Why was Clarence executed?

Hello Forum members,

I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.

Jan.

Certainly it was presented before Parliament as that - Ankarett's relations brought a plea; it's good to read for the detail. But as other people, have said that didn't warrant execution for treason. And the imprisonment of Stillington about the same time does raise questions as to what the real motive was. 



________________________________
From: "janmulrenan@..." <janmulrenan@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:48
Subject: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Hello Forum members,

I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.

Jan.

Can you wait until next summer (for JA-H).
----- Original Message -----
From: janmulrenan@...
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:48 PM
Subject: Why was Clarence executed?



Hello Forum members,

I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.

Jan.

Exactly...but as of yet Hicks has not mentioned Stillington...strange that.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Certainly it was presented before Parliament as that - Ankarett's relations brought a plea; it's good to read for the detail. But as other people, have said that didn't warrant execution for treason. And the imprisonment of Stillington about the same time does raise questions as to what the real motive was. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "janmulrenan@..." <janmulrenan@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:48
> Subject: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> Hello Forum members,
>
> I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
> Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh yes,I'm sure I can & the Forum will get very excited with anticipation!
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 29 Mar 2013, at 20:34, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> Can you wait until next summer (for JA-H).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: janmulrenan@...
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:48 PM
> Subject: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> Hello Forum members,
>
> I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
> Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
>

Yes I can wait. But there's nothing to convince me that the Ankarette issue was treason, stupidity yes. But he did also do daft things like have the King's horoscope cast, which was treason, and gave the perfect excuse for Edward to dispose of him for other reasons. 


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:34
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Can you wait until next summer (for JA-H).
----- Original Message -----
From: janmulrenan@...
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:48 PM
Subject: Why was Clarence executed?

Hello Forum members,

I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.

Jan.

"janmulrenan@..." wrote:
>
> Hello Forum members,
>
> I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
> Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.
>
> Jan.

Carol responds:

I don't know if you missed my post providing J A'H's summary of George of Clarence's attainder, but I'll repost it just in case. (The bill itself is in his appendices). I've eliminated the bullets and other bits of typography that messed up the formatting of the original post and changed the paragraphing a little for readability.

"Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
the king's subjects from their true obedience.

"Specifically:

"Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].

"He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.

"He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.

"He has claimed that the king is a bastard.

"He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'

"He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.

"Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.

"He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.

"He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.

"For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."

Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.

As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point, Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.

Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.

Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.

Carol

No Carol, I didn't miss your previous post but I was out quite some time yesterday & didn't get to reply sooner. Thank you indeed for your lengthy & patient reply. There is so much to read!

A happy Easter to you,Carol, and to all Forum members,
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 31 Mar 2013, at 00:06, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> "janmulrenan@..." wrote:
> >
> > Hello Forum members,
> >
> > I am sure I read in Kendall, maybe over 40 years ago, that Clarence had to be executed for taking the King's justice into his own hands by killing Ankarette T. I certainly haven't read that in my current R3 reference books.
> > Maybe somebody who has studied Clarence's career more recently can comment.
> >
> > Jan.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if you missed my post providing J A'H's summary of George of Clarence's attainder, but I'll repost it just in case. (The bill itself is in his appendices). I've eliminated the bullets and other bits of typography that messed up the formatting of the original post and changed the paragraphing a little for readability.
>
> "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> the king's subjects from their true obedience.
>
> "Specifically:
>
> "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
>
> "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
>
> "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
>
> "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
>
> "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
>
> "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
>
> "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
>
> "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
>
> "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
>
> "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>
> So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
>
> As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point, Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
>
> Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
>
> Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
>
> Carol
>
>

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....



> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point, Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.
 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?


 

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?




Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks Stephen, fascinating!



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"EileenB" wrote:

> [snip] Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? [snip]

Carol responds:

Regarding just this one point: Apparently, Stillington's parish was within lands that George controlled. Kendall, if I recall correctly, suggests a long association between. If I'm not mistaken, Stillington was one of the people, along with George's mother and sisters, who pleaded with him to return to his allegiance before Barnet.

Sorry I don't have time to check my facts here.

Carol

Ah yes....Stephen's remark about Stillington being related to Eleanor...The letter in the Bulletin reads that this is stated by Peter Hancock in his book Richard the lll and the Murder in the Tower. "Stillington himself was actually related to EB through his aunt Lady Lisle (Joan Cheddar) relations to the Talbots..Thus....Robert was marrying off one of his relatives to the king"....imagine that!...feels sometimes like swimming through a barrel of treacle...ever more to find out and always yet another unanswered question. It is suggested to the writer that JA-H's Eleanor book would be a good source of information about this relationship.

PS any recommendations for Peter Hancock's book..assuming it is not toooo expensive...Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>
>
> I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
> So the questions in my head are:
> 1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
> 2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
> 3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
> 4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
> 5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
> As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
> Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>
>
>
> Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
> that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..
>
> To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?
>
> Eileen....
>
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> > >
> > > "Specifically:
> > >
> > > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> > >
> > > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> > >
> > > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> > >
> > > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> > >
> > > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> > >
> > > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> > >
> > > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> > >
> > > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> > >
> > > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> > >
> > > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> > >
> > > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> > >
> > > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> > >
> > > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
> Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> > >
> > > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> > >
> > > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know whether it's relevant but Stillington seems to have come from Yorkshire? Was he or his family known to the Nevilles as well?  



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 16:11
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

"EileenB" wrote:

> [snip] Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? [snip]

Carol responds:

Regarding just this one point: Apparently, Stillington's parish was within lands that George controlled. Kendall, if I recall correctly, suggests a long association between. If I'm not mistaken, Stillington was one of the people, along with George's mother and sisters, who pleaded with him to return to his allegiance before Barnet.

Sorry I don't have time to check my facts here.

Carol

Oh yes I've got that. Good, with a lot on the weavings between Catesby, Hastings et al. Was £20 when came out but ought to be cheaper now. Goes well alongside JAH.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 17:33
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?


 

Ah yes....Stephen's remark about Stillington being related to Eleanor...The letter in the Bulletin reads that this is stated by Peter Hancock in his book Richard the lll and the Murder in the Tower. "Stillington himself was actually related to EB through his aunt Lady Lisle (Joan Cheddar) relations to the Talbots..Thus....Robert was marrying off one of his relatives to the king"....imagine that!...feels sometimes like swimming through a barrel of treacle...ever more to find out and always yet another unanswered question. It is suggested to the writer that JA-H's Eleanor book would be a good source of information about this relationship.

PS any recommendations for Peter Hancock's book..assuming it is not toooo expensive...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>
>
> I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
> So the questions in my head are:
> 1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
> 2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
> 3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
> 4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
> 5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
> As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
> Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>
>
>
> Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
> that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..
>
> To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?
>
> Eileen....
>
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> > >
> > > "Specifically:
> > >
> > > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> > >
> > > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> > >
> > > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> > >
> > > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> > >
> > > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> > >
> > > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> > >
> > > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> > >
> > > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> > >
> > > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> > >
> > > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> > >
> > > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> > >
> > > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> > >
> > > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that
point,
> Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> > >
> > > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> > >
> > > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe I can trace a cheap copy....Ive been let down about the Caxton Book...an Amazon trader so will have to do another lookaround for that..

