Pre Contract.
Pre Contract.
2013-04-29 17:04:30
Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO PRECONTRACT.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-29 17:49:59
I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract. But history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make the authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville. So in the end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the time were concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and expert to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem refusing to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector, accused the three of plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard had thwarted the plan ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing worthy of execution. The council did, however, agree that the three should be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put the brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before them that they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse of English law to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She was surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have helped her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her children's rights. She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a word against it. What's the old saying: silence is assent? She may have cried and she may have thrown tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not challenge the story of the precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession was a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks in an ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler. Further to that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that there was no need for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's not as if, at any time, they were told to sit down and accept it or lose their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the authorities. He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them* decide what was to be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the precontract was real and its details true, the next parliament ratified that decision as Titilus Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the support of the Three Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never existed. Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no one -- not EW, not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say that Titilus Regius had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that there *was* a precontract.
~Weds
--- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO PRECONTRACT.
>
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and expert to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem refusing to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector, accused the three of plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard had thwarted the plan ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing worthy of execution. The council did, however, agree that the three should be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put the brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before them that they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse of English law to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She was surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have helped her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her children's rights. She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a word against it. What's the old saying: silence is assent? She may have cried and she may have thrown tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not challenge the story of the precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession was a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks in an ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler. Further to that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that there was no need for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's not as if, at any time, they were told to sit down and accept it or lose their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the authorities. He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them* decide what was to be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the precontract was real and its details true, the next parliament ratified that decision as Titilus Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the support of the Three Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never existed. Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no one -- not EW, not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say that Titilus Regius had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that there *was* a precontract.
~Weds
--- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO PRECONTRACT.
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-29 18:33:51
As Stephen just pointed out, the pre-contract was proved to be legit in both John Ashdown-Hill's recent book on Eleanor Talbot/Butler and The Maligned King, where it was shown to have been submitted to the churchly authorities.
But even without all of that, you have to ask yourself the following question:
If Titulus Regius was so "bogus", why did Henry of Richmond, self-styled Tudor, not only have his Parliament repeal it --
-- and not only have it repealed without being read (which was and still is the standard procedure when repealing Acts of Parliament) --
-- but jail or kill anyone who published it, anyone who talked about it, even anyone who simply had a copy of it?
If Titulus Regius was so "bogus" why then did not Henry the usurper, who needed every possible weapon he could lay hands on to justify his killing Richard and seizing the crown, not parade the "bogus" document around as proof of Richard's perfidy?
For that matter, why did Henry fail to make the alleged murders of Edward's sons part of his justification for seizing the throne? Look up the written justification Henry gave to his handpicked Parliament made up of his own attainted followers -- you'll find that Henry based his claim to the throne firstly on his having seized it by force and secondly on his Lancastrian blood ties to Henry VI, ties that were pretty thin as JA-H points out.
Tamara
-----Original Message-----
From: wednesday.mac@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 7:50 am
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract. But
history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make the
authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place between
Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville. So in the
end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the time were
concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and expert
to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem refusing to
execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector, accused the three of
plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard had thwarted the plan
ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing worthy of execution. The
council did, however, agree that the three should be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put the
brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before them that
they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse of English law
to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that
there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been
flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V
would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She was
surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have helped
her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her children's rights.
She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a word against it. What's
the old saying: silence is assent? She may have cried and she may have thrown
tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not challenge the story of the
precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession was
a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks in an
ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler. Further to
that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that there was no need
for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's not as if, at any time,
they were told to sit down and accept it or lose their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the authorities.
He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them* decide what was to
be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the precontract was real
and its details true, the next parliament ratified that decision as Titilus
Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the support of the Three
Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have
ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never existed.
Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no one -- not EW,
not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say that Titilus Regius
had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor
Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have
proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't
marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract
existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not
follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that there
*was* a precontract.
~Weds
--- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law
but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the
question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO
PRECONTRACT.
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
But even without all of that, you have to ask yourself the following question:
If Titulus Regius was so "bogus", why did Henry of Richmond, self-styled Tudor, not only have his Parliament repeal it --
-- and not only have it repealed without being read (which was and still is the standard procedure when repealing Acts of Parliament) --
-- but jail or kill anyone who published it, anyone who talked about it, even anyone who simply had a copy of it?
If Titulus Regius was so "bogus" why then did not Henry the usurper, who needed every possible weapon he could lay hands on to justify his killing Richard and seizing the crown, not parade the "bogus" document around as proof of Richard's perfidy?
For that matter, why did Henry fail to make the alleged murders of Edward's sons part of his justification for seizing the throne? Look up the written justification Henry gave to his handpicked Parliament made up of his own attainted followers -- you'll find that Henry based his claim to the throne firstly on his having seized it by force and secondly on his Lancastrian blood ties to Henry VI, ties that were pretty thin as JA-H points out.
Tamara
-----Original Message-----
From: wednesday.mac@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 7:50 am
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract. But
history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make the
authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place between
Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville. So in the
end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the time were
concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and expert
to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem refusing to
execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector, accused the three of
plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard had thwarted the plan
ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing worthy of execution. The
council did, however, agree that the three should be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put the
brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before them that
they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse of English law
to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that
there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been
flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V
would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She was
surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have helped
her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her children's rights.
She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a word against it. What's
the old saying: silence is assent? She may have cried and she may have thrown
tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not challenge the story of the
precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession was
a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks in an
ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler. Further to
that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that there was no need
for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's not as if, at any time,
they were told to sit down and accept it or lose their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the authorities.
He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them* decide what was to
be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the precontract was real
and its details true, the next parliament ratified that decision as Titilus
Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the support of the Three
Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have
ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never existed.
Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no one -- not EW,
not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say that Titilus Regius
had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor
Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have
proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't
marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract
existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not
follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that there
*was* a precontract.
~Weds
--- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law
but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the
question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO
PRECONTRACT.
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-29 19:31:58
From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> -- you'll find that Henry based his claim to the throne firstly on his
> having seized it by force and secondly on his Lancastrian blood ties to
> Henry VI, ties that were pretty thin as JA-H points out.
Which in a sense is fair enough, since the entire Plantagenet claim derived
from William the Bastard. Note also that after he'd been in power for a few
years Henry acknowledged Richard as a legitimate king whom he had replaced
by conquest, not a usurper whom he had righteously overthrown. Although
there was a definite element of photo-opportunity about Richard's tomb
epitaph - it served to undermine the authority of anybody claiming to be one
of the missing boys - nevertheless it means that Henry publicly endorsed
Richard's legitimate claim, allowing for the fact that as a Lancastrian (of
sorts) he presumably denied the Yorkist claim anyway.
