondered before whether the changeability of Richard's signature,
which has led graphologists to deduce dark things about his mental
stability, was in fact due to his authorising one of his secretaries to sign
on his behalf.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> The description says it's in a secretarial hand and indeed it doesn't look like Richard's writing, but look at the signature - it appears to be of a piece with the initial R of the letter. So either Richard signed it before it was written, doodling in that initial R, or his secretary wrote the R in a similat hand to Rcihard's signature and Richard then linked his signature into it, or it was the *secretary* who wrote both the initial R, and the signature.[snip]

Carol responds:

I don't think so. The R's don't look at all the same to me, Neither do the capital G's in Richard's "Gloucestre" (which looks like a treble clef) and Kendall's "God (which is quite clearly a G)--and the long stroke of Richard's "s" is slanted whereas all of Kendall's are straight. Besides, think of the problems that could be caused if an unscrupulous secretary or scribe started forging a high official's signature (and borrowing his signet ring as he would also have to do). I doubt that Richard would allow even the trusted Kendall that sort of authority and freedom.

By the way, after clicking on the thumbnail to enlarge it, you can further enlarge it by clicking on the plus at the bottom if anyone is interested in taking AJ's challenge and trying to read the rest of the letter.

I managed to read "and God kepe you" near the end of the letter and at the very end "under our signet at Pomfret." I think I saw the word "remedy" in there somewhere as well.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity


> I don't think so. The R's don't look at all the same to me, Neither do the
> capital G's in Richard's "Gloucestre" (which looks like a treble clef) and
> Kendall's "God (which is quite clearly a G)--and the long stroke of
> Richard's "s" is slanted whereas all of Kendall's are straight.

I'm assuming the secretary was authorised to sign Richard's signature, or an
approximation of it.

> Besides, think of the problems that could be caused if an unscrupulous
> secretary or scribe started forging a high official's signature (and
> borrowing his signet ring as he would also have to do).

He wouldn't have to borrow the ring - Richard would keep that. I'm not
thinking of the secretary signing for him in his absence, but of having a
stack of a couple of hundred documents to sign and him saying "Right, you
sign that half and I'll do these." Remember that signing with a quill,
especially that sort of elaborate twiddly signature, is a laborious act -
and it would explain why Richard's signatures are divided between that
squared-off, blocky Black Letter script (which we know is his because we see
him trying out mottoes in it) and a series of thin, spidery versions.
Unless the spidery ones are symptoms of some sort of physical problem such
as migraine, of course.

> By the way, after clicking on the thumbnail to enlarge it, you can further
> enlarge it by clicking on the plus at the bottom if anyone is interested
> in taking AJ's challenge and trying to read the rest of the letter.

I don't have time now but later in the week I'll paste together a
large-scale version of the whole thing and stick it on Roots Chat, where
there are experts in reading old script.

Per the Lot Description, Richard is intervening in the dispute of some tenants of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland.

Top right: The duc of Gloucstre, Constable & Admiral of England

[signature at left] R Gloucestre

Again per the Lot Description: Richard has been petitioned to intervene in 'c[er]ten cont[ro]v[er]sie' between William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'), Hugh Ile and others on the one hand and William Hunter and Robert Comyn on the other, concerning leaseholds belonging to the Earl of Westmorland. He writes now to a larger group of Westmorland councillors, asking that they examine the petitioners and settle the dispute according to their own discretion, 'so th[a]t neyther p[ar]tie have cause to sue unto us for remedy in that behalve heraft[er]'.

There's a "God keep you [something] under his protection" (?) in the lower right, above Kendall's signature.

Ngh! Translating this is definitely a group effort.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone read the letter in its entirety? I can only make out familiar
> phrases like "Right trusty and welbeloved, we grete you wele."
>
> A J

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity


> William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'),

Or furrier (maker of fur coats)?

With a last name like Trotter, mebbe the guy is ferrier to furry-footed horses.

~Weds

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity
>
>
> > William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'),
>
> Or furrier (maker of fur coats)?
>

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity


> With a last name like Trotter, mebbe the guy is ferrier to furry-footed
> horses.

Farrier! Yes!

