Clarence's treason

Whilst hunting around for other things, I came across Emma Roberts 1827 volume "Memoirs of the Houses of Lancaster and York" which along with the usual reasons given for Clarence's treason, mentions something I haven't heard before in the very last clause of the sentence: Roberts very generally references the Parliament Rolls for the source of her entire page of Jan 1478 Clarence history. Can anyone credit this source or where mention of the "stranger...personating his son" is made elsewhere?

"Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was endangered by the machinations of the king."

*Parliament Rolls of **Medieval England 1275-1504 XIV Edward IV 1472-1483*,
ed Rosemary Horrox (2005, my printing 2012)
1478 January [parliament]

p 402 Appendix

*1*. Source: *RP*, vi, 193-5; PRO C49/40/1

The accusation brought by the king against the duke of Clarence:

The king is mindful of the many conspiracies against him which he has
repressed in the past, and although many of the rebels and traitors have
been punished as an example to others yet, as a merciful prince, he spared
not only the rank and file but also some of the movers and stirrers of such
treason. Notwithstanding. a conspiracy against him, the queen, their son
and heir and a great part of the nobility of the land has recently come to
his knowledge, which treason is more heinous and unnatural than any
previous one because it originates from the king's brother the duke of
Clarence, whom the king had always loved and generously rewarded. In spite
of this, the duke grievously offended the king in the past, procuring his
exile from the realm and labouring parliament to exclude him and his heirs
from the crown. All of which the king forgave, but the duke continued to
conspire against him, intending his destruction by both internal and
external forces. He sought to turn his subjects against him by saying that
Thomas Burdet was falsely put to death and that the king resorted to
necromancy. He also said that the king was a bastard, not fit to reign, and
made men take oaths of allegiance to him without excepting their loyalty to
the king. He accused the king of taking his livelihood from him, and
intending his destruction. He secured an exemplification under the great
seal of an agreement made between him and Queen Margaret promising him the
crown if Henry VI's line failed. He planned to send his son and heir
abroad to win support, bringing a false child to Warwick castle in his
place. He planned to raise war against the king within England and made men
promise to be ready at an hour's notice. The duke has thus shown himself
incorrigible and to pardon him would threaten the common weal, which the
king is bound to maintain.

By the advice and assent of the lords and commons the king ordains that
the duke be convicted of high treason and forfeit his estate as duke and
all the lands he holds by the king's grant/

Answer: le roy le voet.

*2*. *RP*, vi, 195; *CPR* 1476-85 p. 63 (given in parliament 7 February
1478)

Appointment of Henry duke of Buckingham as steward of England to
pronounce sentence on George, late duke of Clarence, convicted of high
treason by the authority of parliament.


A J


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Whilst hunting around for other things, I came across Emma Roberts 1827
> volume "Memoirs of the Houses of Lancaster and York" which along with the
> usual reasons given for Clarence's treason, mentions something I haven't
> heard before in the very last clause of the sentence: Roberts very
> generally references the Parliament Rolls for the source of her entire page
> of Jan 1478 Clarence history. Can anyone credit this source or where
> mention of the "stranger...personating his son" is made elsewhere?
>
> "Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended
> usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon
> the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to
> the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had
> retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the
> kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself
> and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in
> constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to
> introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended
> to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was
> endangered by the machinations of the king."
>
>
>

Thanks, AJ


Col

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> *Parliament Rolls of **Medieval England 1275-1504 XIV Edward IV 1472-1483*,
> ed Rosemary Horrox (2005, my printing 2012)
> 1478 January [parliament]
>
> p 402 Appendix
>
> *1*. Source: *RP*, vi, 193-5; PRO C49/40/1
>
> The accusation brought by the king against the duke of Clarence:
>
> The king is mindful of the many conspiracies against him which he has
> repressed in the past, and although many of the rebels and traitors have
> been punished as an example to others yet, as a merciful prince, he spared
> not only the rank and file but also some of the movers and stirrers of such
> treason. Notwithstanding. a conspiracy against him, the queen, their son
> and heir and a great part of the nobility of the land has recently come to
> his knowledge, which treason is more heinous and unnatural than any
> previous one because it originates from the king's brother the duke of
> Clarence, whom the king had always loved and generously rewarded. In spite
> of this, the duke grievously offended the king in the past, procuring his
> exile from the realm and labouring parliament to exclude him and his heirs
> from the crown. All of which the king forgave, but the duke continued to
> conspire against him, intending his destruction by both internal and
> external forces. He sought to turn his subjects against him by saying that
> Thomas Burdet was falsely put to death and that the king resorted to
> necromancy. He also said that the king was a bastard, not fit to reign, and
> made men take oaths of allegiance to him without excepting their loyalty to
> the king. He accused the king of taking his livelihood from him, and
> intending his destruction. He secured an exemplification under the great
> seal of an agreement made between him and Queen Margaret promising him the
> crown if Henry VI's line failed. He planned to send his son and heir
> abroad to win support, bringing a false child to Warwick castle in his
> place. He planned to raise war against the king within England and made men
> promise to be ready at an hour's notice. The duke has thus shown himself
> incorrigible and to pardon him would threaten the common weal, which the
> king is bound to maintain.
>
> By the advice and assent of the lords and commons the king ordains that
> the duke be convicted of high treason and forfeit his estate as duke and
> all the lands he holds by the king's grant/
>
> Answer: le roy le voet.
>
> *2*. *RP*, vi, 195; *CPR* 1476-85 p. 63 (given in parliament 7 February
> 1478)
>
> Appointment of Henry duke of Buckingham as steward of England to
> pronounce sentence on George, late duke of Clarence, convicted of high
> treason by the authority of parliament.
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Whilst hunting around for other things, I came across Emma Roberts 1827
> > volume "Memoirs of the Houses of Lancaster and York" which along with the
> > usual reasons given for Clarence's treason, mentions something I haven't
> > heard before in the very last clause of the sentence: Roberts very
> > generally references the Parliament Rolls for the source of her entire page
> > of Jan 1478 Clarence history. Can anyone credit this source or where
> > mention of the "stranger...personating his son" is made elsewhere?
> >
> > "Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended
> > usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon
> > the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to
> > the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had
> > retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the
> > kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself
> > and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in
> > constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to
> > introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended
> > to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was
> > endangered by the machinations of the king."
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

On 15/04/2013 17:33, A J Hibbard wrote:
> The duke has thus shown himself
> incorrigible and to pardon him would threaten the common weal, which the
> king is bound to maintain.
I would have to agree with King Edward, and have never blamed him for
despatching George. Clarence would, as Kendall put it, always dreamed of
crowns, and would have remained a thorn in Edward's side, totally
untrustworthy, and always dangerous. I can think of no-one else who
forgave treason so many times for the same person.
Paul



--
Richard Liveth Yet!

colyngbourne wrote:
(well, actually, cited)
//snip//
"Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended
usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon
the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to
the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had
retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the
kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself
and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in
constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to
introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended
to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was
endangered by the machinations of the king."

Doug here:
Maybe it's me, but the only reason I can come up with for George planning on
removing his son "into a foreign country" was because he (George) feared for
his son's life. And the only reason for him to do *that* would be a) George
was unbalanced or, b) George knew about his brother's earlier marriage and
realized that placed Edward of Warwick in danger - Warwick was the legal
heir, *not* Edward's eldest son.
As for requiring his retainers "to be in constant readiness to join him
(George) in arms", I would imagine that was because George was planning on
claiming the crown on his brother's death, rather than sitting back and
letting Edward's illegitimate son inherit. He was also, seemingly, going to
try and gain Lancastrian support via that Act of Parliament.
As all this boiled up after Isabel died, is it possible that *both* George
and Isabel had known about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler, but as long
as Isabel was alive, she managed to keep him under control, so to speak?
In turn, that might also mean that George's claims about poisonings *may*
not have only been the products of a bereaved husband's sorrow, but a real
expression of his fear of what may have happened based on what he and his
wife knew.
(After re-reading, I have to admit there's an awful lot of "mays", but
still...)
Doug

You know that's exactly how I read it Doug. Stillington is deep in Clarence territory from the early 1460s, Catesby flits between all the interested parties with his contracts. If there was a pre-contract (and I always unequivocally believed there was until the last couple of days when I do begin to wonder whether Stillington duped Richard and us - still hypothetical) then I reckon Clarence knew and probably lived in fear after his earlier exploits with Warwick. When Isabel was no longer there he had what we would nowadays call a breakdown and this really did spell the end for him. That certainly makes the most sense.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 14 April 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 


colyngbourne wrote:
(well, actually, cited)
//snip//
"Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended
usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon
the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to
the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had
retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the
kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself
and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in
constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to
introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended
to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was
endangered by the machinations of the king."

Doug here:
Maybe it's me, but the only reason I can come up with for George planning on
removing his son "into a foreign country" was because he (George) feared for
his son's life. And the only reason for him to do *that* would be a) George
was unbalanced or, b) George knew about his brother's earlier marriage and
realized that placed Edward of Warwick in danger - Warwick was the legal
heir, *not* Edward's eldest son.
As for requiring his retainers "to be in constant readiness to join him
(George) in arms", I would imagine that was because George was planning on
claiming the crown on his brother's death, rather than sitting back and
letting Edward's illegitimate son inherit. He was also, seemingly, going to
try and gain Lancastrian support via that Act of Parliament.
As all this boiled up after Isabel died, is it possible that *both* George
and Isabel had known about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler, but as long
as Isabel was alive, she managed to keep him under control, so to speak?
In turn, that might also mean that George's claims about poisonings *may*
not have only been the products of a bereaved husband's sorrow, but a real
expression of his fear of what may have happened based on what he and his
wife knew.
(After re-reading, I have to admit there's an awful lot of "mays", but
still...)
Doug

colyngbourne wrote:
>
> Whilst hunting around for other things, I came across Emma Roberts 1827 volume "Memoirs of the Houses of Lancaster and York" which along with the usual reasons given for Clarence's treason, mentions something I haven't heard before in the very last clause of the sentence: Roberts very generally references the Parliament Rolls for the source of her entire page of Jan 1478 Clarence history. Can anyone credit this source or where mention of the "stranger...personating his son" is made elsewhere?
>
> "Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was endangered by the machinations of the king."
>
Carol responds:

I've mentioned this "strange child" before in several posts. The relevant portion of the actual bill of attainder reads:

"And also, the same Duke purposyng to accomplisse his said false and untrue entent . . . of late willed and desired the Abbot of Tweybury, Mayster John Tapton, clerk, and Roger Harewell esquier, to cause a straunge childe to have be putte and kept in likelinesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Ireland, or into Flaundres, oute of this lande, whereby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne Lorde. And for the execucion of the same, sent oon John Taylour, his servaunte, to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire, for to have conveyed hym (the whiche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his said false and untrue entent was lette and undoon)."

Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 3642-3645). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

The entire attainder is included in Appendix 1 ("documentary Evidence"), with a summary elsewhere (Chapter 18, "Aftermath"). I can't provide page numbers because I have the Kindle edition.

I tried to ask Marie what this conspiracy was all about (why George would try to send his own son out of the country and substitute a "strange child"), but I still don't understand the point of doing so (unless he feared retaliation by Edward against his son for his [George's] own treasons and didn't mind that retaliation being taken against a "strange child").

However, if he *did* send his son to Margaret in Burgundy, the boy protected by Richard (but not made his heir and barred from the crown) and imprisoned by Henry would have been an imposter, meaning that the boy Margaret maintained at her court would have been her (and Richard's) real nephew. There *is* a reference (Marie could provide it if she were posting) to a son of Clarence at Margaret's court. And if that child were the real Earl of Warwick, it would explain why John of Lincoln and Francis Lovell fought the Battle of Stoke to put Warwick, not one of Edward's sons, on the throne.

But the bill of attainder implies that George's plot to get his son out of the country *failed,* which takes us back to square one in identifying the boy at Margaret's court.

Hope this is helpful.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:

"You know that's exactly how I read it Doug. Stillington is deep in Clarence
territory from the early 1460s, Catesby flits between all the interested
parties with his contracts. If there was a pre-contract (and I always
unequivocally believed there was until the last couple of days when I do
begin to wonder whether Stillington duped Richard and us - still
hypothetical) then I reckon Clarence knew and probably lived in fear after
his earlier exploits with Warwick. When Isabel was no longer there he had
what we would nowadays call a breakdown and this really did spell the end
for him. That certainly makes the most sense."

Doug here:
Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming
Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be
king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions
*after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I
suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive?
However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's
current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now
*that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also
shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward
IV.
All the actions Clarence was accused of could just as easily be viewed as
being "preventative"; ie, they were to come into effect *only* upon Edward's
death, rather than direct threats against Edward IV's continuing rule.
And even then, what real chance did Clarence have of grabbing the throne
*if* Edward (V) was legitimate? George would have faced Richard, the
Woodvilles and all the remaining Yorkists with what? His immediate retainers
and those Lancastrians he *might* be able to tempt into supporting him with
that Act of Parliament?
Phooey!
However, add in the knowledge that Edward (V), and his siblings, were
illegitimate to support Clarence's claims and one would have the same
situation that developed in May/June 1483 and with, quite possibly, the same
results - Edward's children would have declared illegitimate and the next,
legitimate, heir would ascend the throne.
*That* was why Edward, finally, signed his brother's death warrant, to
protect his children from the consequences of his secret marriage to Eleanor
Butler.
Really it tends to boil down to: had George only kept his head down and
waited it all could have been his.
I do always wonder how many people actually knew about the marriage *before*
Edward died, though. We know certainly of three, Edward, Eleanor and
Stillington, Who else? Didn't there also have to be a witness to the
marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who
was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
Doug

The mind boggles. There is just so much occult (or secret) history that
may have happened behind the scenes. I wonder if all of these pieces can be
assembled into a coherent whole. Is that what J A-H is doing, with the
progression from Eleanor, Secret Queen to the Duke of Clarence?

A J


On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> >
> > Whilst hunting around for other things, I came across Emma Roberts 1827
> volume "Memoirs of the Houses of Lancaster and York" which along with the
> usual reasons given for Clarence's treason, mentions something I haven't
> heard before in the very last clause of the sentence: Roberts very
> generally references the Parliament Rolls for the source of her entire page
> of Jan 1478 Clarence history. Can anyone credit this source or where
> mention of the "stranger...personating his son" is made elsewhere?
> >
> > "Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended
> usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon
> the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to
> the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had
> retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the
> kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself
> and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in
> constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to
> introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended
> to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was
> endangered by the machinations of the king."
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I've mentioned this "strange child" before in several posts. The relevant
> portion of the actual bill of attainder reads:
>
> "And also, the same Duke purposyng to accomplisse his said false and
> untrue entent . . . of late willed and desired the Abbot of Tweybury,
> Mayster John Tapton, clerk, and Roger Harewell esquier, to cause a straunge
> childe to have be putte and kept in likelinesse of his sonne and heire, and
> that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into
> Ireland, or into Flaundres, oute of this lande, whereby he myght have goten
> hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne Lorde. And for the
> execucion of the same, sent oon John Taylour, his servaunte, to have had
> delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire, for to have conveyed hym (the
> whiche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of
> the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his said false and untrue entent
> was lette and undoon)."
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who
> put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 3642-3645). Perseus Books
> Group. Kindle Edition.
>
> The entire attainder is included in Appendix 1 ("documentary Evidence"),
> with a summary elsewhere (Chapter 18, "Aftermath"). I can't provide page
> numbers because I have the Kindle edition.
>
> I tried to ask Marie what this conspiracy was all about (why George would
> try to send his own son out of the country and substitute a "strange
> child"), but I still don't understand the point of doing so (unless he
> feared retaliation by Edward against his son for his [George's] own
> treasons and didn't mind that retaliation being taken against a "strange
> child").
>
> However, if he *did* send his son to Margaret in Burgundy, the boy
> protected by Richard (but not made his heir and barred from the crown) and
> imprisoned by Henry would have been an imposter, meaning that the boy
> Margaret maintained at her court would have been her (and Richard's) real
> nephew. There *is* a reference (Marie could provide it if she were posting)
> to a son of Clarence at Margaret's court. And if that child were the real
> Earl of Warwick, it would explain why John of Lincoln and Francis Lovell
> fought the Battle of Stoke to put Warwick, not one of Edward's sons, on the
> throne.
>
> But the bill of attainder implies that George's plot to get his son out of
> the country *failed,* which takes us back to square one in identifying the
> boy at Margaret's court.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Intriguing thought Carol about John of Lincoln and Francis Lovell supporting Edward of Warwick. I always assumed that it might have been H7's story because he didn't know if Edward of Westminster was alive or not, so he put out the story about young Warwick in order that people wouldn't think that Edward was still alive. He could at least produce Warwick and then "prove" Lambert Simnel was an imposter. However, your post suggests another scenario.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> >
> > Whilst hunting around for other things, I came across Emma Roberts 1827 volume "Memoirs of the Houses of Lancaster and York" which along with the usual reasons given for Clarence's treason, mentions something I haven't heard before in the very last clause of the sentence: Roberts very generally references the Parliament Rolls for the source of her entire page of Jan 1478 Clarence history. Can anyone credit this source or where mention of the "stranger...personating his son" is made elsewhere?
> >
> > "Edward then proceeded to state that the duke had commenced his intended usurpation by procuring unlawful oaths from misguided men, who swore upon the holy sacrament to be true to him and his heirs, without any regard to the fealty so solemnly pledged to their rightful sovereign; that he had retained in his possession a copy of the act of parliament entailing the kingdom, in default of male issue to the House of Lancaster, upon himself and his children; that he had private commanded his retainers to be in constant readiness to join him in arms, and that he had endeavoured to introduce a stranger into his castle to personate his son, whom he intended to send into a foreign country, under the pretence that his life was endangered by the machinations of the king."
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I've mentioned this "strange child" before in several posts. The relevant portion of the actual bill of attainder reads:
>
> "And also, the same Duke purposyng to accomplisse his said false and untrue entent . . . of late willed and desired the Abbot of Tweybury, Mayster John Tapton, clerk, and Roger Harewell esquier, to cause a straunge childe to have be putte and kept in likelinesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Ireland, or into Flaundres, oute of this lande, whereby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne Lorde. And for the execucion of the same, sent oon John Taylour, his servaunte, to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire, for to have conveyed hym (the whiche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his said false and untrue entent was lette and undoon)."
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 3642-3645). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>
> The entire attainder is included in Appendix 1 ("documentary Evidence"), with a summary elsewhere (Chapter 18, "Aftermath"). I can't provide page numbers because I have the Kindle edition.
>
> I tried to ask Marie what this conspiracy was all about (why George would try to send his own son out of the country and substitute a "strange child"), but I still don't understand the point of doing so (unless he feared retaliation by Edward against his son for his [George's] own treasons and didn't mind that retaliation being taken against a "strange child").
>
> However, if he *did* send his son to Margaret in Burgundy, the boy protected by Richard (but not made his heir and barred from the crown) and imprisoned by Henry would have been an imposter, meaning that the boy Margaret maintained at her court would have been her (and Richard's) real nephew. There *is* a reference (Marie could provide it if she were posting) to a son of Clarence at Margaret's court. And if that child were the real Earl of Warwick, it would explain why John of Lincoln and Francis Lovell fought the Battle of Stoke to put Warwick, not one of Edward's sons, on the throne.
>
> But the bill of attainder implies that George's plot to get his son out of the country *failed,* which takes us back to square one in identifying the boy at Margaret's court.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You know that's exactly how I read it Doug. Stillington is deep in Clarence territory from the early 1460s, Catesby flits between all the interested parties with his contracts. If there was a pre-contract (and I always unequivocally believed there was until the last couple of days when I do begin to wonder whether Stillington duped Richard and us - still hypothetical) then I reckon Clarence knew and probably lived in fear after his earlier exploits with Warwick. When Isabel was no longer there he had what we would nowadays call a breakdown and this really did spell the end for him. That certainly makes the most sense.