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes I've got that. Good, with a lot on the weavings between Catesby, Hastings et al. Was £20 when came out but ought to be cheaper now. Goes well alongside JAH.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 17:33
> Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>
>  
>
> Ah yes....Stephen's remark about Stillington being related to Eleanor...The letter in the Bulletin reads that this is stated by Peter Hancock in his book Richard the lll and the Murder in the Tower. "Stillington himself was actually related to EB through his aunt Lady Lisle (Joan Cheddar) relations to the Talbots..Thus....Robert was marrying off one of his relatives to the king"....imagine that!...feels sometimes like swimming through a barrel of treacle...ever more to find out and always yet another unanswered question. It is suggested to the writer that JA-H's Eleanor book would be a good source of information about this relationship.
>
> PS any recommendations for Peter Hancock's book..assuming it is not toooo expensive...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
> > So the questions in my head are:
> > 1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
> > 2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
> > 3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
> > 4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
> > 5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
> > As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
> > Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
> > that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..
> >
> > To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?
> >
> > Eileen....
> >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > > > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > > > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> > > >
> > > > "Specifically:
> > > >
> > > > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> > > >
> > > > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> > > >
> > > > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> > > >
> > > > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> > > >
> > > > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> > > >
> > > > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> > > >
> > > > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> > > >
> > > > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> > > >
> > > > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> > > >
> > > > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > > > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> > > >
> > > > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> > > >
> > > > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> > > >
> > > > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that
> point,
> > Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> > > >
> > > > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> > > >
> > > > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

DNB - written by Michael Hicks.  I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?
 
It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!
 
 
 
 
Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 
PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.


________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!




Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?


PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah yes....Stephen's remark about Stillington being related to Eleanor...The letter in the Bulletin reads that this is stated by Peter Hancock in his book Richard the lll and the Murder in the Tower. "Stillington himself was actually related to EB through his aunt Lady Lisle (Joan Cheddar) relations to the Talbots..Thus....Robert was marrying off one of his relatives to the king"....imagine that!...feels sometimes like swimming through a barrel of treacle...ever more to find out and always yet another unanswered question. It is suggested to the writer that JA-H's Eleanor book would be a good source of information about this relationship.
>
> PS any recommendations for Peter Hancock's book..assuming it is not toooo expensive...Eileen

Carol responds:

You'll like it since it's very anti-Catesby! The going gets a bit slow in places since he's very detailed about land dealings and so forth, and I don't buy his theory that Stillington was barely involved in informing Richard about the precontract, and he relies too heavily on More for the council meeting, but it's certainly worth reading. He also talks about Catesby's relationship with the Stanleys through his mother.

Carol

Carol

liz williams wrote:
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks.  I've ony skimmed it, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?
>  
> It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!
>  
Carol responds:

Work on the new DNB began in 2001 (which is when I wrote my three articles on biographers of Shelley). The sixty-volume work was published in 2004 (with yearly supplements for people who have recently died).

Thanks for copying the article. Those of us outside the UK can't access it, as I'm sure you know.

I wonder how many other New DNB articles Hicks wrote. Who did the one on Richard III? Not Hicks, I hope!

Carol

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!




Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thank you Carol...I will buy book...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah yes....Stephen's remark about Stillington being related to Eleanor...The letter in the Bulletin reads that this is stated by Peter Hancock in his book Richard the lll and the Murder in the Tower. "Stillington himself was actually related to EB through his aunt Lady Lisle (Joan Cheddar) relations to the Talbots..Thus....Robert was marrying off one of his relatives to the king"....imagine that!...feels sometimes like swimming through a barrel of treacle...ever more to find out and always yet another unanswered question. It is suggested to the writer that JA-H's Eleanor book would be a good source of information about this relationship.
> >
> > PS any recommendations for Peter Hancock's book..assuming it is not toooo expensive...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You'll like it since it's very anti-Catesby! The going gets a bit slow in places since he's very detailed about land dealings and so forth, and I don't buy his theory that Stillington was barely involved in informing Richard about the precontract, and he relies too heavily on More for the council meeting, but it's certainly worth reading. He also talks about Catesby's relationship with the Stanleys through his mother.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

Liz quoted:
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks. 

> Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, [snip]
> As early as 1446 Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. [snip] During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. [snip] Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to his Yorkist allegiance.
>
> Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. [snip]
>
> Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. [snip]

> Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. [snip}

Carol responds: I'll comment only on these few points, ignoring the part about Richard's "usurpation" (typical Hicks).

1) What does Hicks mean by "incompatible benefice"?

2) One piece of evidence, a single known visit to Somerset, is sufficient evidence to convict Stillington of "an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties"? Has Hicks not noticed the number of offices that Stillington held?

3) If Hicks and Kendall agree that Stillington helped persuade George of Clarence to return to his Yorkist allegiance, it must be true. We could probably find the source by checking Kendall if anyone has the time.

4) More important, *who* reports that Stillington "sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester"? Is he unaware of the actual terms of that agreement and the reasons behind it? {But. of course, Hicks feels compelled to present Richard as unscrupulous and avaricious at every opportunity.)

5) Stillington's brushes with the crown are "difficult to explain" only if we, like Hicks, dismiss the precontract as a fabrication. If we believe in its truth and that Stillington told George of Clarence about it before he told Richard, the rest, including his arrest by Henry immediately after Bosworth, is easy to explain.

6) "Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464." Really? I couldn't have figured that out! (Duh.) But Hicks clearly doesn't know that a precontract is a previous contract of marriage.

Liz, if it's not too much trouble, can you copy Hicks's sources for the article?

Thanks,

Carol

Thanks, Liz. "Eleanor" dates from 2009 - do you know which year Hicks wrote this?
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!




Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?


PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Not the first time Prof Hicks comes across as wooly on the subject of pre-contracts...he does not appear to being getting it.....? How disappointingly dim for a Professor.. Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>

> 6) "Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464." Really? I couldn't have figured that out! (Duh.) But Hicks clearly doesn't know that a precontract is a previous contract of marriage.
>
>
>
> Carol
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography?

Carol responds:

Yes--officially, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The original DNB was edited by Leslie Stephen, Virginia Woolf's father. Even with yearly supplements, it was wildly out of date by the 1990s. As I stated in another post, work began in 2001 on what was then called the New Dictionary of National Biography, completed and published in 2004. (If anyone wants to read the articles on Thomas Medwin, Thomas Jefferson Hogg, and Edward Ellerker Williams, those are mine. The first two are Shelley biographers; the last is the friend who drowned with him off the coast of Italy.)

The Wikipedia article on the DNB is surprisingly accurate and informative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography

The DNB website is here:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/index.html

The free index is here:

http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/index/

Those who live outside the UK can sign up for free daily articles, which are accessible for a week and then disappear. Once in a while, you get lucky and the article is about someone connected with Richard. I managed to save their article on Richard Duke of York (Richard's father, not his nephew) that way.

Carol

"EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Carol...I will buy book...Eileen

Carol responds:

You're welcome, Eileen. Enjoy. It's available on Kindle if it's too expensive otherwise.

Carol

He did Thomas Stafford and I noticed an error there.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



liz williams wrote:
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmed it, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?
> Â
> It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!
> Â
Carol responds:

Work on the new DNB began in 2001 (which is when I wrote my three articles on biographers of Shelley). The sixty-volume work was published in 2004 (with yearly supplements for people who have recently died).

Thanks for copying the article. Those of us outside the UK can't access it, as I'm sure you know.

I wonder how many other New DNB articles Hicks wrote. Who did the one on Richard III? Not Hicks, I hope!

Carol

".......... Jennet Percival .........."
I think you have given me the final piece - if I can retrace my steps from Saturday. Hicks, strangely, gives his father as John.
Some time later, I could borrow Hancock and check his sources to "seal" the solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> He did Thomas Stafford and I noticed an error there.