Either Henry was being completely dishonest and two-faced - in which case
there's no reason to assume the face which said "Richard was a usurper" was
any more reliable ntyan the one which said "He was a rightful king" - or
he'd started off believing the version of English politics which was current
at the French court, and once he was in London and had access to firsthand
evidence, he had come to realise that the precontract story was probably
true.
To:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> -- you'll find that Henry based his claim to the throne firstly on his
> having seized it by force and secondly on his Lancastrian blood ties to
> Henry VI, ties that were pretty thin as JA-H points out.
Which in a sense is fair enough, since the entire Plantagenet claim derived
from William the Bastard. Note also that after he'd been in power for a few
years Henry acknowledged Richard as a legitimate king whom he had replaced
by conquest, not a usurper whom he had righteously overthrown. Although
there was a definite element of photo-opportunity about Richard's tomb
epitaph - it served to undermine the authority of anybody claiming to be one
of the missing boys - nevertheless it means that Henry publicly endorsed
Richard's legitimate claim, allowing for the fact that as a Lancastrian (of
sorts) he presumably denied the Yorkist claim anyway.
Either Henry was being completely dishonest and two-faced - in which case
there's no reason to assume the face which said "Richard was a usurper" was
any more reliable ntyan the one which said "He was a rightful king" - or
he'd started off believing the version of English politics which was current
at the French court, and once he was in London and had access to firsthand
evidence, he had come to realise that the precontract story was probably
true.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-29 20:15:40
Gerat post Wednesday - as usual
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 17:49
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract. But history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make the authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville. So in the end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the time were concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and expert to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem refusing to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector, accused the three of plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard had thwarted the plan ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing worthy of execution. The council did, however, agree that the three should be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put the brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before them that they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse of English law to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She was surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have helped her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her children's rights. She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a word against it. What's the old saying: silence is assent? She may have cried and she may have thrown tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not challenge the story of the precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession was a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks in an ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler. Further to that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that there was no need for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's not as if, at any time, they were told to sit down and accept it or lose their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the authorities. He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them* decide what was to be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the precontract was real and its details true, the next parliament ratified that decision as Titilus Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the support of the Three Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never existed. Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no one -- not EW, not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say that Titilus Regius had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that there *was* a precontract.
~Weds
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO PRECONTRACT.
>
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 17:49
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract. But history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make the authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville. So in the end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the time were concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and expert to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem refusing to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector, accused the three of plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard had thwarted the plan ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing worthy of execution. The council did, however, agree that the three should be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put the brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before them that they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse of English law to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She was surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have helped her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her children's rights. She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a word against it. What's the old saying: silence is assent? She may have cried and she may have thrown tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not challenge the story of the precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession was a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks in an ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler. Further to that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that there was no need for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's not as if, at any time, they were told to sit down and accept it or lose their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the authorities. He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them* decide what was to be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the precontract was real and its details true, the next parliament ratified that decision as Titilus Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the support of the Three Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never existed. Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no one -- not EW, not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say that Titilus Regius had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that there *was* a precontract.
~Weds
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Stephenmlark for your considered reply - i am no expert on canon law but i have no doubt these things can be arranged betwixt a King and Pope - the question is irrelevant however as i FIRST stated in my post - THERE WAS NO PRECONTRACT.
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-29 22:01:55
Wednesday wrote:
> [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Carol responds:
Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
"It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
Carol
> [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Carol responds:
Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
"It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 10:30:50
The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the Hancock
theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
I'm still searching.
A couple more questions:
Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
Can anyone help, please?
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Wednesday wrote:
> [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Carol responds:
Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
"It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
Carol
'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the Hancock
theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
I'm still searching.
A couple more questions:
Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
Can anyone help, please?
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Wednesday wrote:
> [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Carol responds:
Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
"It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 12:00:11
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as
> Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a
> modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if,
> given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at
> the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the
> people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are
> satisfied.
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some
> thirty years
Parliament appears to be saying the same thing as you. "If all that is
true, as in very truth it is" presumably means "If this pre-contract story
is true - and we believe it is, even though it was done in secret - "
> There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said
> before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as
> the 'candidate'.
Indeed. If Richard had been the murderous villain that the antis think he
was, why muddy the waters with a pre-contract story at all? Why not simply
arrange for the boys to have an accident, leaving himself as heir?
Mind you - if he had done that, if, hypothetically, he had been
Shakespeare's villain and he had disposed of the boys and then assumed the
throne just because women weren't allowed to rule in their own right, could
a future son of one of Edward's (still legitimate) daughters have ousted him
after he was crowned?
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as
> Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a
> modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if,
> given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at
> the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the
> people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are
> satisfied.
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some
> thirty years
Parliament appears to be saying the same thing as you. "If all that is
true, as in very truth it is" presumably means "If this pre-contract story
is true - and we believe it is, even though it was done in secret - "
> There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said
> before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as
> the 'candidate'.
Indeed. If Richard had been the murderous villain that the antis think he
was, why muddy the waters with a pre-contract story at all? Why not simply
arrange for the boys to have an accident, leaving himself as heir?
Mind you - if he had done that, if, hypothetically, he had been
Shakespeare's villain and he had disposed of the boys and then assumed the
throne just because women weren't allowed to rule in their own right, could
a future son of one of Edward's (still legitimate) daughters have ousted him
after he was crowned?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 12:15:47
Hi, Claire & Everyone
Fascinating discussion!
OK, given the situation after April 1483, if the boys had met with an unfortunate accident or sudden attack of illness, I have no doubt that, had Richard been behind it, the boys' bodies would have been exposed to establish their deaths. That they weren't adds to the evidence in my mind that Richard was not responsible for eliminating them.
However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn't the situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
Love to hear your and others views on this!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as
> Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a
> modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if,
> given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at
> the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the
> people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are
> satisfied.
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some
> thirty years
Parliament appears to be saying the same thing as you. "If all that is
true, as in very truth it is" presumably means "If this pre-contract story
is true - and we believe it is, even though it was done in secret - "
> There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said
> before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as
> the 'candidate'.
Indeed. If Richard had been the murderous villain that the antis think he
was, why muddy the waters with a pre-contract story at all? Why not simply
arrange for the boys to have an accident, leaving himself as heir?