Carol responds:

But what motive would Stillington have to dupe Richard? He was getting old and he wasn't well rewarded. Also, how would he have convinced the Three Estates (and later Parliament) if he had no evidence? Catesby could have made a strong case, but only if there was evidence to base it on.

I wouldn't let genealogy change my mind since we have the arrest of Stillington by Edward, the otherwise inexplicable execution of George of Clarence, the election of Richard by the Three Estates, the confirmation of his claim Titulus Regius (which states explicitly that Edward "stood married and trothplight" to Dame Eleanor Butler, the immediate arrest of Stillington by Henry after Bosworth, and Henry's refusal to let Stillington testify to Parliament, which is inexplicable if the marriage to Eleanor Butler was the product of Stillington's (or Catesby's) imagination.

The Tudor claim through their mother was still being questioned abroad in Henry VIII's time. If they could prove that the charge was false, why didn't they? Or why, for that matter, didn't Elizabeth Woodville get someone to speak for her in Parliament to nullify Richard's claim and exert that of her children? The secrecy of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (presumably so that no one could step forward to state an objection) is another piece of evidence. None amounts to proof, but the combination amounts to probability.

Carol

I'm just thinking about George as King - I think it would have been a disaster.



________________________________

Douglas said:  .
snip>
*That* was why Edward, finally, signed his brother's death warrant, to
protect his children from the consequences of his secret marriage to Eleanor
Butler.
Really it tends to boil down to: had George only kept his head down and
waited it all could have been his.

I do always wonder how many people actually knew about the marriage *before*
Edward died, though. We know certainly of three, Edward, Eleanor and
Stillington, Who else? Didn't there also have to be a witness to the
marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who
was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
Doug

Doug wrote:
> Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?

Carol responds:

I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.

Carol

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm just thinking about George as King - I think it would have been a disaster.
>

... but an extremely entertaining play by Shakespeare!

Oh, dear. I can't help it today. King George does not sound 15th century. Yes, we could have had one had things gone differently, but even so... 15th-century kings are called Richard, Henry, or Edward. Not George!
OK, so I'm being illogical again.

Sandra

From: pansydobersby
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm just thinking about George as King - I think it would have been a disaster.
>

... but an extremely entertaining play by Shakespeare!

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, dear. I can’t help it today. King George does not sound 15th century. Yes, we could have had one had things gone differently, but even so... 15th-century kings are called Richard, Henry, or Edward. Not George!
> OK, so I’m being illogical again.
>

But imagine this: had George been the Really Disastrous King immortalised in Shakespeare's 'The True Tragedy of King George', we'd probably never have had the Georgian era. It might have been the Ricardian era instead, because King George was followed by that truly fine chap who saved England, King Richard III, so it was an okay name to use. But another king called George? Uh, no. Bad karma.

BLOWS MY MIND.

Surely Stillington was the witness and we are finding out why he was chosen?
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



Doug wrote:
> Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?

Carol responds:

I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.

Carol

From: pansydobersby
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

But imagine this: had George been the Really Disastrous King immortalised in Shakespeare's 'The True Tragedy of King George', we'd probably never have had the Georgian era. It might have been the Ricardian era instead, because King George was followed by that truly fine chap who saved England, King Richard III, so it was an okay name to use. But another king called George? Uh, no. Bad karma.

BLOWS MY MIND.


Sandra answers: Hmm, had not viewed it in that light. Oh, just imagine it  The Ricardian Age, golden decades of prosperity, enlightenment and darned good kingship. Erm, come back and do your worst, George, all is forgiven...!

.

Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 21:25
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

Doug wrote:
> Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?

Carol responds:

I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.

Carol

I don't think it was Catesby or Hastings. It was Stillington if it was anyone; he was the one who knew. I can find no Hastings connection so far at all unless you go right back to the Nevilles.
I think Hancock goes over the top on the Catesby connection. Lots of churches in Northants have that type of ceiling and to make Eleanor and Catesby friends because of a more distant in-law, a ceiling and a wall painting is pushing it a bit. The clergy probably commissioned the same people.
If she wanted to visit a close neighbour and relative of her own level then Sir John Butler and his wife are right next to her at Aston le Walls.
Also he says Catesby had his eye on Burton Dassett (Chipping Dorset) because he wanted to establish a market there. There was a big market for the wool trade just up the road at Chipping Warden. 


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 22:22
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

 

Surely Stillington was the witness and we are finding out why he was chosen?
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

Doug wrote:
> Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?

Carol responds:

I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.

Carol

The question is about motive and we can sometimes attribute motive to genealogy. Did Stillington reveal this because Eleanor's family wanted some sort of justice - which is where I think Stephen is coming from, or did he have another motive. It certainly wasn't reward in 1483.
 
If Stillington was, like his fellow bishop Morton, a covert Lancastrian, then anything which de-stabilised the Yorkist regime would be to their advantage.  Morton, with his past record couldn't approach Richard could he? It wasn't about duping Richard, it was about getting rid of a king and heir who would be popular once they reached their majority in two or three years - think of Edward III. A king from the North, who also appeared to some to be a usurper, would always be weak and potentially easier to get rid of. Think how Henry IV struggled for years and he didn't have that handicap.
As for Clarence, perhaps Stillington tried that on him but given his earlier escapades with Warwick and the influence of Isabel he didn't want to go there again. That is until Isabel died and he went into self-destruct mode, and that's when he could have mentioned the Stillington issue to Edward.
 
This is truly just hypothesis of one scenario. I shall probably find today or tomorrow that Stillington was a devout Yorkist (and indeed he had some other relations who were) but I would like to look more to see if his and Morton's paths ever crossed. We know MB was deep in the Talbots and she never gave up her Stafford connections. We need to know more about Stillington's motivation which is why I'm looking. He certainly wasn't some poor old man (he was the same age as Morton).
 
(As for H7, to what avail would it be for him to deny all this - to re-establish his wife would also be to re-stablish the legitimacy of the princes. So Stillington is kept mainly under lock and key and his estate is adminstered by his brother - and Reggie Bray)
 
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You know that's exactly how I read it Doug. Stillington is deep in Clarence territory from the early 1460s, Catesby flits between all the interested parties with his contracts. If there was a pre-contract (and I always unequivocally believed there was until the last couple of days when I do begin to wonder whether Stillington duped Richard and us - still hypothetical) then I reckon Clarence knew and probably lived in fear after his earlier exploits with Warwick. When Isabel was no longer there he had what we would nowadays call a breakdown and this really did spell the end for him. That certainly makes the most sense.

Carol responds:

But what motive would Stillington have to dupe Richard? He was getting old and he wasn't well rewarded. Also, how would he have convinced the Three Estates (and later Parliament) if he had no evidence? Catesby could have made a strong case, but only if there was evidence to base it on.

I wouldn't let genealogy change my mind since we have the arrest of Stillington by Edward, the otherwise inexplicable execution of George of Clarence, the election of Richard by the Three Estates, the confirmation of his claim Titulus Regius (which states explicitly that Edward "stood married and trothplight" to Dame Eleanor Butler, the immediate arrest of Stillington by Henry after Bosworth, and Henry's refusal to let Stillington testify to Parliament, which is inexplicable if the marriage to Eleanor Butler was the product of Stillington's (or Catesby's) imagination.

The Tudor claim through their mother was still being questioned abroad in Henry VIII's time. If they could prove that the charge was false, why didn't they? Or why, for that matter, didn't Elizabeth Woodville get someone to speak for her in Parliament to nullify Richard's claim and exert that of her children? The secrecy of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (presumably so that no one could step forward to state an objection) is another piece of evidence. None amounts to proof, but the combination amounts to probability.

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


> A king from the North, who also appeared to some to be a usurper, would
> always be weak and potentially easier to get rid of.

Especially one who only had one legitimate child, despite sharing a bedroom
with his wife.

Somebody referred recently to EofM's sudden and painful death but I don't
think we know that. He could ahve died of anything from a slow wasting
disease such as muscular dystrophy or leukaemia up to being thrown off a
horse and head-first into a tree-trunk. But if he did have a slow decline
that would further weaken Richard's position - a sickly heir and no prospect
of another on the way.

I was thinking that if there is a connection between Stillington, Morton, and MB, then it didn't matter at the time if there actually was a pre-contract. What mattered was getting Richard, et. al., to believe there was a pre-contract.

Everything became possible for MB once Edward died. I wouldn't put any conspiracy beyond that woman, she seems to have been more determined, patient and sneakier than the Spider King himself. And if there is a connection between Morton and Stillington, would that also extend to between Morton, Stillington and MB?

Did Stillington profit in any way under H7?

~Weds



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 21:25
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
>
> Doug wrote:
> > Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> > Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Exactly that. Richard being a pious man would believe clerics. Stillington didn't last long - till about 1491 and was sort of semi-confined again (she says without looking it up for sure). But then he would have done his bit, wouldn't he and he couldn't be allowed to 'recant' or that would make the princes legitimate again. And his nephew became Bishop of Norwich. I just dunno. Morton spent quite a few years studying Louis XI and MB as sister-in-law to two Talbots could have found a 'candidate' for the pre-contract (they would have to be respectable and dead, no merchant's wife). By the way, do we know how MB and Morton palled up?
 
Please don't take any of this as more than speculation. Stillington was probably a devoted Yorkist but why choose that particular moment to have an attack of conscience, unless as Stephen speculates quite justifiably as well, he was put up to it by the Talbots/Mowbrays on some sort of revenge mission?
 
But it is fascinating.  


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 15:35
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

I was thinking that if there is a connection between Stillington, Morton, and MB, then it didn't matter at the time if there actually was a pre-contract. What mattered was getting Richard, et. al., to believe there was a pre-contract.

Everything became possible for MB once Edward died. I wouldn't put any conspiracy beyond that woman, she seems to have been more determined, patient and sneakier than the Spider King himself. And if there is a connection between Morton and Stillington, would that also extend to between Morton, Stillington and MB?

Did Stillington profit in any way under H7?

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 21:25
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
>
> Doug wrote:
> > Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> > Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen Lark wrote:

"Surely Stillington was the witness and we are finding out why he was
chosen?"

Doug here:
I thought Stillington performed the marriage? Wouldn't that preclude him
from *also* serving as the witness? Or have I missed something?
Again.
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Exactly that. Richard being a pious man would believe clerics. Stillington
didn't last long - till about 1491 and was sort of semi-confined again (she
says without looking it up for sure). But then he would have done his bit,
wouldn't he and he couldn't be allowed to 'recant' or that would make the
princes legitimate again. And his nephew became Bishop of Norwich. I just
dunno. Morton spent quite a few years studying Louis XI and MB as
sister-in-law to two Talbots could have found a 'candidate' for the
pre-contract (they would have to be respectable and dead, no merchant's
wife). By the way, do we know how MB and Morton palled up?
Please don't take any of this as more than speculation. Stillington was
probably a devoted Yorkist but why choose that particular moment to have an
attack of conscience, unless as Stephen speculates quite justifiably as
well, he was put up to it by the Talbots/Mowbrays on some sort of revenge
mission?
But it is fascinating."

Doug here:
If *I* remember correctly, Stillington was confined to Windsor Castle for
the remainder of his life (but I'm not placing any large bets on the
accuracy of my memory, either).
Personally, I think Stillington's "attack of conscience" is completely
explained by the fact that, until Edward IV died, a legitimate king *was* on
the throne so, besides the personal danger it would involve, there wasn't
any need for him to speak up.
Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems
to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married
Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor
as his lawful wife - and his Queen.
I know the Talbots were Lancastrians, were the Mowbrays as well? And did
either family hurry off to support the "Lancastrian", aka Tudor, when he
blessed England with his arrival?
Agree speculation *is* fascinating, I do it all the time. Then someone here
blows it out of the water! Usually, and thankfully, before I manage to post
it!
Doug

He also could have come forward because the Woodvilles had obviously been involved in some sort of plot. He would have known what they were like and would know that the country would not be stable under Edward V. He would have known about the instability that the country faced when Henry VI was a minor and Cardinal Beaufort was up to his tricks. Stillington probably would have realised that if he spoke up it would be better for the country if Richard became King. Whether he made the story up to achieve this or if he was actually a witness at the "marriage" of Eleanor and Edward, we don't know. Maybe JAH has more to tell us.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly that. Richard being a pious man would believe clerics. Stillington didn't last long - till about 1491 and was sort of semi-confined again (she says without looking it up for sure). But then he would have done his bit, wouldn't he and he couldn't be allowed to 'recant' or that would make the princes legitimate again. And his nephew became Bishop of Norwich. I just dunno. Morton spent quite a few years studying Louis XI and MB as sister-in-law to two Talbots could have found a 'candidate' for the pre-contract (they would have to be respectable and dead, no merchant's wife). By the way, do we know how MB and Morton palled up?
>  
> Please don't take any of this as more than speculation. Stillington was probably a devoted Yorkist but why choose that particular moment to have an attack of conscience, unless as Stephen speculates quite justifiably as well, he was put up to it by the Talbots/Mowbrays on some sort of revenge mission?
>  
> But it is fascinating.  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 15:35
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
>
> I was thinking that if there is a connection between Stillington, Morton, and MB, then it didn't matter at the time if there actually was a pre-contract. What mattered was getting Richard, et. al., to believe there was a pre-contract.
>
> Everything became possible for MB once Edward died. I wouldn't put any conspiracy beyond that woman, she seems to have been more determined, patient and sneakier than the Spider King himself. And if there is a connection between Morton and Stillington, would that also extend to between Morton, Stillington and MB?
>
> Did Stillington profit in any way under H7?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 21:25
> > Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
> >
> >  
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> > > Stillington's truthfulness has also crossed my mind. But, even presuming Stillington felt, for whatever reason, that Clarence, or his heir, should be king, I still can't come up with any explanation for the bishop's actions *after* Clarence's being attainted and executed. Well, there *is* spite, I suppose, but would that have been enough of a motive? However, the existance of a previous marriage, one that invalidated Edward's current "marriage" and prevented his children from being his heirs; now *that* would not only supply Stillington with a valid reason, but also shines a light on the actions of quite a few other people, including Edward IV. [snip]
> > > Didn't there also have to be a witness to the marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree completely with your first question. As for the witness, I can think of two possibilities, Hastings and Catesby, with the first being much more likely than the second. If Hastings not only knew about the marriage to Eleanor Butler but witnessed it and then failed to tell Richard, Richard's (apparent) explosive anger at Hastings's betrayal becomes explicable.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


> Did Stillington profit in any way under H7?

I thought Henry shut him in the Tower and lost the key...?

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Personally, I think Stillington's "attack of conscience" is completely
> explained by the fact that, until Edward IV died, a legitimate king *was* on
> the throne so, besides the personal danger it would involve, there wasn't
> any need for him to speak up.
> Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems
> to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married
> Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor
> as his lawful wife - and his Queen.

I agree, Doug.

And it just occurred to me... not speaking up to discredit Edward and EW's marriage while Edward was still alive was actually the *perfect* revenge. Had the marriage been declared invalid while Edward was alive, he could simply have married someone else and begotten new, legitimate heirs. It would have punished only the Woodvilles.

Waiting until Edward died meant that *everybody* got what was coming to them. The Woodvilles were disgraced (and worse), but more significantly, the Talbots/Mowbrays had their revenge on Edward himself: his legitimate bloodline died out and there was nothing he could do about it.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Surely Stillington was the witness and we are finding out why he was chosen?

Carol responds:

I thought that he performed the ceremony, which would mean that we would need another witness.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?

Carol responds:

But Stillington had proven connections with George of Clarence and was one of the people (along with Cecily and her daughters) who persuaded him to return to his allegiance. He also held offices under Edward, with the (probably George-related) imprisonment being the only breach. I know of no evidence that he had Lancastrian loyalties. (Henry tudor certainly didn't think so!) And, remember, his final imprisonment was for involvement in the Lambert Simnel rebellion. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree, associating poor Stillington with MB and Morton.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think it was Catesby or Hastings. It was Stillington if it was anyone; he was the one who knew. I can find no Hastings connection so far at all unless you go right back to the Nevilles. [snip]

Carol responds:

I think there's some confusion here. Whether it's yours (and Stephen's) or mine, I'm not sure. I do think that it was Stillington who stepped forward (and, as I said earlier, who performed the ceremony), but there must have been a witness (not including the priest or the married couple). In the case of the Woodville "marriage," the witness was, if I'm not mistaken, Jaquetta Bedford. In the case of the Eleanor Butler marriage, it could have been Edward's boon companion, Hastings, who most certainly would not have come forward with the knowledge he (and Edward) had carefully kept from Richard all those years and who would benefit from concealing the precontract (probably hoping to influence Edward V as a counter to the Woodvilles, a delusion if there ever was one). Catesby, who also seems to have known about the marriage (why execute him alone of Richard's followers after Bosworth unless he knew something important?), could also have been a witness or could have known about it in some other way (legal connections with Eleanor Butler). He could have persuaded Stillington that it was safe to come forward--and one or the other must have presented proof or Richard--and the Three Estates, which included the clergy--would never have believed the story.

Carol

I don't see why we would at a secret ceremony. I doubt there were witnesses when he "married" EW.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason





--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Surely Stillington was the witness and we are finding out why he was chosen?