Carol responds:

The Thomas Stafford who was loyal to Richard and rebelled against the Tydder with his brother Humphrey (but unlike Henry wasn't executed)?

What was the error? If it's a factual error rather than an error of interpretation, you can report it to the editors in case they issue a revised edition--much easier to do online than in print!

Carol

You might also be able to access the DNB through your public library, also from outside the UK.  I have access (from my computer at home) through the State library of New South Wales, just need the number on my library card.

The free daily articles are a definite must.

Cheers,

Dorothea




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013 8:05 AM
Subject: DNB: (Was: Why was Clarence executed?)


 
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography?

Carol responds:

Yes--officially, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The original DNB was edited by Leslie Stephen, Virginia Woolf's father. Even with yearly supplements, it was wildly out of date by the 1990s. As I stated in another post, work began in 2001 on what was then called the New Dictionary of National Biography, completed and published in 2004. (If anyone wants to read the articles on Thomas Medwin, Thomas Jefferson Hogg, and Edward Ellerker Williams, those are mine. The first two are Shelley biographers; the last is the friend who drowned with him off the coast of Italy.)

The Wikipedia article on the DNB is surprisingly accurate and informative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography

The DNB website is here:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/index.html

The free index is here:

http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/index/

Those who live outside the UK can sign up for free daily articles, which are accessible for a week and then disappear. Once in a while, you get lucky and the article is about someone connected with Richard. I managed to save their article on Richard Duke of York (Richard's father, not his nephew) that way.

Carol

No, Buckingham's great-grandson who was executed in 1557. I subsequently discovered Strype, who gave some contradictory details.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:48 PM
Subject: DNB: (Was: Why was Clarence executed?)



"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> He did Thomas Stafford and I noticed an error there.

Carol responds:

The Thomas Stafford who was loyal to Richard and rebelled against the Tydder with his brother Humphrey (but unlike Henry wasn't executed)?

What was the error? If it's a factual error rather than an error of interpretation, you can report it to the editors in case they issue a revised edition--much easier to do online than in print!

Carol

Does some of the stuff on the RIII website come from the DNB and is some of it not checked very well? Trouble is once someone is named as a parent/child everyone picks up the ball and runs with it and myth becomes reality. You see they have Sir Richard Haute surviving into the 1500s but he died in 1493. I know he did, not just because his will is dated then, but his wife, who died later in the year is described as his widow when she writes her will.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 22:30
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

".......... Jennet Percival .........."
I think you have given me the final piece - if I can retrace my steps from Saturday. Hicks, strangely, gives his father as John.
Some time later, I could borrow Hancock and check his sources to "seal" the solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

It is possible to get inaccurate information in the DNB changed. I
e-mailed them about someone where I knew something that contradicted
what they said (the person involved was only recently dead), and I
eventually got a reply saying that they would amend the entry.

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>:

> Does some of the stuff on the RIII website come from the DNB and is
> some of it not checked very well? Trouble is once someone is named
> as a parent/child everyone picks up the ball and runs with it and
> myth becomes reality. You see they have Sir Richard Haute surviving
> into the 1500s but he died in 1493. I know he did, not just because
> his will is dated then, but his wife, who died later in the year is
> described as his widow when she writes her will.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 22:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> ".......... Jennet Percival .........."
> I think you have given me the final piece - if I can retrace my
> steps from Saturday. Hicks, strangely, gives his father as John.
> Some time later, I could borrow Hancock and check his sources to
> "seal" the solution.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry
> and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son
> of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington
> and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen?
> Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
> It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living
> within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the
> Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the
> Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the
> wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way
> through it.
> However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy
> tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and
> actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract
> existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have
> listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard
> so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can
> backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem
> to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?
>
> It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to
> identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!
>
> Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and
> Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and
> was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John
> Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he
> acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of
> Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of
> civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter
> to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector
> of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as
> acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in
> the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he
> was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington
> collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in
> Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of
> Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
> Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third,
> incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops
> active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of
> Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to
> prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and
> the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry
> VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St
> Martin's-le-Grand in London.
>
> By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist:
> in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of
> Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St
> David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in
> Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in
> 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to
> any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry
> by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of
> Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he
> gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained
> until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset
> only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of
> commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed
> a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a
> truce, and in the next
> thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he
> became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire
> benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure,
> until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him
> keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington
> remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467,
> after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As
> chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along
> civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office
> until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry
> VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his
> predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took
> sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471
> implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he
> nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
> his Yorkist allegiance.
>
> Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to
> have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against
> attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness
> prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472,
> and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less
> effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d.
> 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may
> therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing
> in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in
> 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the
> heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the
> duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset,
> among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6
> July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally
> reserved for the bishop of Bath.
>
> Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain.
> Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned
> in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but
> having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had
> done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20
> June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in
> Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's
> precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely,
> both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of
> the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and
> because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the
> allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by
> Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.
>
> Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons
> and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known
> only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but
> circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This
> strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his
> siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had
> been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville
> was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor
> Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes
> the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he
> claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place
> before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was
> still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory
> evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to
> identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
> noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does,
> however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the
> petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the
> crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated
> with Richard's usurpation.
>
> Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very
> day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days
> later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of
> his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous
> offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was
> deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and
> was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long
> infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated
> in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the
> University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused
> six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of
> franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in
> April or May 1491.
>
> Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523,
> that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells
> Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was
> cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled
> west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister.
> Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether
> Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no
> evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard
> son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and
> who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.
>
> Michael Hicks
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related
> to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder
> and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or
> someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to
> have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is
> too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of
> protecting little brother.
> So the questions in my head are:
> 1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in
> 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met
> Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises
> about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he
> dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate
> heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
> 2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George
> to make sure she never found out?
> 3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
> 4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold
> in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
> 5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
> As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true,
> because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was
> George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to
> Richard down the line.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
> Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George
> because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held
> belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's
> message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on
> which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the
> summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that
> George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its
> implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well
> known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that
> was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret
> marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that
> George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he
> lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last
> year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I
> digress) he would not have known Stillington
> that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was
> in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's,
> Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach
> of Wells..
>
> To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that
> would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW
> and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the
> threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had
> been legally married?
>
> Eileen....
>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of
>> Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the
>> past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons,
>> although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has
>> lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and
>> against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot
>> which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly
>> heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother,
>> George, Duke of Clarence. The king
>> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother
>> should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past
>> offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite
>> this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the
>> `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
>> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
>> >
>> > "Specifically:
>> >
>> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his
>> servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
>> >
>> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
>> >
>> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
>> >
>> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
>> >
>> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
>> >
>> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
>> >
>> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown
>> people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as
>> Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of
>> Henry VI.
>> >
>> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send
>> his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child
>> in his place.
>> >
>> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the
>> throne by force.
>> >
>> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once
>> again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has
>> threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds
>> him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public
>> weal. He therefore
>> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high
>> treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank,
>> together with all their property."
>> >
>> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The
>> Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767).
>> Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>> >
>> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
>> >
>> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally
>> executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of
>> poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into
>> his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my
>> edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this
>> incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says
>> that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away
>> by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when,
>> after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for
>> sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council
>> meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with
>> him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the
>> crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild
>> acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering
>> his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that
>> point,
> Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
>> >
>> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about
>> the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to
>> talk him out of executing George.
>> >
>> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls
>> into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain
>> information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Christine. 



________________________________
From: Christine Headley <christine@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 11:50
Subject: Re: DNB (WAS Re: Why was Clarence executed?)