Mind you - if he had done that, if, hypothetically, he had been
Shakespeare's villain and he had disposed of the boys and then assumed the
throne just because women weren't allowed to rule in their own right, could
a future son of one of Edward's (still legitimate) daughters have ousted him
after he was crowned?
Fascinating discussion!
OK, given the situation after April 1483, if the boys had met with an unfortunate accident or sudden attack of illness, I have no doubt that, had Richard been behind it, the boys' bodies would have been exposed to establish their deaths. That they weren't adds to the evidence in my mind that Richard was not responsible for eliminating them.
However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn't the situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
Love to hear your and others views on this!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as
> Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a
> modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if,
> given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at
> the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the
> people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are
> satisfied.
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some
> thirty years
Parliament appears to be saying the same thing as you. "If all that is
true, as in very truth it is" presumably means "If this pre-contract story
is true - and we believe it is, even though it was done in secret - "
> There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said
> before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as
> the 'candidate'.
Indeed. If Richard had been the murderous villain that the antis think he
was, why muddy the waters with a pre-contract story at all? Why not simply
arrange for the boys to have an accident, leaving himself as heir?
Mind you - if he had done that, if, hypothetically, he had been
Shakespeare's villain and he had disposed of the boys and then assumed the
throne just because women weren't allowed to rule in their own right, could
a future son of one of Edward's (still legitimate) daughters have ousted him
after he was crowned?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 12:23:56
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
> However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys
> died without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as
> nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have
> passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative?
That's what I'm wondering. If the answer is that Richard would have been
the heir if the boys died, and that he and his descendants would then have
remained as the legitimate line *even if* one of Edward's daughters later
had a son, then the existence of the pre-contract story is itself a strong
indication that the wasn't Bad Richard - because we know he was a competant
strategist, and if he'd been meaning to go after the throne and dispose of
his nephews all along as per the More/Morton version, there were far tidier
and more efficient ways of going about it. If he was planning to get rid of
the boys, also declaring them illegitimate would have been a needless
complication.
> In effect, wouldn't the situation at that point have been the same as when
> Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
They didn't have a close male relative available, though.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
> However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys
> died without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as
> nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have
> passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative?
That's what I'm wondering. If the answer is that Richard would have been
the heir if the boys died, and that he and his descendants would then have
remained as the legitimate line *even if* one of Edward's daughters later
had a son, then the existence of the pre-contract story is itself a strong
indication that the wasn't Bad Richard - because we know he was a competant
strategist, and if he'd been meaning to go after the throne and dispose of
his nephews all along as per the More/Morton version, there were far tidier
and more efficient ways of going about it. If he was planning to get rid of
the boys, also declaring them illegitimate would have been a needless
complication.
> In effect, wouldn't the situation at that point have been the same as when
> Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
They didn't have a close male relative available, though.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 12:32:25
Hi Johanne, nice to have you back. There was quite a lot of debate which went on throughout the fourteenth century when Edward I tried to botch up primogeniture by saying that his sons or daughters could inherit in preference to his brother Edmund Crouchback (he was fond of Edmund by the way, this wasn't to purposely bar him). Edward III, under pressure from John of Gaunt, reversed this and went back to primogeniture. Richard II ignored primogeniture again by naming the Mortimers as his descendents, ie through Lionel of Clarence's daughter Philippa. Lionel was older than John of Gaunt. Henry IV, in claiming the throne, said all these machinations since Edward I had been wrong and that the English system was inheritance through the male.
So to bring in EOY would mean rasing this all over again. And really who would want to? Women were regarded as 'unnatural' to rule. Even Mary and Elizabeth encountered this; and they got there really because there was no-one else left who was sufficiently near and Protestant. Helen Castor's 'She Wolves' (which includes Margaret of Anjou) is very good on this. Hope this kicks it off!
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 12:15
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, Claire & Everyone
Fascinating discussion!
OK, given the situation after April 1483, if the boys had met with an unfortunate accident or sudden attack of illness, I have no doubt that, had Richard been behind it, the boys' bodies would have been exposed to establish their deaths. That they weren't adds to the evidence in my mind that Richard was not responsible for eliminating them.
However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn't the situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
Love to hear your and others views on this!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as
> Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a
> modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if,
> given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at
> the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the
> people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are
> satisfied.
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some
> thirty years
Parliament appears to be saying the same thing as you. "If all that is
true, as in very truth it is" presumably means "If this pre-contract story
is true - and we believe it is, even though it was done in secret - "
> There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said
> before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as
> the 'candidate'.
Indeed. If Richard had been the murderous villain that the antis think he
was, why muddy the waters with a pre-contract story at all? Why not simply
arrange for the boys to have an accident, leaving himself as heir?
Mind you - if he had done that, if, hypothetically, he had been
Shakespeare's villain and he had disposed of the boys and then assumed the
throne just because women weren't allowed to rule in their own right, could
a future son of one of Edward's (still legitimate) daughters have ousted him
after he was crowned?
So to bring in EOY would mean rasing this all over again. And really who would want to? Women were regarded as 'unnatural' to rule. Even Mary and Elizabeth encountered this; and they got there really because there was no-one else left who was sufficiently near and Protestant. Helen Castor's 'She Wolves' (which includes Margaret of Anjou) is very good on this. Hope this kicks it off!
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 12:15
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, Claire & Everyone
Fascinating discussion!
OK, given the situation after April 1483, if the boys had met with an unfortunate accident or sudden attack of illness, I have no doubt that, had Richard been behind it, the boys' bodies would have been exposed to establish their deaths. That they weren't adds to the evidence in my mind that Richard was not responsible for eliminating them.
However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn't the situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
Love to hear your and others views on this!
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as
> Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a
> modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if,
> given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at
> the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the
> people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are
> satisfied.
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some
> thirty years
Parliament appears to be saying the same thing as you. "If all that is
true, as in very truth it is" presumably means "If this pre-contract story
is true - and we believe it is, even though it was done in secret - "
> There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said
> before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as
> the 'candidate'.
Indeed. If Richard had been the murderous villain that the antis think he
was, why muddy the waters with a pre-contract story at all? Why not simply
arrange for the boys to have an accident, leaving himself as heir?
Mind you - if he had done that, if, hypothetically, he had been
Shakespeare's villain and he had disposed of the boys and then assumed the
throne just because women weren't allowed to rule in their own right, could
a future son of one of Edward's (still legitimate) daughters have ousted him
after he was crowned?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 13:04:13
Good post Hilary. What was the Hancock theory....I have the book but I have not begun to read it...?
eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
> Â
> 'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
> secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
> place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
> church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
> And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
> for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
> troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
> Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
> long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
> the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
> clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
> said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
> law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
> Â
> Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
> Â
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the Hancock
> theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
> Â
> I'm still searching.