Carol responds:

I thought that he performed the ceremony, which would mean that we would need another witness.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The question is about motive and we can sometimes attribute motive to genealogy. Did Stillington reveal this because Eleanor's family wanted some sort of justice - which is where I think Stephen is coming from, or did he have another motive. It certainly wasn't reward in 1483.
>  
> If Stillington was, like his fellow bishop Morton, a covert Lancastrian, then anything which de-stabilised the Yorkist regime would be to their advantage.  [snip]

Carol responds:

There was nothing covert about Morton's Lancastrian loyalties. He went into exile with Margaret of Anjou after Towton and was with her until Tewkesbury, after which he came to terms with Edward without ever being loyal to him. His true loyalties came to the fore when he plotted against Richard's protectorate, after which he apparently subverted Buckingham (not that I think B. ever supported Tudor's claim against his own!) and then openly worked for Tudor, later becoming his most important counselor.

Contrast his career with that of Stillington, who was Edward's Keeper of the Privy Seal and twice served as his chancellor. He lost the office of chancellor during Henry VI's brief readeption in 1470 but was restored to office by Edward IV. In 1471, he helped to persuade George to return to the fold. Something happened in 1473 to cause Edward to dismiss him from office, but it could have been merely failing health. Or it could have been sufficient reason for him to start supporting George as the rightful heir to the throne as his imprisonment in 1478 suggests. I'm not sure whether Stillington was released before or after George's execution, but certainly with George dead, he would have been reluctant to reveal to Richard that he was the true heir to the throne for fear of retaliation from Edward. Whether he came forward on his own during the Protectorate or was persuaded by Catesby is impossible to determine, but he certainly did so. Otherwise, there would be no petition by the Three Estates, no Titulus Regius, and no arrest of Stillington after Bosworth. And, as I said before, he showed his Yorkist loyalties (not to be confused with loyalty to Edward V if the person for whom the crown was being claimed was Edward of Warwick) by supporting the Simnel rebellion.

Closet Lancastrian? I really don't think so. Blood relationships don't mean much in this era. Look at the two sets of Nevilles (children of the first wife vs. children of the second wife) as just one example. Or Warwick first supporting and then opposing his cousin Edward. Or brother George claiming the crown for himself. Or, well, Richard deposing his nephew after discovering his illegitimacy.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Somebody referred recently to EofM's sudden and painful death but I don't think we know that. He could ahve died of anything from a slow wasting disease such as muscular dystrophy or leukaemia up to being thrown off a horse and head-first into a tree-trunk. But if he did have a slow decline that would further weaken Richard's position - a sickly heir and no prospect of another on the way.

Carol responds:

Admittedly, we can't completely trust the Croyland chronicler, especially concerning matters in the North of England, but he seems to have been an eyewitness to Richard's and Anne's grief on hearing the sad news at Nottingham. He says that EoM fell ill soon after "the anniversary of King Edward," which seems to mean E4's death on April 9 and died a few days later. I quoted the passage the other day, but I'll do it again:

"[I]n the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was seized with an illness of but short duration, and died at Middleham Castle, in the year of our Lord, 1484, being the first of the reign of the said king Richard. On hearing the news of this, at Nottingham, where they were then residing, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief."

So if we can trust the chronicler, Edward's death came as a terrible shock and there was no prolonged illness. (And the date of his death, as I said earlier, was clearly *not* April 9 despite endless repetition of that date, which stems from the idea that he died *on* rather than soon after, the anniversary of E4's death).

I think that Richard had every hope and expectation that his son would succeed him, so the unexpected loss of his son was magnified by the loss of an heir to the throne and the instability that would automatically ensue. And, of course, that terrible news would have been cause for celebration in the Tudor camp.

Carol

Carol

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see why we would at a secret ceremony. I doubt there were witnesses when he "married" EW.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a secret marriage just mean there were no public banns etc.? Wouldn't there still had to have been a witness or two, to make the marriage a marriage? (This was certainly the case in the later centuries, though I'm not sure when exactly witnesses became a legal requirement - might have been in the 16th century, actually.)

Keeping in mind that neither EB nor EW was some ignorant peasant girl who could be duped with idle promises (even if the promises did turn out to be idle, in EB's case...). If they had any brain activity at all, they would certainly have insisted on a witness?

Doug wrote:
>

> [snip] Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor as his lawful wife - and his Queen.
> I know the Talbots were Lancastrians, were the Mowbrays as well? And did either family hurry off to support the "Lancastrian", aka Tudor, when he blessed England with his arrival? [snip]

Carol responds:

The last Mowbray was Anne Mowbray, the little heiress who married Edward IV's son Richard in early 1478. Her father, the Duke of Norfolk, had died some time earlier. (I don't have time to check the date.) Her mother was Eleanor Talbot Butler's sister, Elizabeth. Anne herself died about two years later, IIRC.

As for the Talbots, Sir Gilbert Talbot fought for Tudor at Bosworth, which does suggest that the Talbots retained their Lancastrian loyalties (and perhaps a grudge against Edward IV inherited by his brother).

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


> "[I]n the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the
> anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of
> the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was
> seized with an illness of but short duration,

Ah, right, thanks, I'd not heard that bit before - only the next bit about
his parents' reaction. So we don't know that his death was painful as
somebody said, but we do have evidence that he was ill probably for less
than a week - although it doesn't sound as if it was so rapid as to suggest
poisoning, unless it was with one of those poisonous fungi which destroy
your liver over a period of several days. Smallpox, appendicitis,
septicaemia, meningitis, whooping cough - one of those sort of things.

> (And the date of his death, as I said earlier, was clearly *not* April 9
> despite endless repetition of that date, which stems from the idea that he
> died *on* rather than soon after, the anniversary of E4's death).

Actually I don't think it rules April 9th out, because I'd take "not very
far distant from" to mean "a few days before", and if he got sick on say 4th
April he *could* have died on the 9th. The itinerary I have for Richard has
him in London on 31st
March, in Nottingham on or by 8th April, still in Nottingham on the 13th and
in Lincoln on or by the 16th - which doesn't help.

> I think that Richard had every hope and expectation that his son would
> succeed him,

Yes. Ann's tendency to stay in the north *could* mean that her son was
sickly and she didn't want to either leave him or take him on a long
journey, but he could have been perfectly healthy and it could also mean any
or all of the following:

She wanted to stay with her mother (or her mother insisted and would make
her life hell if she didn't).

She didn't fancy being jounced about over hundreds of miles of bad roads
either side-saddle or in a carriage with no suspension.

She didn't like London, or the court, or the people one met at court.

She wanted to maintain the greatest possible distance between herself and
George.

Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> >
>
> > [snip] Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor as his lawful wife - and his Queen.
> > I know the Talbots were Lancastrians, were the Mowbrays as well? And did either family hurry off to support the "Lancastrian", aka Tudor, when he blessed England with his arrival? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The last Mowbray was Anne Mowbray, the little heiress who married Edward IV's son Richard in early 1478. Her father, the Duke of Norfolk, had died some time earlier. (I don't have time to check the date.) Her mother was Eleanor Talbot Butler's sister, Elizabeth. Anne herself died about two years later, IIRC.
>
> As for the Talbots, Sir Gilbert Talbot fought for Tudor at Bosworth, which does suggest that the Talbots retained their Lancastrian loyalties (and perhaps a grudge against Edward IV inherited by his brother).
>
> Carol
>

I hope this answer will suffice for several messages I have just read, including from Carol:
A secret marriage, according to medieval canon law, is perfectly valid without an additional person as a witness. I have discusssed this with JA-H and re-read "Eleanor" to confirm it. One type of secret marriage is the "de verba futura" in which one partner says "I will marry thee" and, upon consummation, the ceremony is an instantly binding contract.
Whether' Edward's intentions towards Lady Eleanor, or EW later, were to spend the rest of their lives together or just to "get his leg over" we don't know but it matters not. Such a form of words, followed by consummation, made them man and wife. No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume thathe was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see why we would at a secret ceremony. I doubt there were witnesses when he "married" EW.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a secret marriage just mean there were no public banns etc.? Wouldn't there still had to have been a witness or two, to make the marriage a marriage? (This was certainly the case in the later centuries, though I'm not sure when exactly witnesses became a legal requirement - might have been in the 16th century, actually.)

Keeping in mind that neither EB nor EW was some ignorant peasant girl who could be duped with idle promises (even if the promises did turn out to be idle, in EB's case...). If they had any brain activity at all, they would certainly have insisted on a witness?

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I hope this answer will suffice for several messages I have just read, including from Carol:
> A secret marriage, according to medieval canon law, is perfectly valid without an additional person as a witness. I have discusssed this with JA-H and re-read "Eleanor" to confirm it. One type of secret marriage is the "de verba futura" in which one partner says "I will marry thee" and, upon consummation, the ceremony is an instantly binding contract.
> Whether' Edward's intentions towards Lady Eleanor, or EW later, were to spend the rest of their lives together or just to "get his leg over" we don't know but it matters not. Such a form of words, followed by consummation, made them man and wife. No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume thathe was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
>

But I'm not saying the secret marriage wouldn't have been valid without a witness, in the eyes of the Church. I'm simply wondering about the likelihood of there being a witness, to convince both the (presumably not-easily-duped) woman in question of its legal enforceability, *and* eventually the Three Estates of its existence.

Quoting from an essay by P.J.P. Goldberg in 'Fifteenth-Century Attitudes' edited by Rosemary Horrox:

'Marriage as a sacrament fell within the jurisdiction of the church and canon law. The canon law of marriage, which dated back to the twelfth century, insisted that the essence of matrimony was consent. A canonically binding marriage could thus be contracted by simple exchange of words of present consent, viz. 'I take you to be my husband/wife', or words of future consent, viz. 'I will marry you', followed by intercourse. Sexual relations alone could not make a marriage, but in this instance were deemed to demonstrate present consent to a future contract. Witnesses were not necessary, though church courts required a minimum of two witnesses in the event of one of the parties disputing the contract.'

I believe the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler really did take place, and I also believe there must have been conclusive proof of its existence to convince the Three Estates. Both parties were dead, so I find it very hard to believe it was simply Stillington's word vs. the rest of the world - in that case, any priest could surely come forth with similar testimonies and make anyone in the realm illegitimate, at their whim? And any woman could claim to be the rightful Queen...

I think it's more likely that there were other reliable witnesses than that there weren't, that's all.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > I hope this answer will suffice for several messages I have just read, including from Carol:
> > A secret marriage, according to medieval canon law, is perfectly valid without an additional person as a witness. I have discusssed this with JA-H and re-read "Eleanor" to confirm it. One type of secret marriage is the "de verba futura" in which one partner says "I will marry thee" and, upon consummation, the ceremony is an instantly binding contract.
> > Whether' Edward's intentions towards Lady Eleanor, or EW later, were to spend the rest of their lives together or just to "get his leg over" we don't know but it matters not. Such a form of words, followed by consummation, made them man and wife. No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume thathe was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
> >
>
> But I'm not saying the secret marriage wouldn't have been valid without a witness, in the eyes of the Church. I'm simply wondering about the likelihood of there being a witness, to convince both the (presumably not-easily-duped) woman in question of its legal enforceability, *and* eventually the Three Estates of its existence.
>
> Quoting from an essay by P.J.P. Goldberg in 'Fifteenth-Century Attitudes' edited by Rosemary Horrox:
>
> 'Marriage as a sacrament fell within the jurisdiction of the church and canon law. The canon law of marriage, which dated back to the twelfth century, insisted that the essence of matrimony was consent. A canonically binding marriage could thus be contracted by simple exchange of words of present consent, viz. 'I take you to be my husband/wife', or words of future consent, viz. 'I will marry you', followed by intercourse. Sexual relations alone could not make a marriage, but in this instance were deemed to demonstrate present consent to a future contract. Witnesses were not necessary, though church courts required a minimum of two witnesses in the event of one of the parties disputing the contract.'
>
> I believe the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler really did take place, and I also believe there must have been conclusive proof of its existence to convince the Three Estates. Both parties were dead, so I find it very hard to believe it was simply Stillington's word vs. the rest of the world - in that case, any priest could surely come forth with similar testimonies and make anyone in the realm illegitimate, at their whim? And any woman could claim to be the rightful Queen...
>
> I think it's more likely that there were other reliable witnesses than that there weren't, that's all.
>

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is this:

Witnesses weren't necessary to make the marriage contract valid, provided that both parties consented to it, and *continued* to consent to it.

But if the question of the marriage was in dispute - even posthumous dispute - surely witnesses were an important part of the equation?

Well from what we know of Edward I strongly suspect the latter. Of course EW ensured that they would "spend the rest of their lives together' by getting pregnant...eileen



--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>
> Whether' Edward's intentions towards Lady Eleanor, or EW later, were to spend the rest of their lives together or just to "get his leg over" we don't know but it matters not.
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why we would at a secret ceremony. I doubt there were witnesses when he "married" EW.
> >
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a secret marriage just mean there were no public banns etc.? Wouldn't there still had to have been a witness or two, to make the marriage a marriage? (This was certainly the case in the later centuries, though I'm not sure when exactly witnesses became a legal requirement - might have been in the 16th century, actually.)
>
> Keeping in mind that neither EB nor EW was some ignorant peasant girl who could be duped with idle promises (even if the promises did turn out to be idle, in EB's case...). If they had any brain activity at all, they would certainly have insisted on a witness?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
> > "[I]n the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the
> > anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of
> > the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was
> > seized with an illness of but short duration,
>
> Ah, right, thanks, I'd not heard that bit before - only the next bit about
> his parents' reaction. So we don't know that his death was painful as
> somebody said, but we do have evidence that he was ill probably for less
> than a week - although it doesn't sound as if it was so rapid as to suggest
> poisoning, unless it was with one of those poisonous fungi which destroy
> your liver over a period of several days. Smallpox, appendicitis,
> septicaemia, meningitis, whooping cough - one of those sort of things.
>
> > (And the date of his death, as I said earlier, was clearly *not* April 9
> > despite endless repetition of that date, which stems from the idea that he
> > died *on* rather than soon after, the anniversary of E4's death).
>
> Actually I don't think it rules April 9th out, because I'd take "not very
> far distant from" to mean "a few days before", and if he got sick on say 4th
> April he *could* have died on the 9th. The itinerary I have for Richard has
> him in London on 31st
> March, in Nottingham on or by 8th April, still in Nottingham on the 13th and
> in Lincoln on or by the 16th - which doesn't help.
>
> > I think that Richard had every hope and expectation that his son would
> > succeed him,
>
> Yes. Ann's tendency to stay in the north *could* mean that her son was
> sickly and she didn't want to either leave him or take him on a long
> journey, but he could have been perfectly healthy and it could also mean any
> or all of the following:
>
> She wanted to stay with her mother (or her mother insisted and would make
> her life hell if she didn't).
>
> She didn't fancy being jounced about over hundreds of miles of bad roads
> either side-saddle or in a carriage with no suspension.
>
> She didn't like London, or the court, or the people one met at court.
>
> She wanted to maintain the greatest possible distance between herself and
> George.
>

Yes - it could have been anything, really.

She might also have been sickly herself - physically or mentally, who knows? (Or physically AND mentally, even. I think I said this before, but it's not like things like post-partum depression are a modern invention... if Anne, for instance, suffered many failed pregnancies, I can imagine there being long periods of time when she just didn't want to go anywhere.)

She might have preferred her duties in the North, and Richard might have trusted her to conduct them admirably in his absence.

She might also have been a difficult person, or found it more difficult than Richard to pretend to like the Woodvilles; and perhaps such a dislike was mutual.

I can actually imagine her position at court being more than a bit awkward. How quickly would people there forget who her first husband had been...?

And if you then factor personal pride into it... I mean, had *I* once been the Princess of Wales, I'd probably find it it difficult to kowtow to Elizabeth Woodville, too. Whatever Anne's feelings (or lack thereof) for Edward of Lancaster had been, she might still have rather fancied the thought of becoming Queen one day.

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


> I hope this answer will suffice for several messages I have just read,
> including from Carol:
A secret marriage, according to medieval canon law, is perfectly valid
without an additional person as a witness.

So does that mean that Edward's marriage to La Woodville *was* valid and his
children legitimate, unless there was a pre-contract? Or is it different
because he was king?

That would indeed have been the case.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason



From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

> I hope this answer will suffice for several messages I have just read,
> including from Carol:
A secret marriage, according to medieval canon law, is perfectly valid
without an additional person as a witness.

So does that mean that Edward's marriage to La Woodville *was* valid and his
children legitimate, unless there was a pre-contract? Or is it different
because he was king?

So if Richard found out that Hastings had not only known about the pre contract but actually witnessed it, could that be why he executed him? Possibly in a moment of passion but would Hastings' concealment of the wedding (keeping quiet after Edward's death) be classed as treason? 
 
Liz


________________________________

Carol said:

I think there's some confusion here. Whether it's yours (and Stephen's) or mine, I'm not sure. I do think that it was Stillington who stepped forward (and, as I said earlier, who performed the ceremony), but there must have been a witness (not including the priest or the married couple). In the case of the Woodville "marriage," the witness was, if I'm not mistaken, Jaquetta Bedford. In the case of the Eleanor Butler marriage, it could have been Edward's boon companion, Hastings, who most certainly would not have come forward with the knowledge he (and Edward) had carefully kept from Richard all those years and who would benefit from concealing the precontract (probably hoping to influence Edward V as a counter to the Woodvilles, a delusion if there ever was one). Catesby, who also seems to have known about the marriage (why execute him alone of Richard's followers after Bosworth unless he knew something important?), could also have been a witness or
could have known about it in some other way (legal connections with Eleanor Butler). He could have persuaded Stillington that it was safe to come forward--and one or the other must have presented proof or Richard--and the Three Estates, which included the clergy--would never have believed the story.

Carol

It could well be - causing the wrong person to become King would be treason even though that person was blameless.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason



So if Richard found out that Hastings had not only known about the pre contract but actually witnessed it, could that be why he executed him? Possibly in a moment of passion but would Hastings' concealment of the wedding (keeping quiet after Edward's death) be classed as treason?

Liz

________________________________

Carol said:

I think there's some confusion here. Whether it's yours (and Stephen's) or mine, I'm not sure. I do think that it was Stillington who stepped forward (and, as I said earlier, who performed the ceremony), but there must have been a witness (not including the priest or the married couple). In the case of the Woodville "marriage," the witness was, if I'm not mistaken, Jaquetta Bedford. In the case of the Eleanor Butler marriage, it could have been Edward's boon companion, Hastings, who most certainly would not have come forward with the knowledge he (and Edward) had carefully kept from Richard all those years and who would benefit from concealing the precontract (probably hoping to influence Edward V as a counter to the Woodvilles, a delusion if there ever was one). Catesby, who also seems to have known about the marriage (why execute him alone of Richard's followers after Bosworth unless he knew something important?), could also have been a witness or
could have known about it in some other way (legal connections with Eleanor Butler). He could have persuaded Stillington that it was safe to come forward--and one or the other must have presented proof or Richard--and the Three Estates, which included the clergy--would never have believed the story.