"Ferrour" is variant of "farrier" or horsesmith.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard as valuable commodity


 
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity

> William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'),

Or furrier (maker of fur coats)?

In a comment section someone wrote that Richard took over some of the Westmoreland lands from Ralph Neville as he was incapable of managing his own lands...... What is that about?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 9:54 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> Per the Lot Description, Richard is intervening in the dispute of some tenants of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland.
>
> Top right: The duc of Gloucstre, Constable & Admiral of England
>
> [signature at left] R Gloucestre
>
> Again per the Lot Description: Richard has been petitioned to intervene in 'c[er]ten cont[ro]v[er]sie' between William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'), Hugh Ile and others on the one hand and William Hunter and Robert Comyn on the other, concerning leaseholds belonging to the Earl of Westmorland. He writes now to a larger group of Westmorland councillors, asking that they examine the petitioners and settle the dispute according to their own discretion, 'so th[a]t neyther p[ar]tie have cause to sue unto us for remedy in that behalve heraft[er]'.
>
> There's a "God keep you [something] under his protection" (?) in the lower right, above Kendall's signature.
>
> Ngh! Translating this is definitely a group effort.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone read the letter in its entirety? I can only make out familiar
> > phrases like "Right trusty and welbeloved, we grete you wele."
> >
> > A J
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> In a comment section someone wrote that Richard took over some of the Westmoreland lands from Ralph Neville as he was incapable of managing his own lands...... What is that about?

Carol responds:

Whoever wrote that comment is probably just echoing the lot description, which you quote in part and I'm requoting:

"Richard has been petitioned to intervene in 'c[er]ten cont[ro]v[er]sie' between William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'), Hugh Ile and others on the one hand and William Hunter and Robert Comyn on the other, concerning leaseholds belonging to the Earl of Westmorland. He writes now to a larger group of Westmorland councillors, asking that they examine the petitioners and settle the dispute according to their own discretion, 'so th[a]t neyther p[ar]tie have cause to sue unto us for remedy in that behalve heraft[er]'."

In any case, Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, was the son of Cecily Neville's oldest half-brother, John (she was her father's youngest child by his second wife) and therefore Richard's first cousin despite the great difference in their ages). Westmoreland was born in 1406 and therefore an elderly man by the time this letter was written (between 67 and 70). As the unquoted portion states, he seems to have been incapable of managing his own affairs from the 1450s (when Richard was a child or not yet born) onward. The description also states that some of Edward's grants to Richard in the 1470s had "encroach[ed] significantly on [Westmoreland's prerogatives," meaning that rights, powers, and privileges that would normally have been Westmoreland's were given to Richard (who, unlike Westmoreland, was capable of handling the responsibilities involved). So when a dispute arose among some of Westmoreland's farm tenants, they petitioned Richard to resolve it. He, in turn, wrote to Westmoreland's councilors asking them to examine the petitions and resolve it in a way that satisfies both parties (so that they won't have to petition him again). (This letter appears to provide a rare example of Richard delegating authority rather than resolving the problem himself.)

Apparently, Westmoreland had earlier been involved in a power struggle with his father's sister-in-law, Joan Beaufort (Cecily's mother) and her sons, his first cousins (including Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, our Richard's uncle and the Earl of Warwick's father), which Westmoreland lost. For a while, he was under the guardianship of his full brothers (first one then another), but after the second one was beheaded for treason in 1469, it's unclear who took care of him. I would guess that Richard, who clearly was responsible for Westmoreland's affairs by the 1470s, appointed some sort of caretaker for him until his death at age 78 in 1484.

Interestingly, Westmoreland's first wife, Elizabeth Percy (died 1436), was the daughter of Henry Hotspur (famous for being an enemy of Henry V) and Elizabeth Mortimer, daughter of Edmund Mortimer, whom Richard II (if I have my Mortimers straight) nominated as his heir, so he was not only closely related to Richard but had a very high lineage. They did have one son, but he died in the 1450s. I know nothing about his second wife, Margaret Cobham, but her name suggests that she may have been a sister of Eleanor Cobham, the wife of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who was imprisoned for witchcraft by Henry VI.

Essentially, it seems that this poor man (Westmoreland) had only Richard, or perhaps his daughter (by his second wife?) to take care of him.