> Â
> A couple more questions:
> Â
> Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
> Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
> Â
> Can anyone help, please?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> Â
>
> Wednesday wrote:
>
> > [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
>
> It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
>
> Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
>
> "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
> that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
>
> I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
> throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
> Â
> 'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
> secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
> place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
> church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
> And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
> for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
> troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
> Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
> long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
> the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
> clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
> said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
> law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
> Â
> Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
> Â
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the Hancock
> theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
> Â
> I'm still searching.
> Â
> A couple more questions:
> Â
> Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
> Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
> Â
> Can anyone help, please?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> Â
>
> Wednesday wrote:
>
> > [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
>
> It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
>
> Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
>
> "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
> that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
>
> I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
> throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 13:12:57
Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:04
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Good post Hilary. What was the Hancock theory....I have the book but I have not begun to read it...?
eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
> Â
> 'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
> secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
> place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
> church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
> And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
> for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
> troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
> Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
> long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
> the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
> clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
> said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
> law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
> Â
> Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
> Â
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the
Hancock
> theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
> Â
> I'm still searching.
> Â
> A couple more questions:
> Â
> Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
> Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
> Â
> Can anyone help, please?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> Â
>
> Wednesday wrote:
>
> > [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
>
> It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
>
> Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
>
> "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
> that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
>
> I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
> throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:04
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Good post Hilary. What was the Hancock theory....I have the book but I have not begun to read it...?
eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
> Â
> 'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
> secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
> place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
> church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
> And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
> for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
> troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
> Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
> long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
> the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
> clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
> said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
> law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
> Â
> Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
> Â
> Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the
Hancock
> theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
> Â
> I'm still searching.
> Â
> A couple more questions:
> Â
> Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
> Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
> Â
> Can anyone help, please?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> Â
>
> Wednesday wrote:
>
> > [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
>
> It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
>
> Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
>
> "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
> that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
>
> I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
> throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 13:34:56
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:04
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
>
> Â
>
> Good post Hilary. What was the Hancock theory....I have the book but I have not begun to read it...?
> eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
> > ÂÂ
> > 'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
> > secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
> > place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
> > church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
> > And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
> > for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
> > troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
> > Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
> > long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
> > the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
> > clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
> > said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
> > law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> > sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> > provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> > calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> > the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> > children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> > anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
> > ÂÂ
> > Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
> > ÂÂ
> > Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the
> Hancock
> > theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
> > ÂÂ
> > I'm still searching.
> > ÂÂ
> > A couple more questions:
> > ÂÂ
> > Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
> > Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
> > ÂÂ
> > Can anyone help, please?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
> > Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > > [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
> >
> > It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
> >
> > Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
> >
> > "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
> > that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
> >
> > I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
> > throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:04
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
>
> Â
>
> Good post Hilary. What was the Hancock theory....I have the book but I have not begun to read it...?
> eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > The Parliament rolls of Richard's Parliament actuallly name her:
> > ÂÂ
> > 'And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and
> > secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane
> > place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's
> > church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England.
> > And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and
> > for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and
> > troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of
> > Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony
> > long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in
> > the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it
> > clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the
> > said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the
> > law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> > sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> > provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> > calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> > the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> > children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> > anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England.'
> > ÂÂ
> > Let me clarify where I stand. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. I could not swear that I know that the pre-contract existed because, as Marie says, we don't have the piece of paper (one could almost call it a modern day marriage certificate) which is the final proof: that is if, given the clandestine nature of the pre-contract one was ever drawn up at the time. This statement is ratified by Parliament to ensure that the people know that evidence was presented and that the Lords and Commons are satisfied.
> > ÂÂ
> > Belief is a different thing. I have believed in the pre-contract for some thirty years and I certainly believe Richard did not dream it up to suit his own ends. There would have been other ways to take the Crown, or, as we've said before it would have been easier to name a far less illustrious person as the 'candidate'. JAH's book is an excellent piece of research into Eleanor and the events which preceeded and followed the pre-contract. I still have a 95% belief in this explanation. My 5% centres on the remote possibility that a clergyman such as Stillington (who appears to have roots which spread like an Octopus into the south western gentry and indeed into the Yorkshire gentry) could have been used by Lancastrians to de-stabilise an already de-stablised monarchy. Blame Stephen for putting me on his trail. I also keep bumping into the Catesbys, father, son, uncle, who were also related to Stillington by the 1480s. That takes me closer to the
> Hancock
> > theory, or a blend of his and that of JAH.
> > ÂÂ
> > I'm still searching.
> > ÂÂ
> > A couple more questions:
> > ÂÂ
> > Where was Stillington during Edward's final Parliament in 1483 - he wasn't there to hear pleas as he normally was
> > Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
> > ÂÂ
> > Can anyone help, please?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 29 April 2013, 22:01
> > Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > > [snip] A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation, it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Not a contemporary chronicler. Croyland actually mentions the petition by the Three Estates and names Dame Eleanor Boteler. Mancini, if I recall correctly, gives no names but mentions several sermons stating either that King Edward was illegitimate (which he regards as a lie despite earlier having cited the rumor that Cecily disowned him as a bastard) and that his children were illegitimate (which he also regards as a lie). As far as is known, there was really only one sermon, Ralph Shaa's, which mentioned the precontract but not Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy. (As even More admits, Richard would not have wanted to publicly shame his mother.)
> >
> > It was more who made up the Elizabeth Lucy story (in which Cecily tells Edward that he can't marry Elizabeth Woodville because he has already promised to marry Elizabeth Lucy and impregnated her) as "proof" that there was no precontract since everyone knew that Elizabeth Lucy (or whatever her real name was) had openly been Edward's mistress. We know, thanks to Titulus Regius, that the story is nonsense. I suspect that Master More knew it, too.
> >
> > Anyway, here is what the Croyland chronicler (who preserved the copy of Titulus Regius that Buck later found) has to say on the matter:
> >
> > "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." Of course, CC presents this election as "an act of usurpation" and suggests that the parchment roll was composed in advance by someone in the North, but he nevertheless presents an accurate summary of the document. Possibly, he was protecting himself in case Tudor, Morton, or Margaret Beaufort somehow found out
> > that he had violated Henry's edict about burning it unread--or this summary didn't count because it related to the original document, not to the copy in Titulus Regius. Still, he somehow had a copy of the original document, so I take it he was in Parliament as a member of the clergy when it was passed.