Carol

Given that one of the accusations against George was that he tried to substitute another child for his own son, this may be evidence that there really was something "wrong with" poor little Edward of Warwick which made him an unfit heir for a Royal Duke, and that this was already apparent at an early age. If the later comment about not being able to tell goose from capon referred to his mental state it may mean that he had learning difficulties which were already visible as a toddler - so probably Down's Syndrome - or if it's a sexual reference it might mean he was physically hermaphrodite and so unlikely to be able to father children.

I agree with Paul btw that it's hard to see what else Edward IV could have done but execute George. In an ideal world he should have been committed to psychiatric care but at the time they didn't have either the knowledge or the facilities to cope with a powerful, dangerous political figure who had mental health issues and was becoming more and more out of control.

Also agree with Carol that it's plausible that part of Richard's anger against Hastings could have been because he found Hastings was involved in the bigamy. It must have been a terrible shock to learn how deeply his loyalty to Edward had been misplaced.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen

Carol responds:

No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
>
> Carol
>

I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)

Well, at least not the same Margaret Beauchamp who was the mother of Sir John Welles, who was Margaret Beaufort's half-brother, who married Cecily Plantagenet, who then became Henry VII's aunt and sister-in-law. I'm right? Please don't tell me I'm not.
Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
Carol responds:

No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.

He had quite a few Lancastrian connections through his northern family. Morton also held high office under Edward. It doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't self-seeking people biding their time for an opportunity. It is just one scenario and the other is that for some reason he was chosen to perform the pre-contract (or however one puts it) and why.
There are two things I would ask which I still can't answer. Firstly, where was Stillington when the Edward/Eleanor thing took place; Hancock has says Edward probably met her at Woodstock when she went to ask for the return of her lands. If I was her I would have chosen Warwick; it's much nearer to Fenny Compton. And why was Stillington around - was he trailing round after Edward, or was he a 'guest' in the Talbot household. And would Eleanor have been in the Talbot household, or on her own manors anyway?
Secondly, why did Stillington take so long to come forward to Richard - about what two months?  Why didn't he speak up straight away or was he afraid of the Woodvilles - but there would be little reason with Rivers arrested the EW in Sanctuary?
Much, much digging methinks, and no definitive answer certain. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 18:30
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?

Carol responds:

But Stillington had proven connections with George of Clarence and was one of the people (along with Cecily and her daughters) who persuaded him to return to his allegiance. He also held offices under Edward, with the (probably George-related) imprisonment being the only breach. I know of no evidence that he had Lancastrian loyalties. (Henry tudor certainly didn't think so!) And, remember, his final imprisonment was for involvement in the Lambert Simnel rebellion. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree, associating poor Stillington with MB and Morton.

Carol

Just two little things - Morton served Edward later so many would have thought his spots had changed. MB carried Anne's train; she hadn't changed her spots either.
Stillington wasn't that old - he was only 53, the same age as Morton in 1473.
If Stillington wasn't rewarded by H7, his nephew Richard Nyke certainly was as Bishop of Norwich


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 19:11
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The question is about motive and we can sometimes attribute motive to genealogy. Did Stillington reveal this because Eleanor's family wanted some sort of justice - which is where I think Stephen is coming from, or did he have another motive. It certainly wasn't reward in 1483.
>  
> If Stillington was, like his fellow bishop Morton, a covert Lancastrian, then anything which de-stabilised the Yorkist regime would be to their advantage.  [snip]

Carol responds:

There was nothing covert about Morton's Lancastrian loyalties. He went into exile with Margaret of Anjou after Towton and was with her until Tewkesbury, after which he came to terms with Edward without ever being loyal to him. His true loyalties came to the fore when he plotted against Richard's protectorate, after which he apparently subverted Buckingham (not that I think B. ever supported Tudor's claim against his own!) and then openly worked for Tudor, later becoming his most important counselor.

Contrast his career with that of Stillington, who was Edward's Keeper of the Privy Seal and twice served as his chancellor. He lost the office of chancellor during Henry VI's brief readeption in 1470 but was restored to office by Edward IV. In 1471, he helped to persuade George to return to the fold. Something happened in 1473 to cause Edward to dismiss him from office, but it could have been merely failing health. Or it could have been sufficient reason for him to start supporting George as the rightful heir to the throne as his imprisonment in 1478 suggests. I'm not sure whether Stillington was released before or after George's execution, but certainly with George dead, he would have been reluctant to reveal to Richard that he was the true heir to the throne for fear of retaliation from Edward. Whether he came forward on his own during the Protectorate or was persuaded by Catesby is impossible to determine, but he certainly did so. Otherwise, there
would be no petition by the Three Estates, no Titulus Regius, and no arrest of Stillington after Bosworth. And, as I said before, he showed his Yorkist loyalties (not to be confused with loyalty to Edward V if the person for whom the crown was being claimed was Edward of Warwick) by supporting the Simnel rebellion.

Closet Lancastrian? I really don't think so. Blood relationships don't mean much in this era. Look at the two sets of Nevilles (children of the first wife vs. children of the second wife) as just one example. Or Warwick first supporting and then opposing his cousin Edward. Or brother George claiming the crown for himself. Or, well, Richard deposing his nephew after discovering his illegitimacy.

Carol

Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law was Elizabeth Bourchier. Catherine Neville was the mother of her husband (and still alive in 1483). The Mowbrays died young. The last Duke (Anne Mowbray's father) was only 31 when he died in 1476. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 4:43
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen

Carol responds:

No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.

Carol

Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt. I didn't know Sir G was always a Lancastrian but should have guessed as he was knighted at Bosworth.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 19:50
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

Doug wrote:
>

> [snip] Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor as his lawful wife - and his Queen.
> I know the Talbots were Lancastrians, were the Mowbrays as well? And did either family hurry off to support the "Lancastrian", aka Tudor, when he blessed England with his arrival? [snip]

Carol responds:

The last Mowbray was Anne Mowbray, the little heiress who married Edward IV's son Richard in early 1478. Her father, the Duke of Norfolk, had died some time earlier. (I don't have time to check the date.) Her mother was Eleanor Talbot Butler's sister, Elizabeth. Anne herself died about two years later, IIRC.

As for the Talbots, Sir Gilbert Talbot fought for Tudor at Bosworth, which does suggest that the Talbots retained their Lancastrian loyalties (and perhaps a grudge against Edward IV inherited by his brother).

Carol

I don't know whether the term exists but I've just agreed with you.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 8:38
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
>
> Carol
>

I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

> Secondly, why did Stillington take so long to come forward to Richard -
> about what two months? Why didn't he speak up straight away or was he
> afraid of the Woodvilles - but there would be little reason with Rivers
> arrested the EW in Sanctuary?

Is it possible that Stillington came forward early on but Richard didn't
believe him, or didn't *want* to believe him, and just asusmed that he was a
fantasist, and so there was a delay while Stillington produced documentary
proof and/or witnesses? If that's the case, perhaps what happened with
Hastings was that Hastings assured Richard categorically that the
pre-contract story was fantasy, and Richard gratefully believed him, and
then weeks down the line he suddenly learned that not only was the
pre-contract genuine but that Hastings had known that it was all along?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


> Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's
> mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt.

I read this and actually whimpered out loud. If somebody hasn't already
made one, we really need a family tree for these people, because trying to
keep track of them mentally is like doing Fair Isle knitting in your head.
There's a song called Welsh History 101B which includes the lines

We need a strong prince to direct our reisstance -
Heroic, impartial, of noble degree.
My brother's wife's foster-son's sister's son Gryffith
Is best for the job as I'm sure you'll agree

but I think these English noble relationships are actually *worse*.

Hmmm...I still believe it was because Hastings was involved in an assassination plot on that day at the Tower with Richard and Bucks being the victims...but that is of course not say that Hastings knew or had even witnessed the *wedding* of Edward and EW...I could certainly believe that Edward being so close to Hastings would have divulged this hot potato and some time over the years to his bosom buddy...eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> So if Richard found out that Hastings had not only known about the pre contract but actually witnessed it, could that be why he executed him? Possibly in a moment of passion but would Hastings' concealment of the wedding (keeping quiet after Edward's death) be classed as treason? 
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Carol said:
>
> I think there's some confusion here. Whether it's yours (and Stephen's) or mine, I'm not sure. I do think that it was Stillington who stepped forward (and, as I said earlier, who performed the ceremony), but there must have been a witness (not including the priest or the married couple). In the case of the Woodville "marriage," the witness was, if I'm not mistaken, Jaquetta Bedford. In the case of the Eleanor Butler marriage, it could have been Edward's boon companion, Hastings, who most certainly would not have come forward with the knowledge he (and Edward) had carefully kept from Richard all those years and who would benefit from concealing the precontract (probably hoping to influence Edward V as a counter to the Woodvilles, a delusion if there ever was one). Catesby, who also seems to have known about the marriage (why execute him alone of Richard's followers after Bosworth unless he knew something important?), could also have been a witness or
> could have known about it in some other way (legal connections with Eleanor Butler). He could have persuaded Stillington that it was safe to come forward--and one or the other must have presented proof or Richard--and the Three Estates, which included the clergy--would never have believed the story.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Carol. I think possibly even though everybody who was anybody was somehow linked through marriage or bloodlines to anybody else does not mean that that they knew or had any interaction with that person....? Eileen


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
>
> Carol
>

It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
>

Things are not always clear cut as to why someone took such an action or didnt or simply took their time to especially 500 years ago. In Stillington;s case, maybe he wrestled with his conscience...he knew the news would bring devastating and radical changes. What would become of the boys?...would there be civil war and bloodloss? Did he dally with idea of simply staying quiet? How many sleepless nights did it cost him? We have to take into account his age as well. Maybe he just wished it would all go away...He had probably hoped that he would die before Edward thus sparing him having to do something. At the end of the day poor Stillington...he ended up dying in a prison...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>
> Secondly, why did Stillington take so long to come forward to Richard - about what two months?  Why didn't he speak up straight away or was he afraid of the Woodvilles - but there would be little reason with Rivers arrested the EW in Sanctuary?
> Much, much digging methinks, and no definitive answer certain. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 18:30
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside world . MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.  1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But Stillington had proven connections with George of Clarence and was one of the people (along with Cecily and her daughters) who persuaded him to return to his allegiance. He also held offices under Edward, with the (probably George-related) imprisonment being the only breach. I know of no evidence that he had Lancastrian loyalties. (Henry tudor certainly didn't think so!) And, remember, his final imprisonment was for involvement in the Lambert Simnel rebellion. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree, associating poor Stillington with MB and Morton.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


 

It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
>

Hilary I don't think it's boring, just as confusing as hell and I can't keep up.
 
Liz
 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 13:18
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

 
In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


 

It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
>

I agree with all this but don't fall for the image of the dithery old man - he was 63, the same age as Morton, and with an equal intellect. And his nephew and grandchildren did rather well under H7.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 12:11
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


 

Things are not always clear cut as to why someone took such an action or didnt or simply took their time to especially 500 years ago. In Stillington;s case, maybe he wrestled with his conscience...he knew the news would bring devastating and radical changes. What would become of the boys?...would there be civil war and bloodloss? Did he dally with idea of simply staying quiet? How many sleepless nights did it cost him? We have to take into account his age as well. Maybe he just wished it would all go away...He had probably hoped that he would die before Edward thus sparing him having to do something. At the end of the day poor Stillington...he ended up dying in a prison...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>
> Secondly, why did Stillington take so long to come forward to Richard - about what two months?  Why didn't he speak up straight away or was he afraid of the Woodvilles - but there would be little reason with Rivers arrested the EW in Sanctuary?
> Much, much digging methinks, and no definitive answer certain. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 18:30
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever thought about a Morton, Stillington connection? They were both the same age; they were both 'prodigies' at Oxford; they were both respectable clerics to the outside worldà. MB was linked to the 'older' Talbots through two close in-laws. There might have been a pre-contract (I always believed there was until the last day or so) or perhaps Eleanor 'had a fling' with Edward and the family didn't know whether there was or there wasn't a pre-contract. I have a hypothesis beginning to form, and it is just a hypothesis at the moment.àà1483, Edward's dead, the Woodville's have self-combusted, what's the best way to de-stabilise the Yorkist hold on the crown?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But Stillington had proven connections with George of Clarence and was one of the people (along with Cecily and her daughters) who persuaded him to return to his allegiance. He also held offices under Edward, with the (probably George-related) imprisonment being the only breach. I know of no evidence that he had Lancastrian loyalties. (Henry tudor certainly didn't think so!) And, remember, his final imprisonment was for involvement in the Lambert Simnel rebellion. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree, associating poor Stillington with MB and Morton.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know - unless you have some sort of chart in front of you it's ever so hard. It's because people married and re-married into the same families; I suppose you could say it's an English class thing. It happened all the way down until the late nineteenth century. Amazing how so many in-bred survived! 



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


 

Hilary I don't think it's boring, just as confusing as hell and I can't keep up.
 
Liz
 

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 13:18
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

 
In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
>

It would seem dangerous indeed to speculate on here - I am not doing a Leslau, just saying that various scenarios are interesting to explore, and shoot down. I think the Talbots went over to the dark side. Cheers H



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013, 18:10
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Exactly that. Richard being a pious man would believe clerics. Stillington
didn't last long - till about 1491 and was sort of semi-confined again (she
says without looking it up for sure). But then he would have done his bit,
wouldn't he and he couldn't be allowed to 'recant' or that would make the
princes legitimate again. And his nephew became Bishop of Norwich. I just
dunno. Morton spent quite a few years studying Louis XI and MB as
sister-in-law to two Talbots could have found a 'candidate' for the
pre-contract (they would have to be respectable and dead, no merchant's
wife). By the way, do we know how MB and Morton palled up?
Please don't take any of this as more than speculation. Stillington was
probably a devoted Yorkist but why choose that particular moment to have an
attack of conscience, unless as Stephen speculates quite justifiably as
well, he was put up to it by the Talbots/Mowbrays on some sort of revenge
mission?
But it is fascinating."

Doug here:
If *I* remember correctly, Stillington was confined to Windsor Castle for
the remainder of his life (but I'm not placing any large bets on the
accuracy of my memory, either).
Personally, I think Stillington's "attack of conscience" is completely
explained by the fact that, until Edward IV died, a legitimate king *was* on
the throne so, besides the personal danger it would involve, there wasn't
any need for him to speak up.
Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems
to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married
Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor
as his lawful wife - and his Queen.
I know the Talbots were Lancastrians, were the Mowbrays as well? And did
either family hurry off to support the "Lancastrian", aka Tudor, when he
blessed England with his arrival?
Agree speculation *is* fascinating, I do it all the time. Then someone here
blows it out of the water! Usually, and thankfully, before I manage to post
it!
Doug

Oh no Hilary...I wasnt referring to your messages...more to the one about who was who with EB and her sister.....its so confusing....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>  
>
> It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> > I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

No worries - I'm having a break from family tracking too and trying to track down Stillington's movements at Eleanor time (he seems to have been a bit of a naughty boy who had 3 kids). It scrambles my brain after a bit, but then you stumble on tabloid bits like the guy who left his wife and family to become a monk. Perhaps she nagged him too much:) 

 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 14:20
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


 

Oh no Hilary...I wasnt referring to your messages...more to the one about who was who with EB and her sister.....its so confusing....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>  
>
> It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> > I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Me too Liz.....that is why I leave it to others to sift through...Another problem is there was not such a variety with names then...and the of course there are the various dukes and duchesses...for example.. was Anne Mowbray's father, Norfolk, relates to the Norfolk who died with Richard at Bosworth....? Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary I don't think it's boring, just as confusing as hell and I can't keep up.
>  
> Liz
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
> In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>  
>
> It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> > I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

He was, I think a nephew; the male Mowbrays died out and he was the son of John Mowbray's sister. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I am resting a scrambled brain. I agree about names; it's great when the odd Marmaduke creeps in. And there were so many Staffords .... No wonder MB knew everyone. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 14:26
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


 

Me too Liz.....that is why I leave it to others to sift through...Another problem is there was not such a variety with names then...and the of course there are the various dukes and duchesses...for example.. was Anne Mowbray's father, Norfolk, relates to the Norfolk who died with Richard at Bosworth....? Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary I don't think it's boring, just as confusing as hell and I can't keep up.
>  
> Liz
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 13:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
> In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>  
>
> It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> > I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah now...if Stillington's whereabouts at the time of the precontract could be discovered...wow! Im inclined to believe he may well have been there...how else could he have found out ....unless informed by another member of the family seeing as he was connected in some way. That is why *we* must never stop digging. I use the royal *we* by the way as my brain really cannot cope with complex family trees..:0)..eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> No worries - I'm having a break from family tracking too and trying to track down Stillington's movements at Eleanor time (he seems to have been a bit of a naughty boy who had 3 kids). It scrambles my brain after a bit, but then you stumble on tabloid bits like the guy who left his wife and family to become a monk. Perhaps she nagged him too much:) 
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 14:20
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>  
>
> Oh no Hilary...I wasnt referring to your messages...more to the one about who was who with EB and her sister.....its so confusing....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
> > Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes...bring on the Marmadukes I say....

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He was, I think a nephew; the male Mowbrays died out and he was the son of John Mowbray's sister. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I am resting a scrambled brain. I agree about names; it's great when the odd Marmaduke creeps in. And there were so many Staffords .... No wonder MB knew everyone. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 14:26
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>  
>
> Me too Liz.....that is why I leave it to others to sift through...Another problem is there was not such a variety with names then...and the of course there are the various dukes and duchesses...for example.. was Anne Mowbray's father, Norfolk, relates to the Norfolk who died with Richard at Bosworth....? Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary I don't think it's boring, just as confusing as hell and I can't keep up.
> >  
> > Liz
> >  
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 13:18
> > Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason
> >
> >  
> > In mitigation I did say about a week ago that this would bore the pants off most of you. Just skim over it until something groundbreaking emerges :)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 11:57
> > Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > It's enough to make you lose the will to live....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Im being lazy here...but was Anne Mowbray's mother, the Duchess of Norfolk, and sister to EB...was their mother the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk Cicely's Neville's sister...? These family connection completely do my head in...eileen
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > No. I'm not certain, but I think that the old Duchess of Norfolk (Cecily's sister, Warwick's aunt) was Elizabeth Talbot's mother-in-law. The Talbot sisters' mother was Margaret Beauchamp.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think Katherine Neville was, in fact, Elizabeth Talbot's husband's grandmother. So grandmother-in-law, then?! (Does such a term even exist? :D)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

"The last Mowbray was Anne Mowbray, the little heiress who married Edward
IV's son Richard in early 1478. Her father, the Duke of Norfolk, had died
some time earlier. (I don't have time to check the date.) Her mother was
Eleanor Talbot Butler's sister, Elizabeth. Anne herself died about two years
later, IIRC.
As for the Talbots, Sir Gilbert Talbot fought for Tudor at Bosworth, which
does suggest that the Talbots retained their Lancastrian loyalties (and
perhaps a grudge against Edward IV inherited by his brother)."