 


It is possible to get inaccurate information in the DNB changed. I
e-mailed them about someone where I knew something that contradicted
what they said (the person involved was only recently dead), and I
eventually got a reply saying that they would amend the entry.

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>:

> Does some of the stuff on the RIII website come from the DNB and is
> some of it not checked very well? Trouble is once someone is named
> as a parent/child everyone picks up the ball and runs with it and
> myth becomes reality. You see they have Sir Richard Haute surviving
> into the 1500s but he died in 1493. I know he did, not just because
> his will is dated then, but his wife, who died later in the year is
> described as his widow when she writes her will.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 22:30
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> ".......... Jennet Percival .........."
> I think you have given me the final piece - if I can retrace my
> steps from Saturday. Hicks, strangely, gives his father as John.
> Some time later, I could borrow Hancock and check his sources to
> "seal" the solution.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry
> and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son
> of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington
> and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen?
> Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
> It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living
> within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the
> Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the
> Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the
> wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way
> through it.
> However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy
> tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and
> actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract
> existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have
> listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard
> so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can
> backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem
> to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?
>
> It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to
> identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!
>
> Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and
> Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and
> was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John
> Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he
> acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of
> Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of
> civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter
> to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector
> of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as
> acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in
> the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he
> was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington
> collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in
> Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of
> Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
> Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third,
> incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops
> active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of
> Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to
> prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and
> the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry
> VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St
> Martin's-le-Grand in London.
>
> By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist:
> in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of
> Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St
> David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in
> Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in
> 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to
> any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry
> by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of
> Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he
> gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained
> until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset
> only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of
> commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed
> a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a
> truce, and in the next
> thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he
> became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire
> benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure,
> until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him
> keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington
> remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467,
> after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As
> chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along
> civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office
> until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry
> VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his
> predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took
> sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471
> implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he
> nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
> his Yorkist allegiance.
>
> Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to
> have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against
> attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness
> prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472,
> and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less
> effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d.
> 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may
> therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing
> in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in
> 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the
> heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the
> duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset,
> among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6
> July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally
> reserved for the bishop of Bath.
>
> Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain.
> Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned
> in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but
> having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had
> done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20
> June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in
> Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's
> precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely,
> both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of
> the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and
> because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the
> allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by
> Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.
>
> Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons
> and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known
> only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but
> circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This
> strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his
> siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had
> been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville
> was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor
> Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes
> the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he
> claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place
> before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was
> still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory
> evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to
> identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
> noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does,
> however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the
> petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the
> crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated
> with Richard's usurpation.
>
> Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very
> day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days
> later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of
> his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous
> offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was
> deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and
> was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long
> infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated
> in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the
> University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused
> six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of
> franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in
> April or May 1491.
>
> Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523,
> that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells
> Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was
> cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled
> west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister.
> Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether
> Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no
> evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard
> son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and
> who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.
>
> Michael Hicks
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related
> to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder
> and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or
> someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to
> have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is
> too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of
> protecting little brother.
> So the questions in my head are:
> 1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in
> 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met
> Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises
> about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he
> dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate
> heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
> 2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George
> to make sure she never found out?
> 3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
> 4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold
> in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
> 5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
> As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true,
> because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was
> George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to
> Richard down the line.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
> Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George
> because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held
> belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's
> message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on
> which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the
> summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that
> George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its
> implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well
> known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that
> was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret
> marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that
> George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he
> lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last
> year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I
> digress) he would not have known Stillington
> that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was
> in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's,
> Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach
> of Wells..
>
> To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that
> would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW
> and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the
> threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had
> been legally married?
>
> Eileen....
>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of
>> Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the
>> past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons,
>> although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has
>> lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and
>> against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot
>> which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly
>> heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother,
>> George, Duke of Clarence. The king
>> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother
>> should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past
>> offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite
>> this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the
>> `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
>> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
>> >
>> > "Specifically:
>> >
>> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his
>> servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
>> >
>> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
>> >
>> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
>> >
>> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
>> >
>> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
>> >
>> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
>> >
>> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown
>> people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as
>> Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of
>> Henry VI.
>> >
>> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send
>> his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child
>> in his place.
>> >
>> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the
>> throne by force.
>> >
>> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once
>> again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has
>> threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds
>> him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public
>> weal. He therefore
>> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high
>> treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank,
>> together with all their property."
>> >
>> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The
>> Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767).
>> Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>> >
>> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
>> >
>> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally
>> executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of
>> poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into
>> his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my
>> edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this
>> incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says
>> that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away
>> by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when,
>> after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for
>> sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council
>> meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with
>> him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the
>> crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild
>> acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering
>> his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that
>> point,
> Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
>> >
>> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about
>> the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to
>> talk him out of executing George.
>> >
>> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls
>> into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain
>> information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yup, wll do it when I get home tonight.  can't access it from work.
 
Liz
 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Liz quoted:

Liz, if it's not too much trouble, can you copy Hicks's sources for the article?

Thanks,

Carol

Hicks' sources
 
By the way it would appear it was written in 2004 so is obviously out of date regarding Eleanor.Sources  


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Liz quoted:
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks. 

> Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, [snip]
> As early as 1446 Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. [snip] During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. [snip] Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to his Yorkist allegiance.
>
> Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. [snip]
>
> Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. [snip]

> Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. [snip}

Carol responds: I'll comment only on these few points, ignoring the part about Richard's "usurpation" (typical Hicks).

1) What does Hicks mean by "incompatible benefice"?

2) One piece of evidence, a single known visit to Somerset, is sufficient evidence to convict Stillington of "an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties"? Has Hicks not noticed the number of offices that Stillington held?

3) If Hicks and Kendall agree that Stillington helped persuade George of Clarence to return to his Yorkist allegiance, it must be true. We could probably find the source by checking Kendall if anyone has the time.

4) More important, *who* reports that Stillington "sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester"? Is he unaware of the actual terms of that agreement and the reasons behind it? {But. of course, Hicks feels compelled to present Richard as unscrupulous and avaricious at every opportunity.)

5) Stillington's brushes with the crown are "difficult to explain" only if we, like Hicks, dismiss the precontract as a fabrication. If we believe in its truth and that Stillington told George of Clarence about it before he told Richard, the rest, including his arrest by Henry immediately after Bosworth, is easy to explain.

6) "Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464." Really? I couldn't have figured that out! (Duh.) But Hicks clearly doesn't know that a precontract is a previous contract of marriage.

Liz, if it's not too much trouble, can you copy Hicks's sources for the article?

Thanks,

Carol



Emden, Oxf. · W. Rodwell, Wells Cathedral: excavations and discoveries (1980) · M. A. Hicks, False, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence': George, duke of Clarence, 144978, rev. edn (1992) · P. de Commynes, Mémoires, ed. J. Calmette and G. Durville, 3 vols. (Paris, 19245) · M. Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the battle of Stoke (1987) · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 14591486 (1986) · The registers of Robert Stillington, bishop of Bath and Wells, 14661491, and Richard Fox, bishop of Bath and Wells, 14921494, ed. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Somerset RS, 52 (1937) · A. F. Sutton and P. W. Hammond, eds., The coronation of Richard III: the extant documents (1983) · RotP, vols. 56 · F. Drake, Eboracum, or, The history and antiquities of the city of York (1736) · W. Campbell, ed., Materials for a history of the reign of Henry VII, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 60 (18737)

Also  Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
 
Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], the elder of the two daughters, has attained a certain posthumous fame as the alleged object of the affections of Edward IV, whose supposed betrothal to her, as Lady Eleanor Boteler, was used in 1483 as justification for the illegitimization of his two sons and the usurpation of Richard III. Her date of birth is unknown, but she was married in 1450 to Sir Thomas Boteler, a son of Ralph Boteler, first Baron Sudeley. Boteler died in 1461, and it may be that Eleanor's claims for dower brought her to the attention of the young king, a notorious womanizer and a bachelor at that time. But it is equally possible that the allegation derived from knowledge of discussions between Shrewsbury and York concerning a family alliance. In any case, the tendentious nature of the evidence makes it impossible to regard either the fact or the nature of the liaison as established. Eleanor died in 1468, and was buried in the Carmelite
priory at Norwich.