> >
> > I meant to mention that the clergy continued to approve of Richard (ringo, this is for you). After his Parliament, which passed a number of reforms, they beseeched him to help them. Seeing [his] most noble and blessed disposition in all other things," they presented him with a petition after Parliament asking him "as a most Catholic prince" to confirm the liberties of the church and provide a remedy for their grievances, including the tendency of many churchmen to pay more attention to secular affairs than to their clerical duties. The signers included his chancellor, Bishop Russell; the Bishop of Winchester, Waynflete, admired for his piety and learning by Henry VI; John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even the former Woodville adherent, Rotherham, Archbishop of York! (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112-113). An odd way to address a usurper who had unrighteously seized his nephew's
> > throne. As Williamson says, "It is not in the partisan gossip of chroniclers, but in the written laws, acts of parliament, the whole recorded governance of a reign, that we read incontrovertible truth" (112).
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 13:57:47
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 14:07:16
Hi, Hilary
Thanks for the welcome! It's good to be back! But I must say, my mind boggles when I read stuff like the below. I think maybe an interactive webpage with circles and arrows to indicate the shifting inheritances might help me.
I am also wondering if there was a principle at work here, or were the parties winging it to a certain extent for expediency's sake (like the case of Bolingbroke taking the throne from RII). I seem to recall reading that many people in the 15th. century thought God was punishing England because they had violated His law as to who had the right to become king. Thus the descent to internecine warfare.
But I do think that Richard was a fellow who believed in the rule of law and all that very sincerely, thus the declaration of the pre-contract and the invalidity of Edward's marriage would have been a deal-breaker for him, thus giving him no choice (in his view) but to assume the throne.
I have a gut feeling that the illegitimacy of Edward's children was necessary to bar all of his children from the throne, including EoY. If the kids were legitimate, and Edward V was declared Edward V, and then he and Richard DoY died, I *think* EoY would have been their heir . . . but it is just that, a gut feeling, so I certainly stand to be corrected.
TTFN J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi Johanne, nice to have you back. There was quite a lot of debate which went on throughout the fourteenth century when Edward I tried to botch up primogeniture by saying that his sons or daughters could inherit in preference to his brother Edmund Crouchback (he was fond of Edmund by the way, this wasn't to purposely bar him). Edward III, under pressure from John of Gaunt, reversed this and went back to primogeniture. Richard II ignored primogeniture again by naming the Mortimers as his descendents, ie through Lionel of Clarence's daughter Philippa. Lionel was older than John of Gaunt. Henry IV, in claiming the throne, said all these machinations since Edward I had been wrong and that the English system was inheritance through the male.
So to bring in EOY would mean rasing this all over again. And really who would want to? Women were regarded as 'unnatural' to rule. Even Mary and Elizabeth encountered this; and they got there really because there was no-one else left who was sufficiently near and Protestant. Helen Castor's 'She Wolves' (which includes Margaret of Anjou) is very good on this. Hope this kicks it off!
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmQ4NXY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-?o=6> New Members 4
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdsdnA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-> New Photos 1
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbDJlbGNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzMyMTU0OA--> Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121eoc1oi,aid$itHMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1215u4j9q,aid$b9fMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121k52b44,aid$VN3MB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNWpvY3UwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzIxNTQ5> Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=34711/stime=1367321549/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Thanks for the welcome! It's good to be back! But I must say, my mind boggles when I read stuff like the below. I think maybe an interactive webpage with circles and arrows to indicate the shifting inheritances might help me.
I am also wondering if there was a principle at work here, or were the parties winging it to a certain extent for expediency's sake (like the case of Bolingbroke taking the throne from RII). I seem to recall reading that many people in the 15th. century thought God was punishing England because they had violated His law as to who had the right to become king. Thus the descent to internecine warfare.
But I do think that Richard was a fellow who believed in the rule of law and all that very sincerely, thus the declaration of the pre-contract and the invalidity of Edward's marriage would have been a deal-breaker for him, thus giving him no choice (in his view) but to assume the throne.
I have a gut feeling that the illegitimacy of Edward's children was necessary to bar all of his children from the throne, including EoY. If the kids were legitimate, and Edward V was declared Edward V, and then he and Richard DoY died, I *think* EoY would have been their heir . . . but it is just that, a gut feeling, so I certainly stand to be corrected.
TTFN J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi Johanne, nice to have you back. There was quite a lot of debate which went on throughout the fourteenth century when Edward I tried to botch up primogeniture by saying that his sons or daughters could inherit in preference to his brother Edmund Crouchback (he was fond of Edmund by the way, this wasn't to purposely bar him). Edward III, under pressure from John of Gaunt, reversed this and went back to primogeniture. Richard II ignored primogeniture again by naming the Mortimers as his descendents, ie through Lionel of Clarence's daughter Philippa. Lionel was older than John of Gaunt. Henry IV, in claiming the throne, said all these machinations since Edward I had been wrong and that the English system was inheritance through the male.
So to bring in EOY would mean rasing this all over again. And really who would want to? Women were regarded as 'unnatural' to rule. Even Mary and Elizabeth encountered this; and they got there really because there was no-one else left who was sufficiently near and Protestant. Helen Castor's 'She Wolves' (which includes Margaret of Anjou) is very good on this. Hope this kicks it off!
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmQ4NXY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-?o=6> New Members 4
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdsdnA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-> New Photos 1
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbDJlbGNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzMyMTU0OA--> Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121eoc1oi,aid$itHMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1215u4j9q,aid$b9fMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121k52b44,aid$VN3MB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNWpvY3UwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzIxNTQ5> Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=34711/stime=1367321549/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 14:18:01
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
> What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king.
More than that - it would be a betrayal of the English succession, since it
would mean Hastings had conspired with Edward to place a bastard on the
throne and Richard evidently thought that legitimacy mattered (personally I
don't - I think what matters is how much of the "Blood Royal" the king has,
however he came by it - but Richard thought it mattered). And Richard would
want to believe it was mainly Hastings' fault, because he wouldn't want to
believe the extent to which his brother had cynically betrayed the kingdom
(as he would probably see it) just to get his end away.
Incidentally, if the "three mistresses" Edward referred to *weren't* all
Jane Shore, as I've always assumed, but were three different women, could he
have been making a dangerous joke and could one of them have been EW? *He*
knew she was really only his mistress, even though she probably didn't.