Doug here:
Thanks, Carol. I'd forgotten that little Anne was the last of the Mowbrays,
so that explains their *not* showing up at Bosworth. I wonder whether Sir
Gilbert was at Bosworth because he was a Talbot and accepted Tudor as the
Lancastrian heir or because of Eleanor.
Could have been both, of course.
Doug

Stephen Lark wrote:

//snip//
"A secret marriage, according to medieval canon law, is perfectly valid
without an additional person as a witness. I have discusssed this with JA-H
and re-read "Eleanor" to confirm it. One type of secret marriage is the "de
verba futura" in which one partner says "I will marry thee" and, upon
consummation, the ceremony is an instantly binding contract.
Whether' Edward's intentions towards Lady Eleanor, or EW later, were to
spend the rest of their lives together or just to "get his leg over" we
don't know but it matters not. Such a form of words, followed by
consummation, made them man and wife. No "witness" was required and there
didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was
one, he was Stillington and that can now assume thathe was indirectly
genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor."

Doug here:
Thank you, Stephen! Clears up everything and also means we don't need to
hunt for that "witness" to find out who he/she might have told.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why we would at a secret ceremony. I doubt there were
> witnesses when he "married" EW.
> >
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a secret marriage just mean there
> were no public banns etc.? Wouldn't there still had to have been a witness
> or two, to make the marriage a marriage? (This was certainly the case in
> the later centuries, though I'm not sure when exactly witnesses became a
> legal requirement - might have been in the 16th century, actually.)
>
> Keeping in mind that neither EB nor EW was some ignorant peasant girl who
> could be duped with idle promises (even if the promises did turn out to be
> idle, in EB's case...). If they had any brain activity at all, they would
> certainly have insisted on a witness?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ah now...if Stillington's whereabouts at the time of the precontract could be discovered...wow! Im inclined to believe he may well have been there...how else could he have found out ....unless informed by another member of the family seeing as he was connected in some way.
>

I don't think we should disregard his professional connections either, though. Just look at his career (quoting from that DNB bio):

"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."

All the offices he held, all the people he came across in his official capacity, all the connections he had to others in similar positions... I wouldn't be surprised if one found out a secret or two, that way.

I'm especially intrigued by the Thomas Beckington connection. Not sure why, but I think it would be worth investigating.

Hilary Jones wrote:

"No worries - I'm having a break from family tracking too and trying to
track down Stillington's movements at Eleanor time (he seems to have been a
bit of a naughty boy who had 3 kids)."
//snip//

Doug here:
Might *that* have been the reason Stillington was chosen? Clergy having
children certainly wasn't unknown and, depending on the ability of the
clergyman in question, wouldn't necessarily be a career-killer, but there
*would* be a certain amount of embarassment, wouldn't there?
Might it also explain why Stillington joined Hastings as one of Edward IV's
advisors/officials?
Doug

EileenB wrote:

"Things are not always clear cut as to why someone took such an action or
didnt or simply took their time to especially 500 years ago. In
Stillington;s case, maybe he wrestled with his conscience...he knew the news
would bring devastating and radical changes. What would become of the
boys?...would there be civil war and bloodloss? Did he dally with idea of
simply staying quiet? How many sleepless nights did it cost him? We have
to take into account his age as well. Maybe he just wished it would all go
away...He had probably hoped that he would die before Edward thus sparing
him having to do something. At the end of the day poor Stillington...he
ended up dying in a prison..."

Doug here:
Eileen, you've summed how I view Stillington perfectly; not particularly
brave perhaps, but definitely a man with a conscience. Hilary (I think?)
mentioned Stillington's age as 53, which, while it isn't *that* old, is an
age where, even now, a person could reasonably expect life to be running in
calmer channels.
Doug

Ta. Hicks (!) has him never going south of London (as a pluralist) but it is interesting that his daughter (or niece however you look at it) married into the Somerset gentry and did indeed have a tie in to the Cheddars and thence the Talbots (sorry!!). More digging, more digging. Yes Beckington .....
 
Thanks again. And you're right about the secrets, just like the Catesbys, whose connections with Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick go back much further than father Catesby.


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 15:17
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ah now...if Stillington's whereabouts at the time of the precontract could be discovered...wow! Im inclined to believe he may well have been there...how else could he have found out ....unless informed by another member of the family seeing as he was connected in some way.
>

I don't think we should disregard his professional connections either, though. Just look at his career (quoting from that DNB bio):

"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."

All the offices he held, all the people he came across in his official capacity, all the connections he had to others in similar positions... I wouldn't be surprised if one found out a secret or two, that way.

I'm especially intrigued by the Thomas Beckington connection. Not sure why, but I think it would be worth investigating.

liz williams wrote:

"I'm just thinking about George as King - I think it would have been a
disaster."

Doug here:
You're most likely correct, but do we really have any information on
George's "executive capabilities"? Perhaps he was really good at it, but
what with his, um, less than sterling devotion to Edward?, was never given a
chance?
Might explain his running amok on occasion - bored out of his mind?
Doug
(sorry about the delay in posting, I *thought* I'd sent it...)



________________________________

Douglas said: .
snip>
*That* was why Edward, finally, signed his brother's death warrant, to
protect his children from the consequences of his secret marriage to Eleanor
Butler.
Really it tends to boil down to: had George only kept his head down and
waited it all could have been his.

I do always wonder how many people actually knew about the marriage *before*
Edward died, though. We know certainly of three, Edward, Eleanor and
Stillington, Who else? Didn't there also have to be a witness to the
marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who
was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Well, at least not the same Margaret Beauchamp who was the mother of Sir John Welles, who was Margaret Beaufort’s half-brother, who married Cecily Plantagenet, who then became Henry VII’s aunt and sister-in-law. I’m right? Please don’t tell me I’m not.
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Different Margaret Beauchamp. This Margaret's children all had the last name Talbot. Her husband, Eleanor and Elizabeth's father, was John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury. They also had two sons, one of whom, John, was a different Viscount Lisle (the one who married Joan Cheese, er, Cheddar). The earl had other children by a first wife, Maud Neville.

And I checked the dowager duchess of Norfolk, Katherine Neville, to see where she fits in. Whoever said that she was Elizabeth Talbot's grandmother-in-law is correct.

Carol

Looking at this in more detail, I can see it is where Hicks got his facts from. Stillington is much more likely to have been born in 1420ish, as his brother Thomas is born in 1428 and of course he wasn't the Pope's candidate for the Bishop of Bath & Wells post. He got it because the other guy (Freea?) conveniently died and Edward had put him forward. He also came into money in 1458, so that might have helped him in 1460, which would be 'pre-Eleanor' we assume? His northern connections, other than his inheritance, seem to be through his brother's marriage, but one question is why was his brother able to marry into the aristocracy? Perhaps he was gathering secrets even then? But you also have to ask why someone with the obscure background of Beckington (having just looked him up) got so far? Perhaps it's all the confessions they gathered over time?


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 15:17
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ah now...if Stillington's whereabouts at the time of the precontract could be discovered...wow! Im inclined to believe he may well have been there...how else could he have found out ....unless informed by another member of the family seeing as he was connected in some way.
>

I don't think we should disregard his professional connections either, though. Just look at his career (quoting from that DNB bio):

"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."

All the offices he held, all the people he came across in his official capacity, all the connections he had to others in similar positions... I wouldn't be surprised if one found out a secret or two, that way.

I'm especially intrigued by the Thomas Beckington connection. Not sure why, but I think it would be worth investigating.

You might have a point there. After all it was a mayor, not him, who fell asleep at a boring hearing. And as I've said on many an occasion they liked him on his Warks estates.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 16:45
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 


liz williams wrote:

"I'm just thinking about George as King - I think it would have been a
disaster."

Doug here:
You're most likely correct, but do we really have any information on
George's "executive capabilities"? Perhaps he was really good at it, but
what with his, um, less than sterling devotion to Edward?, was never given a
chance?
Might explain his running amok on occasion - bored out of his mind?
Doug
(sorry about the delay in posting, I *thought* I'd sent it...)

________________________________

Douglas said: .
snip>
*That* was why Edward, finally, signed his brother's death warrant, to
protect his children from the consequences of his secret marriage to Eleanor
Butler.
Really it tends to boil down to: had George only kept his head down and
waited it all could have been his.

I do always wonder how many people actually knew about the marriage *before*
Edward died, though. We know certainly of three, Edward, Eleanor and
Stillington, Who else? Didn't there also have to be a witness to the
marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who
was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

It is hard to put your head into a Royal at any time, much less then. I can only imagine how George felt, not his brother Edward, not even his little brother, Richard. But, they were all busy fighting, seemingly forever. Being bored would have been a choice, I think. But again, who am I to speculate!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



liz williams wrote:

"I'm just thinking about George as King - I think it would have been a
disaster."

Doug here:
You're most likely correct, but do we really have any information on
George's "executive capabilities"? Perhaps he was really good at it, but
what with his, um, less than sterling devotion to Edward?, was never given a
chance?
Might explain his running amok on occasion - bored out of his mind?
Doug
(sorry about the delay in posting, I *thought* I'd sent it...)

________________________________

Douglas said: .
snip>
*That* was why Edward, finally, signed his brother's death warrant, to
protect his children from the consequences of his secret marriage to Eleanor
Butler.
Really it tends to boil down to: had George only kept his head down and
waited it all could have been his.

I do always wonder how many people actually knew about the marriage *before*
Edward died, though. We know certainly of three, Edward, Eleanor and
Stillington, Who else? Didn't there also have to be a witness to the
marriage or was that something else Edward assumed didn't apply to him? Who
was that witness? Perhaps that who informed George?
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt. I didn't know Sir G was always a Lancastrian but should have guessed as he was knighted at Bosworth.

Carol responds:

That's a very slight connection. I've never even seen my brother's mother-in-law and don't even know if she's alive. I certainly wouldn't know her nieces or their husbands. And this is modern times with modern communication and transportation.

I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections here. We need to look at Stillington's connections with the House of York (Edward, George, and Richard). His links to the House of Lancaster (I mean Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou, not Lancastrian relatives like the Talbots) were few if any; his links to Tudor are known and strongly indicate a *Yorkist* affiliation (as does his relationship with George). Would a closet Lancastrian have supported the Simnel rebellion against a Tudor king (or urged George to return to his Yorkist allegiance)? It makes no sense. A grudge against Edward and a preference for his brothers, George or Richard, as king. Maybe? But, as you say, we still have the question of why he waited two months to come forward. He may have feared retaliation given Richard's known loyalty to Edward IV.

Carol

More about Stillington's career (changed the title as this isn't really about Clarence anymore!).

Found a couple of interesting things in 'Lives of the Bishops of Bath' (can be found here: http://books.google.fi/books?id=OJgAAAAAcAAJ).

First interesting tidbit that I never knew is that there was another Bishop of Bath - called John Phreas - between Beckington and Stillington... but only for two months. Says the book: 'he obtained, at Rome, an introduction, through the literati of that city, to Pope Pius II. His holiness conferred this Bishopric on him; but he died at Rome within a month of his appointment, not without suspicion of poison.'

Right after that, Edward appointed Stillington as the new Bishop. The 'suspicion of poison' is intriguing: why would anyone want to poison this John Phreas? Might Edward have been *really* keen to advance Stillington? Surely not keen enough to have the unfortunate Phreas poisoned...?

And there's another thing. I must have read this before, but it never registered properly; so forgive me if this is 'duh, old news' for everybody else! The author of 'Lives of the Bishops of Bath' quotes from Godwin's 'Catalogue of the Bishops of England', about Stillington:

'A man greatly in favour with Edward IV. under whom he always flourished with great authority, being employed by him in sundry ambassages, as, namely, unto the Duke of Britaine (Bretagne), for apprehending the Earle of Richmond, that afterwards was Henry VII.; in which business he so bestirred himself, as that his double vigilance therein proved afterwards his overthrow.'

Halsted's MB bio has more to say about Edward employing Stillington to manoeuvre Richmond out of Brittany:

'Finding that neither money would purchase the
ransom of his victim, nor bribes effect his delivery
into his hands, the wary monarch resolved on
changing his line of conduct, and trying to gain
by underhand dealing, that compliance from the
Duke Francis, which open treaty and earnest
solicitation had failed to win. He accordingly
dispatched ambassadors to his ally, to sue for the
release of the exiled Earl, under the plea of
desiring to cement the long protracted disputes of
the two opposing parties, by means of the union
of Henry Tudor with the princess Elizabeth, his
eldest daughter. This subtle device succeeded.
The Duke of Brittany, deceived by the eloquent
and persuasive address of Dr. Stillington, then
chancellor, and Bishop of Bath and Wells, de-
livered the Earl into his care, sending him with a
strong guard to St. Maloes, to prevent his escape
into France.'

Based on this, I can't really see MB and/or Henry ever trusting Stillington...

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> No worries - I'm having a break from family tracking too and trying to track down Stillington's movements at Eleanor time (he seems to have been a bit of a naughty boy who had 3 kids). It scrambles my brain after a bit, but then you stumble on tabloid bits like the guy who left his wife and family to become a monk. Perhaps she nagged him too much:) 

Carol responds:

Do we have an approximate date for the Eleanor Butler/E4 marriage? I seem to recall that it must have been after Towton (March 29, 1461) and it was obviously several years before the May 1, 1464, "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. Since that "marriage" is traditionally believed to have occurred at Elizabeth's home, with her mother as witness, possibly the Butler marriage occurred at Elizabeth's home. Where that would be I don't know without consulting J A-H.

Stillington at that time was Archbishop of Taunton, Archbishop of Berkshire, and Keeper of the Privy Seal. He was not yet Bishop of Bath and Wells. That's all I know (and I'm beginning to believe that I should put "know" in quotation marks)!

Carol

Carol said "I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections
here."

Possibly. But there's also the element that blood & connections were
important in a couple of ways that we don't pay so much attention to these
days. They meant access to assets (there's an echo in some of Jane Austen's
work about the importance of nurturing connections no matter how remote).
And as a corollary, to keep those assets "in the family," one had to know
who one was related to at least to the degree of grandparents' grandparents
(with some extra complications thrown in) in order to know whether or not a
papal dispensation was necessary for a given marriage.

A J


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:15 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's
> mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt. I didn't know Sir G was always a
> Lancastrian but should have guessed as he was knighted at Bosworth.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That's a very slight connection. I've never even seen my brother's
> mother-in-law and don't even know if she's alive. I certainly wouldn't know
> her nieces or their husbands. And this is modern times with modern
> communication and transportation.
>
> I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections here. We
> need to look at Stillington's connections with the House of York (Edward,
> George, and Richard). His links to the House of Lancaster (I mean Henry VI
> and Margaret of Anjou, not Lancastrian relatives like the Talbots) were few
> if any; his links to Tudor are known and strongly indicate a *Yorkist*
> affiliation (as does his relationship with George). Would a closet
> Lancastrian have supported the Simnel rebellion against a Tudor king (or
> urged George to return to his Yorkist allegiance)? It makes no sense. A
> grudge against Edward and a preference for his brothers, George or Richard,
> as king. Maybe? But, as you say, we still have the question of why he
> waited two months to come forward. He may have feared retaliation given
> Richard's known loyalty to Edward IV.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> He was, I think a nephew; the male Mowbrays died out and he was the son of John Mowbray's sister. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I am resting a scrambled brain. I agree about names; it's great when the odd Marmaduke creeps in. And there were so many Staffords .... No wonder MB knew everyone. 

Carol responds:

Yes. His mother was Margaret Mowbray, eldest daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, so when Margaret's brother John, duke of Norfolk, died, he was the next male heir. The title should have gone to him rather than to Edward's son Richard, a wrong that Richard III righted before his coronation. (Of course, by then it was inevitable that little Richard would lose all his titles. His brother Edward retained a pair of earldoms that didn't rightfully belong to someone else.)

What interests me here is the Staffords (of Grafton) who *weren't* Lancastrian and faithfully supported Richard III--against their own relative, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. It goes to show that just because people were related didn't mean that they held the same political views or even that they shared common interests (in the sense of land, money, and other benefits). Relatives were always at each other's throats, especially the children of first and second marriages.

Carol

Carol

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:18 PM
Subject: Stillington (was Re: Clarence's
treason)

> under the plea of
desiring to cement the long protracted disputes of
the two opposing parties, by means of the union
of Henry Tudor with the princess Elizabeth, his
eldest daughter.

!!!!!! Is there any possibility that Edward was *sincere* in this, and that
a great opportunity for reconciliation was lost due to unwarranted suspicion
on Henry's part?

Doug...I always say with history you have to factor in the human factor. Might in the 15th century 53ish seemed older than someone of similar age today. Might he have been feeling unwell. As you said...might he not have been particularly brave. Ironically, *if* he had felt wary/fearful of what letting the cat out of the bag he was proven correct. Arrested as soon as Weasle took the throne and ending his days there. God alone know what deprivations this man suffered towards the end of his life. And I wonder if he ever cursed the day when he had revealed the truth about the pre-contract. Who is to know...we can only guess. Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EileenB wrote:
>
> "Things are not always clear cut as to why someone took such an action or
> didnt or simply took their time to especially 500 years ago. In
> Stillington;s case, maybe he wrestled with his conscience...he knew the news
> would bring devastating and radical changes. What would become of the
> boys?...would there be civil war and bloodloss? Did he dally with idea of
> simply staying quiet? How many sleepless nights did it cost him? We have
> to take into account his age as well. Maybe he just wished it would all go
> away...He had probably hoped that he would die before Edward thus sparing
> him having to do something. At the end of the day poor Stillington...he
> ended up dying in a prison..."
>
> Doug here:
> Eileen, you've summed how I view Stillington perfectly; not particularly
> brave perhaps, but definitely a man with a conscience. Hilary (I think?)
> mentioned Stillington's age as 53, which, while it isn't *that* old, is an
> age where, even now, a person could reasonably expect life to be running in
> calmer channels.
> Doug
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Do we have an approximate date for the Eleanor Butler/E4 marriage? I seem to recall that it must have been after Towton (March 29, 1461) and it was obviously several years before the May 1, 1464, "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville. Since that "marriage" is traditionally believed to have occurred at Elizabeth's home, with her mother as witness, possibly the Butler marriage occurred at Elizabeth's home. Where that would be I don't know without consulting J A-H.
>
> Stillington at that time was Archbishop of Taunton, Archbishop of Berkshire, and Keeper of the Privy Seal. He was not yet Bishop of Bath and Wells. That's all I know (and I'm beginning to believe that I should put "know" in quotation marks)!
>
> Carol
>

The Stillington bio says:

'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.'