 Sources  
exchequer, king's remembrancer, accounts various, TNA: PRO, E 101 · eyre rolls, TNA: PRO, JUST 1 · court of king's bench plea rolls, TNA: PRO, KB27 · Trésor des Chartes, Archives Nationales, Paris · Manuscrits français, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 2576625778, 2604426081 · Shrewsbury Book, BL, Royal MS 15 E.vi · Register Stafford and Kemp, LPL [Talbot's will: a transcript has been published with inaccuracies by G. H. F. Vane in Trans. Shrop. Arch. Soc., 3rd ser., 4 (1904)] · Chancery records · C. L. Kingsford, ed., Chronicles of London (1905) · La chronique d'Enguerran de Monstrelet, ed. L. Douët-d'Arcq, 6 vols. (Paris, 185762), vols. 36 · Chronique de Mathieu d'Escouchy, ed. G. Du Fresne de Beaucourt, new edn, 3 vols. (Paris, 18634) · J. Stevenson, ed., Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, king of England, 2 vols. in 3 pts, Rolls Series, 22 (18614) · A.
J. Pollard, The family of Talbot, Lords Talbot and earls of Shrewsbury in the fifteenth century', PhD diss., University of Bristol, 1968 · A. J. Pollard, John Talbot and the war in France, 14271453, Royal Historical Society Studies in History, 35 (1983) · C. T. Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy, 14151450 (1983) · M. G. A. Vale, English Gascony, 13991453: a study of war, government and politics during the later stages of the Hundred Years' War (1970) · R. A. Griffiths, The reign of King Henry VI: the exercise of royal authority, 14221461 (1981) · E. Powell, Kingship, law, and society: criminal justice in the reign of Henry V (1989) · C. Reynolds, The Shrewsbury Book', Medieval art, architecture and archaeology at Rouen, ed. J. Stratford, British Archaeological Association, conference transactions, 12 (1993) · A. Claxton, The sign of the dog: an examination of the Devonshire hunting tapestries', Journal of Medieval History,
14 (1988), 12779 · E. Curtis, A history of medieval Ireland from 1086 to 1513, 2nd edn (1938) · J. Weever, Ancient funerall monuments (1631)

 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 20:19
Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 
Hicks' sources
 
By the way it would appear it was written in 2004 so is obviously out of date regarding Eleanor.Sources  

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Liz quoted:
>
> DNB - written by Michael Hicks. 

> Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, [snip]
> As early as 1446 Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. [snip] During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. [snip] Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to his Yorkist allegiance.
>
> Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. [snip]
>
> Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. [snip]

> Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. [snip}

Carol responds: I'll comment only on these few points, ignoring the part about Richard's "usurpation" (typical Hicks).

1) What does Hicks mean by "incompatible benefice"?

2) One piece of evidence, a single known visit to Somerset, is sufficient evidence to convict Stillington of "an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties"? Has Hicks not noticed the number of offices that Stillington held?

3) If Hicks and Kendall agree that Stillington helped persuade George of Clarence to return to his Yorkist allegiance, it must be true. We could probably find the source by checking Kendall if anyone has the time.

4) More important, *who* reports that Stillington "sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester"? Is he unaware of the actual terms of that agreement and the reasons behind it? {But. of course, Hicks feels compelled to present Richard as unscrupulous and avaricious at every opportunity.)

5) Stillington's brushes with the crown are "difficult to explain" only if we, like Hicks, dismiss the precontract as a fabrication. If we believe in its truth and that Stillington told George of Clarence about it before he told Richard, the rest, including his arrest by Henry immediately after Bosworth, is easy to explain.

6) "Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464." Really? I couldn't have figured that out! (Duh.) But Hicks clearly doesn't know that a precontract is a previous contract of marriage.

Liz, if it's not too much trouble, can you copy Hicks's sources for the article?

Thanks,

Carol

Emden, Oxf. · W. Rodwell, Wells Cathedral: excavations and discoveries (1980) · M. A. Hicks, False, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence': George, duke of Clarence, 144978, rev. edn (1992) · P. de Commynes, Mémoires, ed. J. Calmette and G. Durville, 3 vols. (Paris, 19245) · M. Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the battle of Stoke (1987) · N. Pronay and J. Cox, eds., The Crowland chronicle continuations, 14591486 (1986) · The registers of Robert Stillington, bishop of Bath and Wells, 14661491, and Richard Fox, bishop of Bath and Wells, 14921494, ed. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Somerset RS, 52 (1937) · A. F. Sutton and P. W. Hammond, eds., The coronation of Richard III: the extant documents (1983) · RotP, vols. 56 · F. Drake, Eboracum, or, The history and antiquities of the city of York (1736) · W. Campbell, ed., Materials for a history of the reign of Henry VII, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 60 (18737)

liz williams wrote:
>
> Hicks' sources
>  
> By the way it would appear it was written in 2004 so is obviously out of date regarding Eleanor.Sources  

Carol responds:

Thanks. I've copied them along with the article to my files.

2004 sounds right. That was the publication date for the print version of the New DNB.

Carol

liz williams wrote:
>
> Also  Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
>  
> Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?

Thanks,

Carol

So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?




liz williams wrote:
>
> Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> Â
> Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?

Thanks,

Carol

Why isn't there a rebuttal to their theorizing? It seems Hicks is such a powerful presence in all things Richard and able to actually modify the truth to fit his theory about R!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 2, 2013, at 5:23 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > Â
> > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

liz williams wrote:
>
> Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> Â
> Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?

Thanks,

Carol

I hope so.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?



I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?



So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

liz williams wrote:
>
> Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> Â
> Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?

Thanks,

Carol

This is just an extract as it is included in the article about her father.  she doesn't have her own.  Let me know if you want the whole thing about him.
 
I think I shall suggest they give her a separate article and ask JaH to write it since he is the acknowledged expert on Eleanor!

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:10
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

liz williams wrote:
>
> Also  Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
>  
> Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?

Thanks,

Carol

He was briefly interviewed for a syndicated article in the US - http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/history_and_science_meet_in_st.html Quoted excerpt from Hicks below -

"Biographer Michael Hicks of the University of Winchester told me that Richard "probably did kill the princes," although not his wife. Likewise, Hicks said, there is circumstantial evidence that Richard killed King Henry VI, Henry's son Edward of Lancaster; and his own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. But, Hicks said, Richard was likely acting in all three cases at the instructions of his older brother, King Edward IV.

Richard "certainly said he had very good intentions when he became king but of course he wasn't able to fulfill them because circumstances caused him to spend his time on trying to remain king," Hicks said. "We've all heard of politicians in that position, haven't we?"

Meanwhile, the squabbling continues, with a debate over whether Richard is to be buried in York, his ancestral home, or remain in Leicester, which has announced plans to inter him at the cathedral.