Anyone who knows more or can correct any errors I've made here, please contribute! (Stephen?)

Carol

I can find two Margaret Cobhams, the first a Baroness of Sternborough and they both died between 1466-71:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Cobham
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00042731&tree=LEO

The second one is definitely right.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Richard as valuable commodity





Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> In a comment section someone wrote that Richard took over some of the Westmoreland lands from Ralph Neville as he was incapable of managing his own lands...... What is that about?

Carol responds:

Whoever wrote that comment is probably just echoing the lot description, which you quote in part and I'm requoting:

"Richard has been petitioned to intervene in 'c[er]ten cont[ro]v[er]sie' between William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'), Hugh Ile and others on the one hand and William Hunter and Robert Comyn on the other, concerning leaseholds belonging to the Earl of Westmorland. He writes now to a larger group of Westmorland councillors, asking that they examine the petitioners and settle the dispute according to their own discretion, 'so th[a]t neyther p[ar]tie have cause to sue unto us for remedy in that behalve heraft[er]'."

In any case, Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, was the son of Cecily Neville's oldest half-brother, John (she was her father's youngest child by his second wife) and therefore Richard's first cousin despite the great difference in their ages). Westmoreland was born in 1406 and therefore an elderly man by the time this letter was written (between 67 and 70). As the unquoted portion states, he seems to have been incapable of managing his own affairs from the 1450s (when Richard was a child or not yet born) onward. The description also states that some of Edward's grants to Richard in the 1470s had "encroach[ed] significantly on [Westmoreland's prerogatives," meaning that rights, powers, and privileges that would normally have been Westmoreland's were given to Richard (who, unlike Westmoreland, was capable of handling the responsibilities involved). So when a dispute arose among some of Westmoreland's farm tenants, they petitioned Richard to resolve it. He, in turn, wrote to Westmoreland's councilors asking them to examine the petitions and resolve it in a way that satisfies both parties (so that they won't have to petition him again). (This letter appears to provide a rare example of Richard delegating authority rather than resolving the problem himself.)

Apparently, Westmoreland had earlier been involved in a power struggle with his father's sister-in-law, Joan Beaufort (Cecily's mother) and her sons, his first cousins (including Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, our Richard's uncle and the Earl of Warwick's father), which Westmoreland lost. For a while, he was under the guardianship of his full brothers (first one then another), but after the second one was beheaded for treason in 1469, it's unclear who took care of him. I would guess that Richard, who clearly was responsible for Westmoreland's affairs by the 1470s, appointed some sort of caretaker for him until his death at age 78 in 1484.

Interestingly, Westmoreland's first wife, Elizabeth Percy (died 1436), was the daughter of Henry Hotspur (famous for being an enemy of Henry V) and Elizabeth Mortimer, daughter of Edmund Mortimer, whom Richard II (if I have my Mortimers straight) nominated as his heir, so he was not only closely related to Richard but had a very high lineage. They did have one son, but he died in the 1450s. I know nothing about his second wife, Margaret Cobham, but her name suggests that she may have been a sister of Eleanor Cobham, the wife of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who was imprisoned for witchcraft by Henry VI.

Essentially, it seems that this poor man (Westmoreland) had only Richard, or perhaps his daughter (by his second wife?) to take care of him.

Anyone who knows more or can correct any errors I've made here, please contribute! (Stephen?)

Carol

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> I can find two Margaret Cobhams, the first a Baroness of Sternborough and they both died between 1466-71:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Cobham
> http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00042731&tree=LEO
>
> The second one is definitely right.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Stephen. So she was dead by the time Richard was administering Westmoreland's estates in 1473-76. I see there's no mention of a daughter by either marriage, so maybe Wikipedia is wrong there. And I can't tell whether there's a family connection with Eleanor Cobham, but the name is so unusual that I think they must have been cousins in some degree.