Stephen Lark wrote:
> [snip] No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume that he was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
>
Doug responded:
> Thank you, Stephen! Clears up everything and also means we don't need to hunt for that "witness" to find out who he/she might have told.

Carol comments:

Not necessarily. What about that bit of canon law that Hilary quoted earlier? And it's almost certain that Jaquetta Bedford witnessed the notorious "May marriage" of Edward IV to her daughter. I can't imagine Eleanor Butler not demanding a witness--other than the priest--to that marriage. And Stillington would have needed evidence of some sort, either documentation or the testimony of a witness, to convince the Three Estates, especially the clerics among them, that such a marriage occurred, as Titulus Regius states emphatically and without qualification that it did.

I know that Commines (not always trustworthy) names Stillington as the priest who married Eleanor and Edward, and Henry Tudor's actions after Bosworth indicate that he was the one responsible for Titulus Regius (along with the executed Catesby). But I know that another source indicating that Stillington was the priest who performed the ceremony has recently come to light. Does anyone recall what it was? J-AH may have mentioned it, but I don't remember the details.

Carol

I will just observe that he was in holy orders by 1445. According to JA-H, a subdeacon doesn't quite count.
----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ah now...if Stillington's whereabouts at the time of the precontract could be discovered...wow! Im inclined to believe he may well have been there...how else could he have found out ....unless informed by another member of the family seeing as he was connected in some way.
>

I don't think we should disregard his professional connections either, though. Just look at his career (quoting from that DNB bio):

"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."

All the offices he held, all the people he came across in his official capacity, all the connections he had to others in similar positions... I wouldn't be surprised if one found out a secret or two, that way.

I'm especially intrigued by the Thomas Beckington connection. Not sure why, but I think it would be worth investigating.

Doug wrote:
> [snip]Hilary (I think?) mentioned Stillington's age as 53, which, while it isn't *that* old, is an age where, even now, a person could reasonably expect life to be running in calmer channels.

Carol responds:

He was born about 1420 and therefore about 53 at the time he was temporarily deprived of the chancellorship (1473), about 58 when he was arrested in connection with George's treason (1478), and about 63 when he reported the precontract to Richard. That would make him about 65 when Tudor arrested him and 67 when he was involved in the Simnel rebellion. He died in prison at about 71 thanks to Henry.

Carol

I should imagine the marriage to Eleanor would have been hastily brought together. I.e. Edward sweet talking ET and then hastily dragging along a priest/Stillington. Stillington , presuming she had met him prior to her wedding day, would have possible proven to ET a good choice maybe allaying any fears or misgivings.. ..as they were related somewhere down the line. Bobs your uncle....another notch on Edward's bedpost...I wonder how long it took for the penny to drop with poor Eleanor...eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> > [snip] No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume that he was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
> >
> Doug responded:
> > Thank you, Stephen! Clears up everything and also means we don't need to hunt for that "witness" to find out who he/she might have told.
>
> Carol comments:
>
> Not necessarily. What about that bit of canon law that Hilary quoted earlier? And it's almost certain that Jaquetta Bedford witnessed the notorious "May marriage" of Edward IV to her daughter. I can't imagine Eleanor Butler not demanding a witness--other than the priest--to that marriage. And Stillington would have needed evidence of some sort, either documentation or the testimony of a witness, to convince the Three Estates, especially the clerics among them, that such a marriage occurred, as Titulus Regius states emphatically and without qualification that it did.
>
> I know that Commines (not always trustworthy) names Stillington as the priest who married Eleanor and Edward, and Henry Tudor's actions after Bosworth indicate that he was the one responsible for Titulus Regius (along with the executed Catesby). But I know that another source indicating that Stillington was the priest who performed the ceremony has recently come to light. Does anyone recall what it was? J-AH may have mentioned it, but I don't remember the details.
>
> Carol
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Looking at this in more detail, I can see it is where Hicks got his facts from. [snip]

Carol responds:

If you're referring to the DNB bio, it's *by* Hicks. I think you're right that he's wrong about Stillington's birth date being 1410 or earlier. I can't see him becoming involved in the Simnel conspiracy at 77 or older.

Carol

Not to mention titles, entailments, wills and all of that!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Carol said "I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections
> here."
>
> Possibly. But there's also the element that blood & connections were
> important in a couple of ways that we don't pay so much attention to these
> days. They meant access to assets (there's an echo in some of Jane Austen's
> work about the importance of nurturing connections no matter how remote).
> And as a corollary, to keep those assets "in the family," one had to know
> who one was related to at least to the degree of grandparents' grandparents
> (with some extra complications thrown in) in order to know whether or not a
> papal dispensation was necessary for a given marriage.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:15 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's
>> mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt. I didn't know Sir G was always a
>> Lancastrian but should have guessed as he was knighted at Bosworth.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> That's a very slight connection. I've never even seen my brother's
>> mother-in-law and don't even know if she's alive. I certainly wouldn't know
>> her nieces or their husbands. And this is modern times with modern
>> communication and transportation.
>>
>> I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections here. We
>> need to look at Stillington's connections with the House of York (Edward,
>> George, and Richard). His links to the House of Lancaster (I mean Henry VI
>> and Margaret of Anjou, not Lancastrian relatives like the Talbots) were few
>> if any; his links to Tudor are known and strongly indicate a *Yorkist*
>> affiliation (as does his relationship with George). Would a closet
>> Lancastrian have supported the Simnel rebellion against a Tudor king (or
>> urged George to return to his Yorkist allegiance)? It makes no sense. A
>> grudge against Edward and a preference for his brothers, George or Richard,
>> as king. Maybe? But, as you say, we still have the question of why he
>> waited two months to come forward. He may have feared retaliation given
>> Richard's known loyalty to Edward IV.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Doug wrote:
> You're most likely correct, but do we really have any information on George's "executive capabilities"? Perhaps he was really good at it, but what with his, um, less than sterling devotion to Edward?, was never given a chance? [snip]

Carol responds:

Several sources, including Croyland, mention George's eloquence (along with Richard's in one case), but I've seen no references to his administrative abilities. It's interesting that Edward started giving Richard real responsibilities at an early age but gave no such administrative posts to George (only land and titles). It may not have been a matter of loyalty at that early stage so much as a matter of personality; Richard could be trusted to perform those duties to the best of his (considerable) ability: George could not. When and how Edward made that discovery, I don't know. As heir to the throne until late 1470, George may have thought himself entitled to many privileges without having to work for them. Richard obviously saw things differently. I suspect that George was jealous of Edward's affection for Richard as well, but, of course, I'm only guessing. At any rate, just as with Buckingham, Edward never let George hold any high office--in marked contrast to his treatment of Richard. And whatever we may think of Edward in other respects, he seems to have been right in these instances. Unlike Richard, he was a good judge of character.

Carol

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


> All the offices he held, all the people he came across in his official
> capacity, all the connections he had to others in similar positions... I
> wouldn't be surprised if one found out a secret or two, that way.

And, like Morton, he doesn't sound like somebody who had much of a genuine
commitment to his priestly role: he was an administrator, not a pastor. The
presumption has been I suppose that as a priest he felt morally compelled to
speak out about the pre-contract when it looked as if a bastard was going to
end up on the throne - but do we know of any (other) instances where his
behaviour appeared to be propelled by morality rather than politics?

Regarding the bastardy, it's occurred to me that insofar as the Tudors and
their supporters were culturally Welsh, they would probably have had a
different attitude to the whole legitimacy issue - since in Wales bastards
had the same rights of inheritance as legitimate children, so long as their
father acknowledged their parentage. That really shouldn't make any
difference, since the English throne had to be inherited by English law, but
I suspect a Welshman would be likely to think that Titulus Regius was just a
political convenience, and not understand that to Richard the idea that his
nephews were illegitimate really did mean he would feel compelled to accept
the throne. And they would also, I suppose, regard Henry's being disbarred
from the throne due to his ancestors' illegitimacy as just some English
silliness.

The Grafton Staffords were quite a few generations apart by the time of Harre Bokyngham, and were not of royal descent via Edward III. Actually, the Duke's great-granddaughter Dorothy married her cousin Sir William, of the Grafton branch.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> He was, I think a nephew; the male Mowbrays died out and he was the son of John Mowbray's sister. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I am resting a scrambled brain. I agree about names; it's great when the odd Marmaduke creeps in. And there were so many Staffords .... No wonder MB knew everyone.Â

Carol responds:

Yes. His mother was Margaret Mowbray, eldest daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, so when Margaret's brother John, duke of Norfolk, died, he was the next male heir. The title should have gone to him rather than to Edward's son Richard, a wrong that Richard III righted before his coronation. (Of course, by then it was inevitable that little Richard would lose all his titles. His brother Edward retained a pair of earldoms that didn't rightfully belong to someone else.)

What interests me here is the Staffords (of Grafton) who *weren't* Lancastrian and faithfully supported Richard III--against their own relative, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. It goes to show that just because people were related didn't mean that they held the same political views or even that they shared common interests (in the sense of land, money, and other benefits). Relatives were always at each other's throats, especially the children of first and second marriages.

Carol

Carol

I have a vague recollction that he acted as a " spy" / ambassador for Edward. Did I also read something about Henry escaping from Brittany and going to the French King.

Re Halsted, I wouldn't think that Edward would have wanted to marry E of Y to Tudor. Could Halsted be mixing up the fact that EW is supposed to have arranged the marriage with MB?

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> More about Stillington's career (changed the title as this isn't really about Clarence anymore!).
>
> Found a couple of interesting things in 'Lives of the Bishops of Bath' (can be found here: http://books.google.fi/books?id=OJgAAAAAcAAJ).
>
> First interesting tidbit that I never knew is that there was another Bishop of Bath - called John Phreas - between Beckington and Stillington... but only for two months. Says the book: 'he obtained, at Rome, an introduction, through the literati of that city, to Pope Pius II. His holiness conferred this Bishopric on him; but he died at Rome within a month of his appointment, not without suspicion of poison.'
>
> Right after that, Edward appointed Stillington as the new Bishop. The 'suspicion of poison' is intriguing: why would anyone want to poison this John Phreas? Might Edward have been *really* keen to advance Stillington? Surely not keen enough to have the unfortunate Phreas poisoned...?
>
> And there's another thing. I must have read this before, but it never registered properly; so forgive me if this is 'duh, old news' for everybody else! The author of 'Lives of the Bishops of Bath' quotes from Godwin's 'Catalogue of the Bishops of England', about Stillington:
>
> 'A man greatly in favour with Edward IV. under whom he always flourished with great authority, being employed by him in sundry ambassages, as, namely, unto the Duke of Britaine (Bretagne), for apprehending the Earle of Richmond, that afterwards was Henry VII.; in which business he so bestirred himself, as that his double vigilance therein proved afterwards his overthrow.'
>
> Halsted's MB bio has more to say about Edward employing Stillington to manoeuvre Richmond out of Brittany:
>
> 'Finding that neither money would purchase the
> ransom of his victim, nor bribes effect his delivery
> into his hands, the wary monarch resolved on
> changing his line of conduct, and trying to gain
> by underhand dealing, that compliance from the
> Duke Francis, which open treaty and earnest
> solicitation had failed to win. He accordingly
> dispatched ambassadors to his ally, to sue for the
> release of the exiled Earl, under the plea of
> desiring to cement the long protracted disputes of
> the two opposing parties, by means of the union
> of Henry Tudor with the princess Elizabeth, his
> eldest daughter. This subtle device succeeded.
> The Duke of Brittany, deceived by the eloquent
> and persuasive address of Dr. Stillington, then
> chancellor, and Bishop of Bath and Wells, de-
> livered the Earl into his care, sending him with a
> strong guard to St. Maloes, to prevent his escape
> into France.'
>
> Based on this, I can't really see MB and/or Henry ever trusting Stillington...
>

My information comes from "Eleanor" and remembered conversations.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



Stephen Lark wrote:
> [snip] No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume that he was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
>
Doug responded:
> Thank you, Stephen! Clears up everything and also means we don't need to hunt for that "witness" to find out who he/she might have told.

Carol comments:

Not necessarily. What about that bit of canon law that Hilary quoted earlier? And it's almost certain that Jaquetta Bedford witnessed the notorious "May marriage" of Edward IV to her daughter. I can't imagine Eleanor Butler not demanding a witness--other than the priest--to that marriage. And Stillington would have needed evidence of some sort, either documentation or the testimony of a witness, to convince the Three Estates, especially the clerics among them, that such a marriage occurred, as Titulus Regius states emphatically and without qualification that it did.

I know that Commines (not always trustworthy) names Stillington as the priest who married Eleanor and Edward, and Henry Tudor's actions after Bosworth indicate that he was the one responsible for Titulus Regius (along with the executed Catesby). But I know that another source indicating that Stillington was the priest who performed the ceremony has recently come to light. Does anyone recall what it was? J-AH may have mentioned it, but I don't remember the details.

Carol

Pansy wrote:

> The Stillington bio says:
>
> '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.'

Carol responds:

Right. The Hicks DNB article, which I had forgotten about. But Hicks would have us believe that Stillington never visited the sites of any of these preferments. Assuming that he's wrong, let's ignore the 1464 and 1465 appointments and determine where he might have been in 1461 based on the preferments he held as of 1461: St. Martin's, Colchester, Taunton, York, St. David's, St. Stephen's, Westminster, and Ashbury in Berkshire. I don't know English geography (except York and Westminster), but I *think* that St. Stephen's is in or near London. If he was rector at Berkshire, I would think (perhaps wrongly) that he would be expected to deliver sermons there. Are any of these places near Eleanor Butler's home as of 1461?

However, he was also at that time Keeper of the Privy Seal (appointed by the Yorkist-dominated council of Henry VI and retained in office by Edward IV, indicating Yorkist sympathies on Stillington's part), so he might have been conveniently in Edward's retinue at the time. If so, he would not need to have lived in or visited a town near her home in his capacity as archbishop or rector to be available to perform the marriage.

Carol

Westminster, Berkshire and Colchester are all within an hour's travel of London today. In the former case, you are already well within London.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason



Pansy wrote:

> The Stillington bio says:
>
> '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.'

Carol responds:

Right. The Hicks DNB article, which I had forgotten about. But Hicks would have us believe that Stillington never visited the sites of any of these preferments. Assuming that he's wrong, let's ignore the 1464 and 1465 appointments and determine where he might have been in 1461 based on the preferments he held as of 1461: St. Martin's, Colchester, Taunton, York, St. David's, St. Stephen's, Westminster, and Ashbury in Berkshire. I don't know English geography (except York and Westminster), but I *think* that St. Stephen's is in or near London. If he was rector at Berkshire, I would think (perhaps wrongly) that he would be expected to deliver sermons there. Are any of these places near Eleanor Butler's home as of 1461?

However, he was also at that time Keeper of the Privy Seal (appointed by the Yorkist-dominated council of Henry VI and retained in office by Edward IV, indicating Yorkist sympathies on Stillington's part), so he might have been conveniently in Edward's retinue at the time. If so, he would not need to have lived in or visited a town near her home in his capacity as archbishop or rector to be available to perform the marriage.

Carol

Greetings,

I joined this list after seeing the fascinating documentary "King in the
Car Park" recently and I have been mystified who actually put the "R"
right on top of Richard III's grave. This place would have been paved
over within the last 30 - 40 years so somebody knew about the burial
site very recently. Does anyone have anymore history on this?

Stuart

Good point Carol...eileen

> However, he was also at that time Keeper of the Privy Seal (appointed by the Yorkist-dominated council of Henry VI and retained in office by Edward IV, indicating Yorkist sympathies on Stillington's part), so he might have been conveniently in Edward's retinue at the time. If so, he would not need to have lived in or visited a town near her home in his capacity as archbishop or rector to be available to perform the marriage.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

St Stephen's is in  Westminster it's not a separate place.
 
Living in Colchester I often walk past St Martin's which is a redundant  church and was very neglected although it has been restored.  It's always looked locked when I've been past though.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 18:48
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

Right. The Hicks DNB article, which I had forgotten about. But Hicks would have us believe that Stillington never visited the sites of any of these preferments. Assuming that he's wrong, let's ignore the 1464 and 1465 appointments and determine where he might have been in 1461 based on the preferments he held as of 1461: St. Martin's, Colchester, Taunton, York, St. David's, St. Stephen's, Westminster, and Ashbury in Berkshire. I don't know English geography (except York and Westminster), but I *think* that St. Stephen's is in or near London. If he was rector at Berkshire, I would think (perhaps wrongly) that he would be expected to deliver sermons there. Are any of these places near Eleanor Butler's home as of 1461?

However, he was also at that time Keeper of the Privy Seal (appointed by the Yorkist-dominated council of Henry VI and retained in office by Edward IV, indicating Yorkist sympathies on Stillington's part), so he might have been conveniently in Edward's retinue at the time. If so, he would not need to have lived in or visited a town near her home in his capacity as archbishop or rector to be available to perform the marriage.

Carol

Stuart welcome to the group.  Apparently the R was for a reserved parking space.
 
 


________________________________
From: Stuart Foster <sfoster@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 18:04
Subject: The "R" in the Car Park

 
Greetings,

I joined this list after seeing the fascinating documentary "King in the
Car Park" recently and I have been mystified who actually put the "R"
right on top of Richard III's grave. This place would have been paved
over within the last 30 - 40 years so somebody knew about the burial
site very recently. Does anyone have anymore history on this?

Stuart

From: Stuart Foster
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:04 PM
Subject: The "R" in the Car Park


> I joined this list after seeing the fascinating documentary "King in the
Car Park" recently and I have been mystified who actually put the "R"
right on top of Richard III's grave. This place would have been paved
over within the last 30 - 40 years so somebody knew about the burial
site very recently. Does anyone have anymore history on this?