Yet Leicester was home to the rival House of Lancaster. "The one place he would probably not have wanted to be buried is Leicester," Hicks observed."




--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > Â
> > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gawd, he's even more out of date on some of these arguments than Starkey. Perhaps he needs a revision course?



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 12:25
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

He was briefly interviewed for a syndicated article in the US - http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/history_and_science_meet_in_st.html Quoted excerpt from Hicks below -

"Biographer Michael Hicks of the University of Winchester told me that Richard "probably did kill the princes," although not his wife. Likewise, Hicks said, there is circumstantial evidence that Richard killed King Henry VI, Henry's son Edward of Lancaster; and his own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. But, Hicks said, Richard was likely acting in all three cases at the instructions of his older brother, King Edward IV.

Richard "certainly said he had very good intentions when he became king but of course he wasn't able to fulfill them because circumstances caused him to spend his time on trying to remain king," Hicks said. "We've all heard of politicians in that position, haven't we?"

Meanwhile, the squabbling continues, with a debate over whether Richard is to be buried in York, his ancestral home, or remain in Leicester, which has announced plans to inter him at the cathedral.

Yet Leicester was home to the rival House of Lancaster. "The one place he would probably not have wanted to be buried is Leicester," Hicks observed."

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Alsoà Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > Ã
> > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wonder why he didn't throw Richard's wife in the hopper? I'm mean, if you're in for a penny, why not a pound? Maire.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Gawd, he's even more out of date on some of these arguments than Starkey. Perhaps he needs a revision course?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 12:25
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> He was briefly interviewed for a syndicated article in the US - http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/history_and_science_meet_in_st.html Quoted excerpt from Hicks below -
>
> "Biographer Michael Hicks of the University of Winchester told me that Richard "probably did kill the princes," although not his wife. Likewise, Hicks said, there is circumstantial evidence that Richard killed King Henry VI, Henry's son Edward of Lancaster; and his own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. But, Hicks said, Richard was likely acting in all three cases at the instructions of his older brother, King Edward IV.
>
> Richard "certainly said he had very good intentions when he became king but of course he wasn't able to fulfill them because circumstances caused him to spend his time on trying to remain king," Hicks said. "We've all heard of politicians in that position, haven't we?"
>
> Meanwhile, the squabbling continues, with a debate over whether Richard is to be buried in York, his ancestral home, or remain in Leicester, which has announced plans to inter him at the cathedral.
>
> Yet Leicester was home to the rival House of Lancaster. "The one place he would probably not have wanted to be buried is Leicester," Hicks observed."
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> > Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> >  
> >
> > So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> > Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> > liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > > Â
> > > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen Lark wrote:


"So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard,
citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence."

Doug here:
"It's *nice* to be the historian!"
(apologies to Mel Brooks)

liz williams wrote:
>
> This is just an extract as it is included in the article about her father.  she doesn't have her own.  Let me know if you want the whole thing about him.
>  
> I think I shall suggest they give her a separate article and ask JaH to write it since he is the acknowledged expert on Eleanor!

Carol responds:

Thank you for the explanation. I wondered why they would have an article under "Eleanor"! Given the importance of the precontract (previous marriage) to the understanding of all three Yorkist kings, especially Richard and his claim to the throne, she should certainly have her own article, and J A-H would be the man to write it.

Maybe in addition to your letter to the DNB, someone could suggest it to J A-H directly and he could write to the DNB himself? He has all sorts of speaking engagements, so I'm sure that one of our UK members will have the opportunity to ask him about it.

Carol

Hilary
He did remark after the discovery on one of the websites, History Today, BBC History or the BBC website itself and said something along the lines that it would make no difference at all. This was probably 5 or 6 February. I posted a reply there highlighting the bias of the article and how he had his own theories and was pursuing his own agenda. I think I might have posted it on here as well.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > Â
> > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Elaine. Your post was probably lost in the hundreds that came through during those days. He's perhaps locked away somewhere updating a hostile tome.


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 22:43
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Hilary
He did remark after the discovery on one of the websites, History Today, BBC History or the BBC website itself and said something along the lines that it would make no difference at all. This was probably 5 or 6 February. I posted a reply there highlighting the bias of the article and how he had his own theories and was pursuing his own agenda. I think I might have posted it on here as well.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Alsoà Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > Ã
> > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Obviously not done any research lately. It really annoys me when members of the Society are ridiculed when they are the people who do research and publish books based on evidence and so called academics still rely on discredited accounts.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Gawd, he's even more out of date on some of these arguments than Starkey. Perhaps he needs a revision course?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 12:25
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
>  
>
> He was briefly interviewed for a syndicated article in the US - http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/history_and_science_meet_in_st.html Quoted excerpt from Hicks below -
>
> "Biographer Michael Hicks of the University of Winchester told me that Richard "probably did kill the princes," although not his wife. Likewise, Hicks said, there is circumstantial evidence that Richard killed King Henry VI, Henry's son Edward of Lancaster; and his own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. But, Hicks said, Richard was likely acting in all three cases at the instructions of his older brother, King Edward IV.
>
> Richard "certainly said he had very good intentions when he became king but of course he wasn't able to fulfill them because circumstances caused him to spend his time on trying to remain king," Hicks said. "We've all heard of politicians in that position, haven't we?"
>
> Meanwhile, the squabbling continues, with a debate over whether Richard is to be buried in York, his ancestral home, or remain in Leicester, which has announced plans to inter him at the cathedral.
>
> Yet Leicester was home to the rival House of Lancaster. "The one place he would probably not have wanted to be buried is Leicester," Hicks observed."
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> > Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> >  
> >
> > So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> > Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> > liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Also Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > > Â
> > > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Certainly. Can you just confirm the links to which bits.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Much like us talking about red-hot pokers in his presence ............
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:51 PM
Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?



Obviously not done any research lately. It really annoys me when members of the Society are ridiculed when they are the people who do research and publish books based on evidence and so called academics still rely on discredited accounts.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Gawd, he's even more out of date on some of these arguments than Starkey. Perhaps he needs a revision course?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 12:25
> Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
>
> Â
>
> He was briefly interviewed for a syndicated article in the US - http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/history_and_science_meet_in_st.html Quoted excerpt from Hicks below -
>
> "Biographer Michael Hicks of the University of Winchester told me that Richard "probably did kill the princes," although not his wife. Likewise, Hicks said, there is circumstantial evidence that Richard killed King Henry VI, Henry's son Edward of Lancaster; and his own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. But, Hicks said, Richard was likely acting in all three cases at the instructions of his older brother, King Edward IV.
>
> Richard "certainly said he had very good intentions when he became king but of course he wasn't able to fulfill them because circumstances caused him to spend his time on trying to remain king," Hicks said. "We've all heard of politicians in that position, haven't we?"
>
> Meanwhile, the squabbling continues, with a debate over whether Richard is to be buried in York, his ancestral home, or remain in Leicester, which has announced plans to inter him at the cathedral.
>
> Yet Leicester was home to the rival House of Lancaster. "The one place he would probably not have wanted to be buried is Leicester," Hicks observed."
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed that we don't seem to have had a murmur from Hicks over the recent Richard thing. Do you reckon he's keeping his head down?Ã,Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 22:23
> > Subject: Re: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> > Ã,Â
> >
> > So there we are - most articles on that period are by Hicks or Pollard, citing themselves and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:10 PM
> > Subject: Stillington DNB (was Re: Why was Clarence executed?
> >
> > liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > AlsoÃfâ?s Eleanor from the article about her father - written by Pollard, again 2004
> > > Ãfâ?s
> > > Eleanor [Lady Eleanor Boteler (d. 1468)], [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks for copying the article. But something seems to be missing in the part I kept. There's only one square bracket. And is she listed as Butler, Eleanor?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have Joan Chedder as Viscountess Lisle (half-sister-in-law of Lady Eleanor).
I have Richard Cheddar as father of a younger Joan Chedder and *he looks like her brother but I need proof*.
I have the younger Joan Chedder marrying Sir John Percival.
I have Jennet Percival marrying Thomas Stillington, son of John and Katherine Holthorpe and brother of Robert. *I need to connect Jennet Percival to Sir John*. He looks like her nephew from the dates.
This *would* make the Bishop into Lady Eleanor's exceedingly complex brother-in-law.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