> whereas Henry pardoned Stillington
That might just mean that Henry was too good a Catholic to execute a cleric,
though, just like Richard with Morton.
> Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life.
That presupposes that Richard really did mean to kill a hostage who hadn't
(recently) done anything himself to deserve it, which I'm reluctant to
believe.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
> What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king.
More than that - it would be a betrayal of the English succession, since it
would mean Hastings had conspired with Edward to place a bastard on the
throne and Richard evidently thought that legitimacy mattered (personally I
don't - I think what matters is how much of the "Blood Royal" the king has,
however he came by it - but Richard thought it mattered). And Richard would
want to believe it was mainly Hastings' fault, because he wouldn't want to
believe the extent to which his brother had cynically betrayed the kingdom
(as he would probably see it) just to get his end away.
Incidentally, if the "three mistresses" Edward referred to *weren't* all
Jane Shore, as I've always assumed, but were three different women, could he
have been making a dangerous joke and could one of them have been EW? *He*
knew she was really only his mistress, even though she probably didn't.
> whereas Henry pardoned Stillington
That might just mean that Henry was too good a Catholic to execute a cleric,
though, just like Richard with Morton.
> Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life.
That presupposes that Richard really did mean to kill a hostage who hadn't
(recently) done anything himself to deserve it, which I'm reluctant to
believe.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 15:29:49
Can I just say that it's nothing to do with Hancock being American per se. Just that if he'd looked at a few more Northants churches he would have realised that several have ceilings like Ashby St Ledger and Burton Dassett (Warks) and he claims that the Catesbys coveted Chipping Dorset (Burton Dassett) because they wanted to create a market there when there was one up the road at Chipping Warden. What they actually coveted was nearby Ladbroke, which they'd been in dispute over for many years.
Yes the Catesbys were intertwined with the Butlers - Catesby senior married Joan Barre who was Eleanor's cousin. But the Catesbys had been MPs for Coventry since the early 1300s and were favoured by the Black Prince to carry out a number of hearings. They'd taken on Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and became retainers to his son Richard. No doubt Richard Neville also took them on as did Clarence. In other words they'd been on the make for a very long time, by service and marriage. And they'd continue to be so for another century afterwards, but locally, not nationally.
I'm actually ambivalent to Catesby. But Stillington wasn't this poor old man. For a start he owned Marylebone and Great Sambridge in London, plus manors in Yorkshire. Must have been worth a fortune. How did he come to own that? And Stillington was also related through the marriage and inheritance of his granddaughter to the Barres/Butlers
It's a good theory and a good read but nowhere near as thorough as JAH.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:55
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Yes the Catesbys were intertwined with the Butlers - Catesby senior married Joan Barre who was Eleanor's cousin. But the Catesbys had been MPs for Coventry since the early 1300s and were favoured by the Black Prince to carry out a number of hearings. They'd taken on Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and became retainers to his son Richard. No doubt Richard Neville also took them on as did Clarence. In other words they'd been on the make for a very long time, by service and marriage. And they'd continue to be so for another century afterwards, but locally, not nationally.
I'm actually ambivalent to Catesby. But Stillington wasn't this poor old man. For a start he owned Marylebone and Great Sambridge in London, plus manors in Yorkshire. Must have been worth a fortune. How did he come to own that? And Stillington was also related through the marriage and inheritance of his granddaughter to the Barres/Butlers
It's a good theory and a good read but nowhere near as thorough as JAH.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:55
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 15:36:45
I agree with all that you say. Whilst you were away we had a good discussion on H4; in lots of ways he's a good parallel to H7. The usurpation/takeover/call it what you will, justified or not, never went away and H4 had a much more justified reason than HT. It does make you wonder whether it would have been the same longterm for Richard. Perhaps it takes a generation to forget; there would be many who remembered and fought for Edward in his prime. Uneasy lies the head.
And I certainly agree with your point about winging it.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:07
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, Hilary
Thanks for the welcome! It's good to be back! But I must say, my mind boggles when I read stuff like the below. I think maybe an interactive webpage with circles and arrows to indicate the shifting inheritances might help me.
I am also wondering if there was a principle at work here, or were the parties winging it to a certain extent for expediency's sake (like the case of Bolingbroke taking the throne from RII). I seem to recall reading that many people in the 15th. century thought God was punishing England because they had violated His law as to who had the right to become king. Thus the descent to internecine warfare.
But I do think that Richard was a fellow who believed in the rule of law and all that very sincerely, thus the declaration of the pre-contract and the invalidity of Edward's marriage would have been a deal-breaker for him, thus giving him no choice (in his view) but to assume the throne.
I have a gut feeling that the illegitimacy of Edward's children was necessary to bar all of his children from the throne, including EoY. If the kids were legitimate, and Edward V was declared Edward V, and then he and Richard DoY died, I *think* EoY would have been their heir . . . but it is just that, a gut feeling, so I certainly stand to be corrected.
TTFN J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi Johanne, nice to have you back. There was quite a lot of debate which went on throughout the fourteenth century when Edward I tried to botch up primogeniture by saying that his sons or daughters could inherit in preference to his brother Edmund Crouchback (he was fond of Edmund by the way, this wasn't to purposely bar him). Edward III, under pressure from John of Gaunt, reversed this and went back to primogeniture. Richard II ignored primogeniture again by naming the Mortimers as his descendents, ie through Lionel of Clarence's daughter Philippa. Lionel was older than John of Gaunt. Henry IV, in claiming the throne, said all these machinations since Edward I had been wrong and that the English system was inheritance through the male.
So to bring in EOY would mean rasing this all over again. And really who would want to? Women were regarded as 'unnatural' to rule. Even Mary and Elizabeth encountered this; and they got there really because there was no-one else left who was sufficiently near and Protestant. Helen Castor's 'She Wolves' (which includes Margaret of Anjou) is very good on this. Hope this kicks it off!
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmQ4NXY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-?o=6> New Members 4
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdsdnA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-> New Photos 1
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbDJlbGNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzMyMTU0OA--> Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121eoc1oi,aid$itHMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1215u4j9q,aid$b9fMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121k52b44,aid$VN3MB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNWpvY3UwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzIxNTQ5> Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=34711/stime=1367321549/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
And I certainly agree with your point about winging it.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 14:07
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, Hilary
Thanks for the welcome! It's good to be back! But I must say, my mind boggles when I read stuff like the below. I think maybe an interactive webpage with circles and arrows to indicate the shifting inheritances might help me.