Carol

Carol, thank you very much or the info.
So the Westmoreland and the " guardianship" was granted to Richard by Edward?
It seems Ed4 was pretty generous in terms of granting Richard lands and estates. But it is always twisted around to appear that Richard was acting alone to snatch up lands from the ill or the elderly people. The countess of Oxford's lands were also granted to R by Ed but it is always made to look as if Richard just rode in and took her lands. Threatening her with imprisonment in the wild north.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 25, 2013, at 1:14 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > In a comment section someone wrote that Richard took over some of the Westmoreland lands from Ralph Neville as he was incapable of managing his own lands...... What is that about?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Whoever wrote that comment is probably just echoing the lot description, which you quote in part and I'm requoting:
>
> "Richard has been petitioned to intervene in 'c[er]ten cont[ro]v[er]sie' between William Trotter, 'ferrour' (perhaps 'smith'), Hugh Ile and others on the one hand and William Hunter and Robert Comyn on the other, concerning leaseholds belonging to the Earl of Westmorland. He writes now to a larger group of Westmorland councillors, asking that they examine the petitioners and settle the dispute according to their own discretion, 'so th[a]t neyther p[ar]tie have cause to sue unto us for remedy in that behalve heraft[er]'."
>
> In any case, Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, was the son of Cecily Neville's oldest half-brother, John (she was her father's youngest child by his second wife) and therefore Richard's first cousin despite the great difference in their ages). Westmoreland was born in 1406 and therefore an elderly man by the time this letter was written (between 67 and 70). As the unquoted portion states, he seems to have been incapable of managing his own affairs from the 1450s (when Richard was a child or not yet born) onward. The description also states that some of Edward's grants to Richard in the 1470s had "encroach[ed] significantly on [Westmoreland's prerogatives," meaning that rights, powers, and privileges that would normally have been Westmoreland's were given to Richard (who, unlike Westmoreland, was capable of handling the responsibilities involved). So when a dispute arose among some of Westmoreland's farm tenants, they petitioned Richard to resolve it. He, in turn, wrote to Westmoreland's councilors asking them to examine the petitions and resolve it in a way that satisfies both parties (so that they won't have to petition him again). (This letter appears to provide a rare example of Richard delegating authority rather than resolving the problem himself.)
>
> Apparently, Westmoreland had earlier been involved in a power struggle with his father's sister-in-law, Joan Beaufort (Cecily's mother) and her sons, his first cousins (including Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, our Richard's uncle and the Earl of Warwick's father), which Westmoreland lost. For a while, he was under the guardianship of his full brothers (first one then another), but after the second one was beheaded for treason in 1469, it's unclear who took care of him. I would guess that Richard, who clearly was responsible for Westmoreland's affairs by the 1470s, appointed some sort of caretaker for him until his death at age 78 in 1484.
>
> Interestingly, Westmoreland's first wife, Elizabeth Percy (died 1436), was the daughter of Henry Hotspur (famous for being an enemy of Henry V) and Elizabeth Mortimer, daughter of Edmund Mortimer, whom Richard II (if I have my Mortimers straight) nominated as his heir, so he was not only closely related to Richard but had a very high lineage. They did have one son, but he died in the 1450s. I know nothing about his second wife, Margaret Cobham, but her name suggests that she may have been a sister of Eleanor Cobham, the wife of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who was imprisoned for witchcraft by Henry VI.
>
> Essentially, it seems that this poor man (Westmoreland) had only Richard, or perhaps his daughter (by his second wife?) to take care of him.
>
> Anyone who knows more or can correct any errors I've made here, please contribute! (Stephen?)
>
> Carol
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Carol, thank you very much or the info.
> So the Westmoreland and the " guardianship" was granted to Richard by Edward?
> It seems Ed4 was pretty generous in terms of granting Richard lands and estates. But it is always twisted around to appear that Richard was acting alone to snatch up lands from the ill or the elderly people. The countess of Oxford's lands were also granted to R by Ed but it is always made to look as if Richard just rode in and took her lands. Threatening her with imprisonment in the wild north.

Carol responds:

Not the guardianship as far as I know (he was an adult, so I don't think he could be made a ward even though he was incapacitated), just the management of his lands and affairs. Maybe someone with more legal expertise can help us out here. I don't know who, other than servants, was taking care of the poor old man since all of his close relatives were dead. Clearly someone was, or he wouldn't have lived to be seventy.

I agree with you about the way Edward's grants to Richard are generally presented. Pollard, Hicks, and others make Richard look greedy and ambitious, but they're seeing what they want to see.

Carol