Certainly. Can you just confirm the links to which bits.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

My thanks. On the case. Give me till at least tomorrow though. Have indeed bumped into the Cheddars.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 14:47
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

I have Joan Chedder as Viscountess Lisle (half-sister-in-law of Lady Eleanor).
I have Richard Cheddar as father of a younger Joan Chedder and *he looks like her brother but I need proof*.
I have the younger Joan Chedder marrying Sir John Percival.
I have Jennet Percival marrying Thomas Stillington, son of John and Katherine Holthorpe and brother of Robert. *I need to connect Jennet Percival to Sir John*. He looks like her nephew from the dates.
This *would* make the Bishop into Lady Eleanor's exceedingly complex brother-in-law.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Certainly. Can you just confirm the links to which bits.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 147071, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidencehistorians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butlerand Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in MarchApril 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 15523, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Did you find any Bleus or Jarlsbergs??? Just being snarky.... I will do back into my hole!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



My thanks. On the case. Give me till at least tomorrow though. Have indeed bumped into the Cheddars.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 14:47
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



I have Joan Chedder as Viscountess Lisle (half-sister-in-law of Lady Eleanor).
I have Richard Cheddar as father of a younger Joan Chedder and *he looks like her brother but I need proof*.
I have the younger Joan Chedder marrying Sir John Percival.
I have Jennet Percival marrying Thomas Stillington, son of John and Katherine Holthorpe and brother of Robert. *I need to connect Jennet Percival to Sir John*. He looks like her nephew from the dates.
This *would* make the Bishop into Lady Eleanor's exceedingly complex brother-in-law.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Certainly. Can you just confirm the links to which bits.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 1470-71, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and 'did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, 'ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidence-historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler-and Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, 'sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his 'horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his 'grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in March-April 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 1552-3, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

No, nor Citizen Camembert - ".......EVERYONE recognises me, Citizen Sir".
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Why was Clarence executed?



Did you find any Bleus or Jarlsbergs??? Just being snarky.... I will do back into my hole!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

My thanks. On the case. Give me till at least tomorrow though. Have indeed bumped into the Cheddars.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 14:47
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I have Joan Chedder as Viscountess Lisle (half-sister-in-law of Lady Eleanor).
I have Richard Cheddar as father of a younger Joan Chedder and *he looks like her brother but I need proof*.
I have the younger Joan Chedder marrying Sir John Percival.
I have Jennet Percival marrying Thomas Stillington, son of John and Katherine Holthorpe and brother of Robert. *I need to connect Jennet Percival to Sir John*. He looks like her nephew from the dates.
This *would* make the Bishop into Lady Eleanor's exceedingly complex brother-in-law.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Certainly. Can you just confirm the links to which bits.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 1470-71, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and 'did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, 'ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidence-historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler-and Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, 'sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his 'horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his 'grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in March-April 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 1552-3, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I ave overdosed on Cheddar this afternoon!!



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 15:09
Subject: RE: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

 

Did you find any Bleus or Jarlsbergs??? Just being snarky.... I will do back into my hole!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

My thanks. On the case. Give me till at least tomorrow though. Have indeed bumped into the Cheddars.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 14:47
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I have Joan Chedder as Viscountess Lisle (half-sister-in-law of Lady Eleanor).
I have Richard Cheddar as father of a younger Joan Chedder and *he looks like her brother but I need proof*.
I have the younger Joan Chedder marrying Sir John Percival.
I have Jennet Percival marrying Thomas Stillington, son of John and Katherine Holthorpe and brother of Robert. *I need to connect Jennet Percival to Sir John*. He looks like her nephew from the dates.
This *would* make the Bishop into Lady Eleanor's exceedingly complex brother-in-law.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Certainly. Can you just confirm the links to which bits.

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Hilary: Please can you post links to this? I seriously think this can be solved in time for the next Bulletin.
I will borrow Hancock as well for his sources.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

What is DNB - Dictionary of National Biography? I looked on Ancestry and other sites and found that Stillington could have been the son of John Stillington and Katherine Holthorpe or of Thomas Stillington and Jennet Percival. Is that the Percival/Butler connection Stephen? Both though seem to have been from Yorkshire, which is interesting.
It is, as Eileen says, like treacle though. For example living within a radius of about 10 miles of Catesby we have the Sudeley/Butlers, the Butlers/Earls of Ormond/Desmonds and the Washingtons (later our George, but Lawrence is mentioned in the wills of the Hautes). I don't think we will ever find the real way through it.
However, for my sins I listened to Starkey again on Monarchy tonight. As I said before, he is sympathetic to Clarence and actually said - yes - that it was not unlikely that the pre-contract existed, given Edward's previous history. Perhaps I should have listened more closely in the past? Or perhaps he's condemned Richard so much in the past that he can't go back on that, but he can backtrack when it comes to others like Clarence?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 19:18
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

VERY unsatisfactory but typical Hicks.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

DNB - written by Michael Hicks. I've ony skimmedit, it doesn't seem to mention his mother but when the heck was this written?

It says "historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler"!!!!!

Stillington, Robert (d. 1491), administrator and bishop of Bath and Wells, is first recorded as a senior Oxford academic in 1442, and was therefore probably born before 1410. He was the son of John Stillington of Nether Acaster near York. By November 1442, when he acted as proctor for Lincoln College, he was already principal of Deep Hall, and by June the next year he had graduated as doctor of civil law. Still at Deep Hall in September 1444, he seems thereafter to have embarked on an official career. His first living, as rector of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, in 1443, preceded his ordination as acolyte, subdeacon (1444), deacon (1445), and priest (1447), all in the diocese of Bath and Wells, where from at least 1445 to 1448 he was chancellor to Bishop Thomas Beckington (d. 1465). Beckington collated him to a series of livings, beginning with a prebend in Wells Cathedral in 1445 and culminating in the archdeaconry of Taunton in 1450. As early as 1446
Stillington was dispensed to hold a second, and in 1451 a third, incompatible benefice. A whole series was bestowed by other bishops active at court and in government, such as William Aiscough of Salisbury (d. 1450), John Kemp of York (d. 1454; who collated him to prebends in York, Ripon, Southwell, and the chapel of St Mary and the Holy Angels in York), and Thomas Kemp of London; in 1458 Henry VI appointed him dean of the royal free chapel of St Martin's-le-Grand in London.

By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in 1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465 archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his 25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral duties. In 1448 Stillington was appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Burgundy over recent breaches of a truce, and in the next
thirty years he took part in several foreign embassies. In 1449 he became a royal councillor, but although he continued to acquire benefices, his secular career during the 1450s remains obscure, until on 28 July 1460 the Yorkist-dominated government appointed him keeper of the privy seal, with a salary of £365 a year. Stillington remained keeper until his appointment as chancellor on 20 June 1467, after the dismissal of Archbishop George Neville (d. 1476). As chancellor he influenced the development of procedure along civil-law lines in the court of chancery. He remained in office until 25 July 1473 with the exception of the six months of Henry VI's readeption in 1470-71, when he was supplanted by his predecessor, Archbishop Neville. During the latter period he took sanctuary in St Martin's. Though a pardon on 25 February 1471 implies that he made his peace with the Lancastrians, he nevertheless helped persuade George, duke of Clarence, to return to
his Yorkist allegiance.