The 'R' is believed to just stand for some mundane car-park-type thing,
probably "Reserved". How remarkable a coincidence (or message form the
gods, deoending on your belief-system) it is that Richard was under that 'R'
depends on how many parking spaces were marked with an 'R' - it might have
been dozens of them. But then, the more 'R's there were the more remarkable
it becomes that Philippa picked the right one.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> And, like Morton, he doesn't sound like somebody who had much of a genuine
> commitment to his priestly role: he was an administrator, not a pastor. The
> presumption has been I suppose that as a priest he felt morally compelled to
> speak out about the pre-contract when it looked as if a bastard was going to
> end up on the throne - but do we know of any (other) instances where his
> behaviour appeared to be propelled by morality rather than politics?
>

I don't know. I find it even more difficult to understand why Stillington would have been involved with Clarence in 1478, when he was obviously doing so well under Edward's regime. I can only think that:

(a) he might have fallen out of favour after ultimately failing to get Richmond out of Brittany in 1476; or,

(b) Clarence had heard the rumour from a third party, not Stillington, and Edward acted pre-emptively, warning Stillington not to confirm Clarence's suspicions?

Any other ideas??

Hi Stuart,

John Ashdown-Hill told me that there was indeed an 'R' on the parking space underneath which Richard was found.  The 'R' stood for 'Reserved', not for Richard or Rex, but is an uncanny coincidence.

Dorothea




________________________________
From: Stuart Foster <sfoster@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013 3:04 AM
Subject: The "R" in the Car Park



 
Greetings,

I joined this list after seeing the fascinating documentary "King in the
Car Park" recently and I have been mystified who actually put the "R"
right on top of Richard III's grave. This place would have been paved
over within the last 30 - 40 years so somebody knew about the burial
site very recently. Does anyone have anymore history on this?

Stuart

I just found this in my miscellaneous notes regarding Sir Gilbert. It's summarized from something that's likely in Potter's Good King Richard or JAH's Last Days.

"Sir Gilbert Talbot, uncle of the Earl of Shrewsbury deserted. Why? Domestic and personal. The Earl of Shrewsbury married a daughter of Hastings. The revelation of E4’s precontract had exposed to the world the shame of his kinswoman, Lady Eleanor Butler. (He blamed Richard for the exposure and not the dead Edward for his folly.)"

So Talbot may have been loyal to Edward, and Richard's revelation of Eleanor's marriage *may* have caused him to switch sides at Bosworth.

"My name is Sir Gilbert Talbot, yer brother humiliated my kinswoman but you besmirched her, prepare to die...." (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt. I didn't know Sir G was always a Lancastrian but should have guessed as he was knighted at Bosworth.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2013, 19:50
> Subject: Re: Clarence's treason
>
>  
>
> Doug wrote:
> >
>
> > [snip] Actually any desire on the part of the Talbots'/Mowbrays' for revenge seems to, in my opinion anyway, support the proposition that Edward *had* married Eleanor - their "revenge", if true, was for Edward *not* recognizing Eleanor as his lawful wife - and his Queen.
> > I know the Talbots were Lancastrians, were the Mowbrays as well? And did either family hurry off to support the "Lancastrian", aka Tudor, when he blessed England with his arrival? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The last Mowbray was Anne Mowbray, the little heiress who married Edward IV's son Richard in early 1478. Her father, the Duke of Norfolk, had died some time earlier. (I don't have time to check the date.) Her mother was Eleanor Talbot Butler's sister, Elizabeth. Anne herself died about two years later, IIRC.
>
> As for the Talbots, Sir Gilbert Talbot fought for Tudor at Bosworth, which does suggest that the Talbots retained their Lancastrian loyalties (and perhaps a grudge against Edward IV inherited by his brother).
>
> Carol

Thank you very much everyone for the kind greetings and the
clarifications. I shall enjoy this list immensely. I am used to
studying Irish legends but this, actual history happening today, is mind
blowing! For now I shall go back into "lurk" mode and read the comments
for now.

Stuart


On 18/04/2013 3:28 PM, Dorothea Preis wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> John Ashdown-Hill told me that there was indeed an 'R' on the parking space underneath which Richard was found. The 'R' stood for 'Reserved', not for Richard or Rex, but is an uncanny coincidence.
>
> Dorothea

I think that is what most of us, "newbies" felt. You will find some long time intellectuals and Ricardians with immense knowledge, and some mouth agape new members who are madly scrambling to learn!
Welcome all

On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:54 AM, "Stuart Foster" <sfoster@...<mailto:sfoster@...>> wrote:



Thank you very much everyone for the kind greetings and the
clarifications. I shall enjoy this list immensely. I am used to
studying Irish legends but this, actual history happening today, is mind
blowing! For now I shall go back into "lurk" mode and read the comments
for now.

Stuart

On 18/04/2013 3:28 PM, Dorothea Preis wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> John Ashdown-Hill told me that there was indeed an 'R' on the parking space underneath which Richard was found. The 'R' stood for 'Reserved', not for Richard or Rex, but is an uncanny coincidence.
>
> Dorothea

Exactly AJ. As I said before you joined the forum, I think, land was the great commodity. It was the stock exchange of the 15th century. You only have to look at the number of petitions to realise that. And if a blood relationship could find you an entitlement then it was in your interests to nurture it. It didn't mean you had to like the person in the modern sense. But you had to know your links.



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


Carol said "I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections
here."

Possibly.  But there's also the element that blood & connections were
important in a couple of ways that we don't pay so much attention to these
days. They meant access to assets (there's an echo in some of Jane Austen's
work about the importance of nurturing connections no matter how remote).
And as a corollary, to keep those assets "in the family," one had to know
who one was related to at least to the degree of grandparents' grandparents
(with some extra complications thrown in) in order to know whether or not a
papal dispensation was necessary for a given marriage.

A J


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:15 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Stillington and Sir Gilbert Talbot were related. His brother Thomas's
> mother-in-law was Talbot's wife's aunt. I didn't know Sir G was always a
> Lancastrian but should have guessed as he was knighted at Bosworth.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That's a very slight connection. I've never even seen my brother's
> mother-in-law and don't even know if she's alive. I certainly wouldn't know
> her nieces or their husbands. And this is modern times with modern
> communication and transportation.
>
> I think we're making too much of blood and marital connections here. We
> need to look at Stillington's connections with the House of York (Edward,
> George, and Richard). His links to the House of Lancaster (I mean Henry VI
> and Margaret of Anjou, not Lancastrian relatives like the Talbots) were few
> if any; his links to Tudor are known and strongly indicate a *Yorkist*
> affiliation (as does his relationship with George). Would a closet
> Lancastrian have supported the Simnel rebellion against a Tudor king (or
> urged George to return to his Yorkist allegiance)? It makes no sense. A
> grudge against Edward and a preference for his brothers, George or Richard,
> as king. Maybe? But, as you say, we still have the question of why he
> waited two months to come forward. He may have feared retaliation given
> Richard's known loyalty to Edward IV.
>
> Carol
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Twas not me who quoted the canon law. I quoted Richard's Parliament Roll which backed it up. H



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2013, 17:59
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

 

My information comes from "Eleanor" and remembered conversations.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

Stephen Lark wrote:
> [snip] No "witness" was required and there didn't even need to be a priest although we strongly suspect that there was one, he was Stillington and that can now assume that he was indirectly genealogically connected to Lady Eleanor.
>
Doug responded:
> Thank you, Stephen! Clears up everything and also means we don't need to hunt for that "witness" to find out who he/she might have told.

Carol comments:

Not necessarily. What about that bit of canon law that Hilary quoted earlier? And it's almost certain that Jaquetta Bedford witnessed the notorious "May marriage" of Edward IV to her daughter. I can't imagine Eleanor Butler not demanding a witness--other than the priest--to that marriage. And Stillington would have needed evidence of some sort, either documentation or the testimony of a witness, to convince the Three Estates, especially the clerics among them, that such a marriage occurred, as Titulus Regius states emphatically and without qualification that it did.

I know that Commines (not always trustworthy) names Stillington as the priest who married Eleanor and Edward, and Henry Tudor's actions after Bosworth indicate that he was the one responsible for Titulus Regius (along with the executed Catesby). But I know that another source indicating that Stillington was the priest who performed the ceremony has recently come to light. Does anyone recall what it was? J-AH may have mentioned it, but I don't remember the details.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Twas not me who quoted the canon law. I quoted Richard's Parliament Roll which backed it up. H
>

Perhaps it was me? But I wasn't quoting the canon law, but an essay on the canon law ;)

EileenB wrote:

"Doug...I always say with history you have to factor in the human factor.
Might in the 15th century 53ish seemed older than someone of similar age
today. Might he have been feeling unwell. As you said...might he not have
been particularly brave. Ironically, *if* he had felt wary/fearful of what
letting the cat out of the bag he was proven correct. Arrested as soon as
Weasle took the throne and ending his days there. God alone know what
deprivations this man suffered towards the end of his life. And I wonder
if he ever cursed the day when he had revealed the truth about the
pre-contract. Who is to know...we can only guess."

Doug here:
Even though a priest, Stillington seems to have been much more into
administration rather religion, which wasn't at all unusual for the times.
He also seems, to me at least, to have been conscientious. Pansy posted his
DNB which included a list of all the prebendaries, etc he held. Is it
possible that *one* reason he held so many posts was because he was taking
so little from each to support his administrative duties? Thus still leaving
the majority of the living for the person who actually occupied it?
If so, and as I haven't heard about any wild spending on Stillington's part,
that would bolster my view of him as being conscientious about seeing that
the religious requirements of the posts were properly carried out, while
still providing him with his income. The other thing to look into would be
whether or not there were complaints about those Stillington appointed his
"deputies"; if not that would also add to the picture of him as being
conscientious about his various "jobs" as deacon, prebend or Bishop.
While it's a generalization, and anecdotal, many of the best administrators
that I've come across don't seem to be very "original", tend to limit their
efforts only to what they know they're good at and are very cautious about
dipping into areas where they haven't any expertise. Although one *would*
think that after all those years hobnobbing with high government officials
might have given him more confidence, perhaps not.
Doug

wednesday_mc wrote:
//snip//
"So Talbot may have been loyal to Edward, and Richard's revelation of
Eleanor's marriage *may* have caused him to switch sides at Bosworth.

"My name is Sir Gilbert Talbot, yer brother humiliated my kinswoman but you
besmirched her, prepare to die...." (Sorry, couldn't resist.) "

Doug here:
Actually, it *does* make sense.
Yes, Edward *had* humiliated Eleanor but, as noone knew about it except
those directly involved, the humiliation sort of didn't "count".
Making it public, however...
Doug

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
> //snip//
> "So Talbot may have been loyal to Edward, and Richard's revelation of
> Eleanor's marriage *may* have caused him to switch sides at Bosworth.
>
> "My name is Sir Gilbert Talbot, yer brother humiliated my kinswoman but you
> besmirched her, prepare to die...." (Sorry, couldn't resist.) "
>
> Doug here:
> Actually, it *does* make sense.
> Yes, Edward *had* humiliated Eleanor but, as noone knew about it except
> those directly involved, the humiliation sort of didn't "count".
> Making it public, however...
> Doug
>

Was the truth a humiliation, though, in this case? I'd have thought it would actually save her reputation, rather than besmirch it - she wasn't the King's mistress after all, she was (or thought she was) his *wife*...

By the way, what exactly is the source for Edward's quip about his mistresses being 'the merriest, the wiliest, and the holiest harlot in the realm'? I know it's in More (isn't it?) but does it appear anywhere else? I always thought it was a bit odd - I mean, I know people generally say that Eleanor was the holiest and 'Jane' Shore the merriest, but as Eleanor had been dead for years before the latter came on the scene, it just sounds so... strange. Who'd joke about a dead 'harlot'?

pansydobersby wrote:

> I don't know. I find it even more difficult to understand why Stillington would have been involved with Clarence in 1478, when he was obviously doing so well under Edward's regime. I can only think that:
>
> (a) he might have fallen out of favour after ultimately failing to get Richmond out of Brittany in 1476; or,
>
> (b) Clarence had heard the rumour from a third party, not Stillington, and Edward acted pre-emptively, warning Stillington not to confirm Clarence's suspicions?
>
> Any other ideas??
>
Carol responds:

Regarding your first point (a), Edward removed Stillington from his position as chancellor in 1473, five years before Edward arrested him in (apparent) connection with George's treason. Possibly he was ill as Hicks suggests, but as we've noted, he was only fifty-three at the time and lived to be seventy-one, so his health clearly was not failing nor was he as Hicks also suggests, suffering from old age. (I don't accept Hicks's estimate of his birth date as before 1410--or much else that Hicks says about anyone associated with Richard).

It's possible that, Hicks to the contrary, Stillington was dismissed for political reasons and was out of favor with Edward from 1473 onward. So that's the key, I think. What was happening in 1473, especially involving George of Clarence, that might have involved Stillington and resulted in his dismissal from office?

Carol

The only thing I can find so far at about this point Carol is quite a bit of correspondence (including from Richard himself) instructing Stillington to deal with rebels in Kent (from late 1471 onwards). This goes on for several months. Did he not comply? Do you know about the rebels and why he should have been dealing with them? I know R went to sort out the Baston of Fauconberg just after Tewkesbury, but what was the rest? I'm sure you'll know if anyone will.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 18:34
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 


pansydobersby wrote:

> I don't know. I find it even more difficult to understand why Stillington would have been involved with Clarence in 1478, when he was obviously doing so well under Edward's regime. I can only think that:
>
> (a) he might have fallen out of favour after ultimately failing to get Richmond out of Brittany in 1476; or,
>
> (b) Clarence had heard the rumour from a third party, not Stillington, and Edward acted pre-emptively, warning Stillington not to confirm Clarence's suspicions?
>
> Any other ideas??
>
Carol responds:

Regarding your first point (a), Edward removed Stillington from his position as chancellor in 1473, five years before Edward arrested him in (apparent) connection with George's treason. Possibly he was ill as Hicks suggests, but as we've noted, he was only fifty-three at the time and lived to be seventy-one, so his health clearly was not failing nor was he as Hicks also suggests, suffering from old age. (I don't accept Hicks's estimate of his birth date as before 1410--or much else that Hicks says about anyone associated with Richard).

It's possible that, Hicks to the contrary, Stillington was dismissed for political reasons and was out of favor with Edward from 1473 onward. So that's the key, I think. What was happening in 1473, especially involving George of Clarence, that might have involved Stillington and resulted in his dismissal from office?

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
(I don't accept Hicks's estimate of his birth date as before 1410--or much else that Hicks says about anyone associated with Richard).
>

Me neither. From his career path, I'd say he was a contemporary of Rotherham's, or a few years older (only with a more promising early career).

> It's possible that, Hicks to the contrary, Stillington was dismissed for political reasons and was out of favor with Edward from 1473 onward. So that's the key, I think. What was happening in 1473, especially involving George of Clarence, that might have involved Stillington and resulted in his dismissal from office?
>

That's interesting - and certainly worth investigating!

I just wonder that, if Stillington was out of favour from 1473 onward, why would Edward have sent him on an important mission in 1476?

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


> By the way, what exactly is the source for Edward's quip about his
> mistresses being 'the merriest, the wiliest, and the holiest harlot in the
> realm'? I know it's in More (isn't it?) but does it appear anywhere else?
> I always thought it was a bit odd - I mean, I know people generally say
> that Eleanor was the holiest and 'Jane' Shore the merriest, but as Eleanor
> had been dead for years before the latter came on the scene, it just
> sounds so... strange. Who'd joke about a dead 'harlot'?

I've always assumed that all three of them were Jane Shore.

Carol wrote:

"Several sources, including Croyland, mention George's eloquence (along with
Richard's in one case), but I've seen no references to his administrative
abilities. It's interesting that Edward started giving Richard real
responsibilities at an early age but gave no such administrative posts to
George (only land and titles). It may not have been a matter of loyalty at
that early stage so much as a matter of personality; Richard could be
trusted to perform those duties to the best of his (considerable) ability:
George could not. When and how Edward made that discovery, I don't know. As
heir to the throne until late 1470, George may have thought himself entitled
to many privileges without having to work for them. Richard obviously saw
things differently. I suspect that George was jealous of Edward's affection
for Richard as well, but, of course, I'm only guessing. At any rate, just as
with Buckingham, Edward never let George hold any high office--in marked
contrast to his treatment of Richard. And whatever we may think of Edward in
other respects, he seems to have been right in these instances. Unlike
Richard, he was a good judge of character."

Doug here:
You wrote "As heir to the throne until late 1470..." and I tend to think
*that* went to George's head. From the moment Edward became king until the
birth of his first son, George *was* heir to the throne and thus could be
used as a center of any opposition to Edward.
We know from his actions immediately before, during and after the
Re-Adeption, that George was more than willing to consider himself a
legitimate substitute for Edward, but when had he first adopted that
attitude? Was it early enough in Edward's reign to preclude Edward from
placing too much responsibility, trust, *and* power in George's hands?
Which, of course, only made George *less* likely to accept the current state
of affairs and even more willing to look around for ways to advance his
"claims"...
We *do* need that biography of George!
Doug

Doug wrote:
> Actually, it *does* make sense.
> Yes, Edward *had* humiliated Eleanor but, as noone knew about it except those directly involved, the humiliation sort of didn't "count".
> Making it public, however...

Carol responds:

Just how public *was* Titulus Regius? Yes, it was in English, so anyone literate person could theoretically read it, but who besides the Three Estates and, later, Parliament, would know exactly what was it? In other words, how accessible were Parliamentary records to the common people and how many copies existed besides the one on the Parliament Rolls? I know that Richard sent a copy to the garrison at Calais and presumably to Guisnes and other fortresses (right word?), but who would have had the other copies that Henry ordered burned unread? The heralds, maybe? Who else?

In other words, just how public was Eleanor Butler's humiliation? Was her name openly mentioned in Ralph Shaa's sermon, for example? If so, why didn't Mancini know it (through his contacts)? The Croyland chronicler actually had a copy, apparently, and *didn't* destroy it. I suspect that despite toadying to Tudor and his mother after Bosworth, his loyalties were to Edward V.

Would Sir Gilbert Talbot have known about it as a knight and therefore a member of the Three Estates/Parliament? Was he present at Richard's coronation?

Also, I've asked before without receiving an answer: Which members of Richard's Parliament, which passed Titulus Regius, were present at Henry's first Parliament, which repealed it? They would have known exactly what they were doing (invalidating a rightful claim), presumably to protect themselves from retribution by Henry for "treason."

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The only thing I can find so far at about this point Carol is quite a bit of correspondence (including from Richard himself) instructing Stillington to deal with rebels in Kent (from late 1471 onwards). This goes on for several months. Did he not comply? Do you know about the rebels and why he should have been dealing with them? I know R went to sort out the Baston of Fauconberg just after Tewkesbury, but what was the rest? I'm sure you'll know if anyone will.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington, and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be Christianized--which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Kenterbury?).

Sorry to be so little help, or rather none at all.