I am also wondering if there was a principle at work here, or were the parties winging it to a certain extent for expediency's sake (like the case of Bolingbroke taking the throne from RII). I seem to recall reading that many people in the 15th. century thought God was punishing England because they had violated His law as to who had the right to become king. Thus the descent to internecine warfare.
But I do think that Richard was a fellow who believed in the rule of law and all that very sincerely, thus the declaration of the pre-contract and the invalidity of Edward's marriage would have been a deal-breaker for him, thus giving him no choice (in his view) but to assume the throne.
I have a gut feeling that the illegitimacy of Edward's children was necessary to bar all of his children from the throne, including EoY. If the kids were legitimate, and Edward V was declared Edward V, and then he and Richard DoY died, I *think* EoY would have been their heir . . . but it is just that, a gut feeling, so I certainly stand to be corrected.
TTFN J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi Johanne, nice to have you back. There was quite a lot of debate which went on throughout the fourteenth century when Edward I tried to botch up primogeniture by saying that his sons or daughters could inherit in preference to his brother Edmund Crouchback (he was fond of Edmund by the way, this wasn't to purposely bar him). Edward III, under pressure from John of Gaunt, reversed this and went back to primogeniture. Richard II ignored primogeniture again by naming the Mortimers as his descendents, ie through Lionel of Clarence's daughter Philippa. Lionel was older than John of Gaunt. Henry IV, in claiming the throne, said all these machinations since Edward I had been wrong and that the English system was inheritance through the male.
So to bring in EOY would mean rasing this all over again. And really who would want to? Women were regarded as 'unnatural' to rule. Even Mary and Elizabeth encountered this; and they got there really because there was no-one else left who was sufficiently near and Protestant. Helen Castor's 'She Wolves' (which includes Margaret of Anjou) is very good on this. Hope this kicks it off!
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmQ4NXY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-?o=6> New Members 4
· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdsdnA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjczMjE1NDg-> New Photos 1
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbDJlbGNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzMyMTU0OA--> Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121eoc1oi,aid$itHMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1215u4j9q,aid$b9fMB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132nv5oea(gid$a50d0cae-b189-11e2-b189-ef0b5286fff6,st$1367321551227052,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121k52b44,aid$VN3MB2KL4Nw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNWpvY3UwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzIxNTQ5> Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=34711/stime=1367321549/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 15:48:06
Just wanted to congratulate you on an outstanding summary! Logical,
complete, all in all an A+!
(I'd forgotten about EW never challenging Stillington.)
Doug
wednesday_mc wrote:
"I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract.
But history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make
the authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place
between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville.
So in the end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the
time were concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and
expert to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem
refusing to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector,
accused the three of plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard
had thwarted the plan ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing
worthy of execution. The council did, however, agree that the three should
be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put
the brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before
them that they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse
of English law to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that
there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been
flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V
would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She
was surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have
helped her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her
children's rights. She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a
word against it. What's the old saying: silence is assent? She may have
cried and she may have thrown tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not
challenge the story of the precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession
was a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks
in an ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler.
Further to that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that
there was no need for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's
not as if, at any time, they were told to sit down and accept it or lose
their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the
authorities. He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them*
decide what was to be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the
precontract was real and its details true, the next parliament ratified that
decision as Titilus Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the
support of the Three Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have
ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never
existed. Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no
one -- not EW, not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say
that Titilus Regius had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor
Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians
have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward
didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a
precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation,
it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that
there *was* a precontract."
complete, all in all an A+!
(I'd forgotten about EW never challenging Stillington.)
Doug
wednesday_mc wrote:
"I suppose it's possible you're right and there was no actual precontract.
But history says that Stillington presented evidence solid enough to make
the authorities who mattered *believe* a valid marriage had taken place
between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV before he married Elizabeth Woodville.
So in the end, there was a precontract as far as those in authority at the
time were concerned.
Edward V's council (which had a great many bishops loyal to the law and
expert to that law, rather than being loyal to Richard) had no problem
refusing to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughn when Richard, as Protector,
accused the three of plotting to murder him. They pointed out that Richard
had thwarted the plan ahead of time, and so the three had done nothing
worthy of execution. The council did, however, agree that the three should
be kept in custody.
My point here is that the bishops on the council knew very well how to put
the brakes on an over-enthusiastic Protector when he laid a matter before
them that they didn't agree with. They knew how to quote chapter and verse
of English law to squelch things.
Edward V's council also had no problem accepting Stillington's evidence that
there *was* a precontract. If Stillington's testimony or evidence had been
flawed, it never would have made it past those bishops, and little Edward V
would have been crowned as scheduled in June.
Also, Elizabeth Woodville was in sanctuary at Westminster for months. She
was surrounded by... ecclesiasticals... who could have and gladly would have
helped her challenge the validity of the precontract and secure her
children's rights. She did not challenge the precontract, she never said a
word against it. What's the old saying: silence is assent? She may have
cried and she may have thrown tantrums while in sanctuary, but she did not
challenge the story of the precontract.
You might also consider that the matter of the precontract and the accession
was a dynastic emergency. England didn't have time to putter about for weeks
in an ecclesiastical court while the country remained without a ruler.
Further to that, perhaps the bishops/archbishops consulted advised that
there was no need for an ecclesiastical court to review the evidence? It's
not as if, at any time, they were told to sit down and accept it or lose
their heads.
Richard took Stillington and his evidence and placed it before the
authorities. He let *them* decide if the evidence was sound. He let *them*
decide what was to be done with it. Not only did the council accept that the
precontract was real and its details true, the next parliament ratified that
decision as Titilus Regius. Richard took the throne legally and with the
support of the Three Estates.
Henry VII also accepted the precontract as real, else he would never have
ordered TR repealed unread, and all copies destroyed as if it had never
existed. Even after he married E of Y and her mother EW was at court, no
one -- not EW, not a bishop, not an archbishop -- stepped forward to say
that Titilus Regius had been based on a precontract that was a lie.
A contemporary chronicler tries to switch Elizabeth Lucy in place of Eleanor
Butler in an attempt to discredit the precontract story, but as historians
have proven, that's a deliberate attempt to mislead readers because Edward
didn't marry Lucy; he married Butler. The contemporary chronicler admits a
precontract existed. The attempted deception follows from that foundation,
it does not follow from a foundation of, "There was no precontract."
Whatever Stillington presented, it convinced the people who mattered that
there *was* a precontract."
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 16:23:37
Thanks for that Johanne..all interesting stuff I must say....I have started on Jones Bosworth book...just...and I had Hancock's book to read after that. I might do a swop now...