Following the restoration of Edward IV, Stillington is reported to have sought to protect the elderly countess of Oxford against attempts to disinherit her by Richard, duke of Gloucester. Illness prevented his attending the first session of the parliament of 1472, and thereafter, the Crowland continuator reports, he was less effective and 'did nothing except through his pupil [John Alcock (d. 1500)]' (Pronay and Cox, 133). Old age and failing health may therefore explain his replacement; he was not out of favour, sharing in a grant of the presentation to the deanery of St Stephen's in 1477 and acting as a royal ambassador as late as 1479. Right at the heart of the Yorkist regime, he acted as feoffee to the king, to the duke of Clarence, and to Edward's stepson, the marquess of Dorset, among others. At the coronation of Richard III and Queen Anne, on 6 July 1483, he took the prominent supporting role traditionally reserved for the bishop of Bath.

Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between 27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June 1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

Richard III's usurpation, on 26 June 1483, was justified in sermons and speeches, and especially in the manifesto Titulus regius, known only through its confirmation by the parliament of 1484, but circulated to members of the Calais garrison in June 1483. This strictly contemporary document disqualifies Edward V and his siblings from the crown, both because their father Edward IV had been illegitimate, and because his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated by a prior contract that he had made with Eleanor Butler. The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines attributes the precontract story to Stillington, 'ce mauvais evesque', whom he claimed had officiated. Such a precontract must have taken place before Edward IV's marriage on 1 May 1464, when Stillington was still keeper of the privy seal. However, there is no confirmatory evidence-historians have not even been able satisfactorily to identify Eleanor Butler-and Stillington was not
noticeably favoured by Richard III. A year-book of 1488 does, however, contain the claim that it was Stillington who drew up the petition in which the Lords and Commons asked Gloucester to take the crown, suggesting that by then he had become popularly associated with Richard's usurpation.

Henry VII was hostile to Stillington and on 22 August 1485, the very day of Bosworth, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Five days later he was already in prison at York, 'sore crased by reason of his trouble and carying' (Drake, 122). For his 'horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292), he was deprived of his deanery of St Martin's but not of his bishopric, and was pardoned on 22 November in view of his 'grete age, long infirmite, and feeblenesse' (Campbell, 1.172). Apparently implicated in treason, presumably that of Lambert Simnel, he took refuge at the University of Oxford, which, although embarrassed, initially refused six requests in March-April 1488 to surrender him on grounds of franchise. He was imprisoned at Windsor until 1489, and died in April or May 1491.

Stillington was buried in the large chapel, demolished in 1552-3, that he had erected by 1488 off the cloister to the south of Wells Cathedral. Extremely large for a chantry, Stillington's chapel was cruciform, stone-vaulted, and high quality: the elaborate panelled west wall is still visible where it abutted on the cloister. Stillington also founded a chantry school of St Andrew at Nether Acaster, Yorkshire, on ground inherited from his father. There is no evidence to confirm Commines's story that Stillington had a bastard son, whom Richard III intended as husband for Elizabeth of York and who was captured off Normandy and died in Paris.

Michael Hicks

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 14:49
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

PS According to the latest Bulletin, Stillington was vaguely related to Lady Eleanor. I have connected them through the surnames Chedder and Percival but this is not complete until I get to a library or someone can tell me Stillington's mother from the DNB (Hicks again).
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

I'm with you shoulder to shoulder on this. George definitely has to have known and I honestly don't think he told Richard; the shock is too profound in 1483. To me that is to George's credit, it smacks of protecting little brother.
So the questions in my head are:
1. When did George find out - was it as far back as from Warwick in 1468/9 after Anne Warwick attended her sister's funeral and met Eleanor? As we've said there was no point then in making noises about it because George was still heir and Edward could (had he dared) have got rid of EW and married again producing a legitimate heir. Better to play on Edward's own legitimacy.
2. Did EW know before 1483 or was part of the need to silence George to make sure she never found out?
3. Did Cis know about it - I bet she did!
4. Had George agreed to keep quiet after coming back into the fold in 1471 but clearly had a breakdown after the death of Isabel?
5. Did he think Isabel had been killed because she knew as well?
As you say, it's another of those strands which has to be true, because everything makes sense if it is. And of course Catesby was George's lawyer by 1478 so he could have endorsed all this to Richard down the line.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Why was Clarence executed?

Further to my post re my surprise Edward would execute George because of the death of Ankarette...I now understand this long held belief of mine is misplaced/rubbish. Reading Hick's book and Carol's message I now see that the Ankarette execution was not the rock on which George got smashed but merely the catalyst. Reading the summary of the act of attainder against George it appears to me that George did indeed know about the Butler marriage with all its implications and that, far from being a well kept secret it was well known. I may have gained this impression because of the shock that was felt when Stillington went to Richard about this secret marriage. I find this all rather muddly. Hicks takes the line that George did not know about the pre-contract...and that although he lodged in Stillington's Bishops Palace, Wells, (went there last year...swans ring on bell to get fed.sweet and lovely....but I digress) he would not have known Stillington
that well. I cannot say I agree with that..Any comments? When I was in that area last year I noticed that one of Georges castle's, Farleigh Hungerford (where Margaret was born) was within easy reach of Wells..

To sum up..what was the "new treason" in the act of attainder that would threaten the public weal, encompass a plot against Edward, EW and their son and heir and the other children if it was not the threat to make known the fact that Edward and EW were, and never had been legally married?

Eileen....

> > >
>
> >
> > "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king
> > recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert
> > the king's subjects from their true obedience.
> >
> > "Specifically:
> >
> > "Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett [for sorcery].
> >
> > "He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts.
> >
> > "He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs.
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king is a bastard.
> >
> > "He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved.'
> >
> > "He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him.
> >
> > "Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI.
> >
> > "He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place.
> >
> > "He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force.
> >
> > "For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore
> > commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property."
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
> >
> > So, as I said earlier in another thread, no mention of Ankarette Twynyho.
> >
> > As for Kendall, what he actually says is that by illegally executing Ankarette and John Thuresy (the man George accused of poisoning his baby son), George had "taken the king's justice into his own hands, as if he were indeed king" (p.145 of my edition)--which is quite true. But he doesn't say that this incident was the reason for George's execution. Instead, he says that "the last shreds of Edward's amazing patience were gnawed away by the Woodvilles" and that "Clarence's fall began obliquely" when, after Edward had executed George's servant Thomas Burdett for sorcery, George ignored the warning and burst in on a council meeting to protest Burdett's innocence, [brilliantly] bringing with him the very preacher who had proclaimed Henry VI's title to the crown in a sermon at Paul's Cross, followed by a series of wild acts, including asserting his own claim to the throne and ordering his men to arm themselves to levy war against the king. At that point,
Edward also learned that George was seeking the hand of Mary of Burgundy.
> >
> > Kendall suggests that the real reason was that George knew about the precontract and that Richard tried (but ultimately failed) to talk him out of executing George.
> >
> > Was the precontract the real reason? Probably. Everything falls into place if it is. But the attainder obviously would not contain information so dangerous to Edward's heirs.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>