Carol

Well - to be nitpicking - it was the first "English" county to be Christianised by St Augustine  - who when came over here was in negotiations with the Celtic Church.  What we would call  Welsh, Scots and the Irish were Christian but the Anglo Saxons were not.  Many ancient churches and chapels on what we call the "Celtic Fringe" are ancient and are built on the sites of churches that were older than Canterbury.  For example the Cathedral at Bangor (North Wales ) where I went to college is on the site of a church which was built around 50 years before Augustine came to England.
 
Lecture over.  (British history is "so" Anglo-centric that it can be immensely annoying to those of us who are not just English.)


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 20:43
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 
Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The only thing I can find so far at about this point Carol is quite a bit of correspondence (including from Richard himself) instructing Stillington to deal with rebels in Kent (from late 1471 onwards). This goes on for several months. Did he not comply? Do you know about the rebels and why he should have been dealing with them? I know R went to sort out the Baston of Fauconberg just after Tewkesbury, but what was the rest? I'm sure you'll know if anyone will.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington, and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be Christianized--which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Kenterbury?).

Sorry to be so little help, or rather none at all.

Carol

Thanks Carol - my next task. Such is the beauty of the web; I would never have gone to Kent to look for Richard in late 1471.
PS Kent is very handy for the odd day trip to France to top up on cheese (not Cheddar) and wine :) 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 20:43
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> The only thing I can find so far at about this point Carol is quite a bit of correspondence (including from Richard himself) instructing Stillington to deal with rebels in Kent (from late 1471 onwards). This goes on for several months. Did he not comply? Do you know about the rebels and why he should have been dealing with them? I know R went to sort out the Baston of Fauconberg just after Tewkesbury, but what was the rest? I'm sure you'll know if anyone will.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington, and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be Christianized--which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Kenterbury?).

Sorry to be so little help, or rather none at all.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason


> Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington,
> and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled
> by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be
> Christianized--

The English side of my mother's family come from Kent. It's a large county
bisected by a river called the Medway: those who come from the London side
of the Medway are called Kentish Men and -Maids, and those from the Dover
side are called Men/Maids of Kent (so I am a Maid of Kent, as well as being
a random mix of Irish, Scottish, English, Cornish, Flemish and Shan). It's
where the White Cliffs of Dover are, which symbolise England to the
homecoming mariner.

Kent is called The Garden of England because it's so fertile, and used to be
hugely important for growing food especially tree-born fruits such as apples
and cherries. It's also very important for growing hops and brewing beer.

Also, it's very important for trade, being the closest point to France.
Four of the five great Cinque Ports and all seven of the lesser ports called
the "limbs" of the Cinque Ports are in Kent (the fifth major port, Hastings,
is in neighbouring Sussex) These were the ports which held the shipyards
which built and maintained the king's navy. Smuggling was a major local
industry and tolerated because no king wanted to piss off the Cinque Ports:
in Faversham (one of the "limbs"), where I used to live and where my
mother's fathers family come from, there's still a row of smugglers'
cottages known locally as The Forty Thieves. Many of the shipyards
gradually died because the build-up of land on the east coast meant that the
coast moved farther and farther away over the centuries, but in Richard's
day they were still great powers.

> which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury
> (Kenterbury?).

Ooh, clever - I used to live in Kent but I never noticed that one. I'm sure
you're right. Canterbury was a major site of pilgrimage - honouring a rebel
saint killed by his king - which added to Kent's power and independent
attitude.

The fact that Kent rose against Richard should not be taken to heart - Kent
rebelled against nearly every king that came along. It's my belief they
knew they were far too important for the Crown to risk antagonising them,
and knew that every king they rebelled against would buy their compliance
with a fresh wave of bribes and concessions. It was basic extortion.

Carol, as you say, Canterbury became the epicentre of English Christianity because St Augustine established his first church there. In Richard's time the chief ports were Bristol and King's Lynn., I'm afraid they weren't in Kent, although by the end of the seventeenth century Chatham (on the mouth of the Thames) was a major dockyard. Dockyard towns such as Chatham and Portsmouth (in Hampshire) did not develop until the seventeenth century because we did not expand our formal navy until then.  Dover, though, is the closest port to Calais but army expeditions such as that of H5 and E4 sailed from Southampton in the Solent.
As for rebellion, yes Jack Cade did rebel from there, but my recollection is that on this occasion it was probably the remnants of Fauconberg (Thomas Neville) who rebelled in the summer of 1471, was chased by Richard and was eventually caught and executed. I shall pursue.
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

 

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

> Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington,
> and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled
> by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be
> Christianized--

The English side of my mother's family come from Kent. It's a large county
bisected by a river called the Medway: those who come from the London side
of the Medway are called Kentish Men and -Maids, and those from the Dover
side are called Men/Maids of Kent (so I am a Maid of Kent, as well as being
a random mix of Irish, Scottish, English, Cornish, Flemish and Shan). It's
where the White Cliffs of Dover are, which symbolise England to the
homecoming mariner.

Kent is called The Garden of England because it's so fertile, and used to be
hugely important for growing food especially tree-born fruits such as apples
and cherries. It's also very important for growing hops and brewing beer.

Also, it's very important for trade, being the closest point to France.
Four of the five great Cinque Ports and all seven of the lesser ports called
the "limbs" of the Cinque Ports are in Kent (the fifth major port, Hastings,
is in neighbouring Sussex) These were the ports which held the shipyards
which built and maintained the king's navy. Smuggling was a major local
industry and tolerated because no king wanted to piss off the Cinque Ports:
in Faversham (one of the "limbs"), where I used to live and where my
mother's fathers family come from, there's still a row of smugglers'
cottages known locally as The Forty Thieves. Many of the shipyards
gradually died because the build-up of land on the east coast meant that the
coast moved farther and farther away over the centuries, but in Richard's
day they were still great powers.

> which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury
> (Kenterbury?).

Ooh, clever - I used to live in Kent but I never noticed that one. I'm sure
you're right. Canterbury was a major site of pilgrimage - honouring a rebel
saint killed by his king - which added to Kent's power and independent
attitude.

The fact that Kent rose against Richard should not be taken to heart - Kent
rebelled against nearly every king that came along. It's my belief they
knew they were far too important for the Crown to risk antagonising them,
and knew that every king they rebelled against would buy their compliance
with a fresh wave of bribes and concessions. It was basic extortion.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


> Carol, as you say, Canterbury became the epicentre of English Christianity
> because St Augustine established his first church there. In Richard's time
> the chief ports were Bristol and King's Lynn., I'm afraid they weren't in
> Kent, although by the end of the seventeenth century Chatham (on the mouth
> of the Thames) was a major dockyard.

You're right that the five main Cinque Ports were already silting up by the
15th C and other ports came to prominence but the "limbs" were brought into
the group *during* the 15th C in order to maintain the authority of the
Cinque Ports group and their ability to provide ships for the Crown. In
return for providing and maintaining 57 ships the Cinque Ports got their
charter in 1155 and were virtually a state within a state, consisting of the
five ports, two "ancient towns", between 7 and 23 "limbs" and up to 42 other
towns and villages, virtually self-governing and exempt from taxation (not
sure if that was *all* taxes or not), even though they had started to wane
by Richard's day due to the silting-up.

Shipbuilding continued in Faversham up until the 1920s, even though the
coast was now some miles away, but had to be abandoned because Faversham
Creek - which still gave the town access to the sea - had become so narrow
that ships had to be launched sideways.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well - to be nitpicking - it was the first "English" county to be Christianised by St Augustine  - who when came over here was in negotiations with the Celtic Church. [snip]

Carol responds:

Well, yes, I meant to say that, only I was trying to think of a way to express "Anglo-Saxon" that included the Jutes and couldn't think of one. Somehow, "English" (Anglisc?) didn't pop into my head. Also, I thought that the queen was somehow involved in her husband's conversion along with St. Augustine but didn't remember the details. But I do know about the Celtic churches and their missionaries, as well as the changes that the Pope forced on them (date of Easter, tonsures, no more married priests, IIRC). I was trying to simplify because it was all OT.

Carol

Over christmas, Dr. Williams himself explained that Canterbury was chosen as the site for a Cathedral because it overlooked the Continent.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason



Carol, as you say, Canterbury became the epicentre of English Christianity because St Augustine established his first church there. In Richard's time the chief ports were Bristol and King's Lynn., I'm afraid they weren't in Kent, although by the end of the seventeenth century Chatham (on the mouth of the Thames) was a major dockyard. Dockyard towns such as Chatham and Portsmouth (in Hampshire) did not develop until the seventeenth century because we did not expand our formal navy until then. Dover, though, is the closest port to Calais but army expeditions such as that of H5 and E4 sailed from Southampton in the Solent.
As for rebellion, yes Jack Cade did rebel from there, but my recollection is that on this occasion it was probably the remnants of Fauconberg (Thomas Neville) who rebelled in the summer of 1471, was chased by Richard and was eventually caught and executed. I shall pursue.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason



From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

> Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington,
> and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled
> by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be
> Christianized--

The English side of my mother's family come from Kent. It's a large county
bisected by a river called the Medway: those who come from the London side
of the Medway are called Kentish Men and -Maids, and those from the Dover
side are called Men/Maids of Kent (so I am a Maid of Kent, as well as being
a random mix of Irish, Scottish, English, Cornish, Flemish and Shan). It's
where the White Cliffs of Dover are, which symbolise England to the
homecoming mariner.

Kent is called The Garden of England because it's so fertile, and used to be
hugely important for growing food especially tree-born fruits such as apples
and cherries. It's also very important for growing hops and brewing beer.

Also, it's very important for trade, being the closest point to France.
Four of the five great Cinque Ports and all seven of the lesser ports called
the "limbs" of the Cinque Ports are in Kent (the fifth major port, Hastings,
is in neighbouring Sussex) These were the ports which held the shipyards
which built and maintained the king's navy. Smuggling was a major local
industry and tolerated because no king wanted to piss off the Cinque Ports:
in Faversham (one of the "limbs"), where I used to live and where my
mother's fathers family come from, there's still a row of smugglers'
cottages known locally as The Forty Thieves. Many of the shipyards
gradually died because the build-up of land on the east coast meant that the
coast moved farther and farther away over the centuries, but in Richard's
day they were still great powers.

> which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury
> (Kenterbury?).

Ooh, clever - I used to live in Kent but I never noticed that one. I'm sure
you're right. Canterbury was a major site of pilgrimage - honouring a rebel
saint killed by his king - which added to Kent's power and independent
attitude.

The fact that Kent rose against Richard should not be taken to heart - Kent
rebelled against nearly every king that came along. It's my belief they
knew they were far too important for the Crown to risk antagonising them,
and knew that every king they rebelled against would buy their compliance
with a fresh wave of bribes and concessions. It was basic extortion.

Yes from what I remember, she was the Christian and persuaded hubby to convert. 
 
It "is" OT but you'd be surprised how many English people don't have a clue about early Christianity in the UK and think that Augustine brought it here.
 
 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 2:03
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well - to be nitpicking - it was the first "English" county to be Christianised by St Augustine  - who when came over here was in negotiations with the Celtic Church. [snip]

Carol responds:

Well, yes, I meant to say that, only I was trying to think of a way to express "Anglo-Saxon" that included the Jutes and couldn't think of one. Somehow, "English" (Anglisc?) didn't pop into my head. Also, I thought that the queen was somehow involved in her husband's conversion along with St. Augustine but didn't remember the details. But I do know about the Celtic churches and their missionaries, as well as the changes that the Pope forced on them (date of Easter, tonsures, no more married priests, IIRC). I was trying to simplify because it was all OT.

Carol


Yes from

Well that's what Time Team said!!:) 



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 12:38
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


 

Yes from what I remember, she was the Christian and persuaded hubby to convert. 
 
It "is" OT but you'd be surprised how many English people don't have a clue about early Christianity in the UK and think that Augustine brought it here.
 
 

From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 2:03
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well - to be nitpicking - it was the first "English" county to be Christianised by St Augustine  - who when came over here was in negotiations with the Celtic Church. [snip]

Carol responds:

Well, yes, I meant to say that, only I was trying to think of a way to express "Anglo-Saxon" that included the Jutes and couldn't think of one. Somehow, "English" (Anglisc?) didn't pop into my head. Also, I thought that the queen was somehow involved in her husband's conversion along with St. Augustine but didn't remember the details. But I do know about the Celtic churches and their missionaries, as well as the changes that the Pope forced on them (date of Easter, tonsures, no more married priests, IIRC). I was trying to simplify because it was all OT.

Carol

Yes from

Carol wrote:


"Just how public *was* Titulus Regius? Yes, it was in English, so anyone
literate person could theoretically read it, but who besides the Three
Estates and, later, Parliament, would know exactly what was it? In other
words, how accessible were Parliamentary records to the common people and
how many copies existed besides the one on the Parliament Rolls? I know that
Richard sent a copy to the garrison at Calais and presumably to Guisnes and
other fortresses (right word?), but who would have had the other copies that
Henry ordered burned unread? The heralds, maybe? Who else?
In other words, just how public was Eleanor Butler's humiliation? Was her
name openly mentioned in Ralph Shaa's sermon, for example? If so, why didn't
Mancini know it (through his contacts)? The Croyland chronicler actually had
a copy, apparently, and *didn't* destroy it. I suspect that despite toadying
to Tudor and his mother after Bosworth, his loyalties were to Edward V.
Would Sir Gilbert Talbot have known about it as a knight and therefore a
member of the Three Estates/Parliament? Was he present at Richard's
coronation?
Also, I've asked before without receiving an answer: Which members of
Richard's Parliament, which passed Titulus Regius, were present at Henry's
first Parliament, which repealed it? They would have known exactly what they
were doing (invalidating a rightful claim), presumably to protect themselves
from retribution by Henry for 'treason.'"

Doug here:
Well, certainly "public" in the sense that the political world would know
about it. The present-day House of Commons has 600-odd members (sorry about
the phrasing!) and even if the number was only half that in 1483, that's
still over 300 people. Then there's the House of Lords with the nobility and
representatives from the Church (Bishops, Abbots, etc). Add in those serving
in subordinate positions (pages, servants, etc), there had to at least 1000
people who directly knew what was in Titulus Regius and, as it was in
English, would have stood a good chance of understanding exactly what it
said. And those people would have been the ones at the top of the
political/social/economic structure.
As has been demonstrated here recently, everyone seemed to be related to one
another which would make it that much easier for word to spread to those
who, for whatever reason, weren't informed directly; ie, being there when
Parliament passed the Bill. While it would be bad enough to have one's
relation discussed over pints by the common folk, it was quite another to
have one's social (?) equals know.
If I remember correctly, Gilbert was knighted by Tudor directly after
Bosworth (possibly on the battlefield?), but knighted or not, as a Talbot I
find it hard to believe that there wasn't some "kind" soul who didn't
commiserate with him over the shabby treatment of his kinswoman, all the
while knowing full well a truly polite person wouldn't have touched the
subject!
From everything I've seen here and read, I would imagine that the
composition of both Houses were changed mostly by the replacement of those
proscribed or dead, although I'm also certain that there must have been some
members deliberately *not* returned because of their well-known Yorkist
allegiance, I just don't know how many. I do know there was a post last
week, literally, that mentioned an on-going project researching all the
previous members of Parliament and that it had gotten to the early 15th
century (1405 stick in my mind for some reason). Could that help? Sorry I
can't be more definite.
Doug

Exactly, that's one of the reasons he chose to establish his first church there. Saw Dr Williams, he was very good. By the way on the subject of Archbishops of Canterbury several documents have John Stafford, Archbishop circa 1443 as illegitimate. They say it enhanced his position in the church. So it would seem that the illegitimate sons of those with influence could enter the Church and do well; probably as long as their parentage, but not necessarily family, remained 'obscure'.  

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 9:24
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason


 

Over christmas, Dr. Williams himself explained that Canterbury was chosen as the site for a Cathedral because it overlooked the Continent.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

Carol, as you say, Canterbury became the epicentre of English Christianity because St Augustine established his first church there. In Richard's time the chief ports were Bristol and King's Lynn., I'm afraid they weren't in Kent, although by the end of the seventeenth century Chatham (on the mouth of the Thames) was a major dockyard. Dockyard towns such as Chatham and Portsmouth (in Hampshire) did not develop until the seventeenth century because we did not expand our formal navy until then. Dover, though, is the closest port to Calais but army expeditions such as that of H5 and E4 sailed from Southampton in the Solent.
As for rebellion, yes Jack Cade did rebel from there, but my recollection is that on this occasion it was probably the remnants of Fauconberg (Thomas Neville) who rebelled in the summer of 1471, was chased by Richard and was eventually caught and executed. I shall pursue.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2013, 21:27
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's treason

From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Clarence's treason

> Thanks for the compliment, but I know next to nothing about Stillington,
> and all I know about Kent is that it's on southeastern coast, was settled
> by Jutes during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and was the first county to be
> Christianized--

The English side of my mother's family come from Kent. It's a large county
bisected by a river called the Medway: those who come from the London side
of the Medway are called Kentish Men and -Maids, and those from the Dover
side are called Men/Maids of Kent (so I am a Maid of Kent, as well as being
a random mix of Irish, Scottish, English, Cornish, Flemish and Shan). It's
where the White Cliffs of Dover are, which symbolise England to the
homecoming mariner.

Kent is called The Garden of England because it's so fertile, and used to be
hugely important for growing food especially tree-born fruits such as apples
and cherries. It's also very important for growing hops and brewing beer.

Also, it's very important for trade, being the closest point to France.
Four of the five great Cinque Ports and all seven of the lesser ports called
the "limbs" of the Cinque Ports are in Kent (the fifth major port, Hastings,
is in neighbouring Sussex) These were the ports which held the shipyards
which built and maintained the king's navy. Smuggling was a major local
industry and tolerated because no king wanted to piss off the Cinque Ports:
in Faversham (one of the "limbs"), where I used to live and where my
mother's fathers family come from, there's still a row of smugglers'
cottages known locally as The Forty Thieves. Many of the shipyards
gradually died because the build-up of land on the east coast meant that the
coast moved farther and farther away over the centuries, but in Richard's
day they were still great powers.

> which, I suppose, explains the importance of the Archbishop of Canterbury
> (Kenterbury?).

Ooh, clever - I used to live in Kent but I never noticed that one. I'm sure
you're right. Canterbury was a major site of pilgrimage - honouring a rebel
saint killed by his king - which added to Kent's power and independent
attitude.

The fact that Kent rose against Richard should not be taken to heart - Kent
rebelled against nearly every king that came along. It's my belief they
knew they were far too important for the Crown to risk antagonising them,
and knew that every king they rebelled against would buy their compliance
with a fresh wave of bribes and concessions. It was basic extortion.