How true that Hastings would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth...on the other hand it is my belief that Hastings was executed because he was involved in an assassination attempt on Richard and Buckies's lives...an article I read in the Bulletin convinced me on this and I have seen nothing to change my mind since then...so...will have to wait and see if Hancock can turn me :0) Having said that, I cannot believe that Edward did not tell his best buddy Hastings at some time over the years that he was a bigamist. Although what effect that would have had on Hastings I would not know..obviously..although it does seem as if Hastings could not stomach having young Edward removed from the throne, illigitimate or not. Honestly we can only guess what thoughts, motives and intentions run through their brains 500 years ago. Sometimes I cannot stand it....I need to know..and I need to know NOW! eileen...
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All -
>
>
>
> Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
> certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
> American without Hilary saying so.
>
>
>
> I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
> Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
> speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
> that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
> information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
> rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
> his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
> Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
> Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
> as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
> have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
>
>
>
> Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
> Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
> long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
> secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
> party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
> Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
> Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
> And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
> to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
> after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
> lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
> all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
> almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
> (presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
> stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
> Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
> potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
> who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
> orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
> when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
> Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
> with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
> letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
> shortly before his execution.
>
>
>
> All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
> some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
> Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
> appendices in the book.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
> nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
> change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
> Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
> based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
> proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
> JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
> knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
> Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
> nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
> always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
> on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
> >
> >
>
> _____
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
> e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
> e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
How true that Hastings would have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth...on the other hand it is my belief that Hastings was executed because he was involved in an assassination attempt on Richard and Buckies's lives...an article I read in the Bulletin convinced me on this and I have seen nothing to change my mind since then...so...will have to wait and see if Hancock can turn me :0) Having said that, I cannot believe that Edward did not tell his best buddy Hastings at some time over the years that he was a bigamist. Although what effect that would have had on Hastings I would not know..obviously..although it does seem as if Hastings could not stomach having young Edward removed from the throne, illigitimate or not. Honestly we can only guess what thoughts, motives and intentions run through their brains 500 years ago. Sometimes I cannot stand it....I need to know..and I need to know NOW! eileen...
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All -
>
>
>
> Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
> certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
> American without Hilary saying so.
>
>
>
> I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
> Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
> speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
> that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
> information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
> rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
> his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
> Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
> Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
> as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
> have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
>
>
>
> Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
> Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
> long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
> secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
> party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
> Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
> Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
> And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
> to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
> after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
> lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
> all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
> almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
> (presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
> stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
> Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
> potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
> who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
> orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
> when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
> Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
> with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
> letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
> shortly before his execution.
>
>
>
> All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
> some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
> Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
> appendices in the book.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
> nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
> change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
> Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
> based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
> proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
> JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
> knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
> Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
> nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
> always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
> on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
> >
> >
>
> _____
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
> e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
> e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 16:55:27
Johanne Tournier wrote:
"Hi, Claire & Everyone
Fascinating discussion!
OK, given the situation after April 1483, if the boys had met with an
unfortunate accident or sudden attack of illness, I have no doubt that,
had Richard been behind it, the boys' bodies would have been exposed to
establish their deaths. That they weren't adds to the evidence in my mind
that Richard was not responsible for eliminating them.
However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died
without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as
nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed
to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn't the situation
at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited
the throne after Edward VI died?"
Doug here:
As best I understand it, Elizabeth of York *would* have been, after her
brothers, her father's heir. The question is: would *her* inheritance also
have included the throne? That would, I think, have depended on the
circumstances. While Parliament didn't have the right to arbitrarily pick
just *anyone* to be king (or queen), it *was* in a position to offer the
crown to someone it thought better able to carry out those duties and
responsibilities, especially if the choice was between, say, the sixteen
year-old daughter of the previous king (or sister, if Edward [V] had died
after his father), inexperienced in almost everything, and her uncle (the
brother/uncle of the previous king), with his demonstrated military and
adminstrative abilities.
So, even without the pre-contract, and had Edward (V) and his brother died
(a recurrence of the Plague?) without male issue, there's a very good chance
Richard would have become king anyway.
It was to prevent just such a possibility (Parliament offering the crown to
someone *other* than his daughters), that Henry VIII's will named Mary and
Elizabeth as Edward's heirs. Their succeeding to the throne was undoubtedly
helped by the fact that, *until* the birth of Edward, both Elizabeth and
Mary had, at different times, been Henry's actual, designated heirs. Henry
was respected enough, and feared enough, so that his wishes as set out in
his will were carried out after his death.
I also doubt it hurt their chances that, after Mary and Elizabeth, the next
in line to the throne was Mary, aka "Queen of Scots", betrothed then married
to heir to the *French* throne!
Doug
"Hi, Claire & Everyone
Fascinating discussion!
OK, given the situation after April 1483, if the boys had met with an
unfortunate accident or sudden attack of illness, I have no doubt that,
had Richard been behind it, the boys' bodies would have been exposed to
establish their deaths. That they weren't adds to the evidence in my mind
that Richard was not responsible for eliminating them.
However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died
without being illegitimated would Richard have been their heir, as
nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed
to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn't the situation
at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited
the throne after Edward VI died?"
Doug here:
As best I understand it, Elizabeth of York *would* have been, after her
brothers, her father's heir. The question is: would *her* inheritance also
have included the throne? That would, I think, have depended on the
circumstances. While Parliament didn't have the right to arbitrarily pick
just *anyone* to be king (or queen), it *was* in a position to offer the
crown to someone it thought better able to carry out those duties and
responsibilities, especially if the choice was between, say, the sixteen
year-old daughter of the previous king (or sister, if Edward [V] had died
after his father), inexperienced in almost everything, and her uncle (the
brother/uncle of the previous king), with his demonstrated military and
adminstrative abilities.
So, even without the pre-contract, and had Edward (V) and his brother died
(a recurrence of the Plague?) without male issue, there's a very good chance
Richard would have become king anyway.
It was to prevent just such a possibility (Parliament offering the crown to
someone *other* than his daughters), that Henry VIII's will named Mary and
Elizabeth as Edward's heirs. Their succeeding to the throne was undoubtedly
helped by the fact that, *until* the birth of Edward, both Elizabeth and
Mary had, at different times, been Henry's actual, designated heirs. Henry
was respected enough, and feared enough, so that his wishes as set out in
his will were carried out after his death.
I also doubt it hurt their chances that, after Mary and Elizabeth, the next
in line to the throne was Mary, aka "Queen of Scots", betrothed then married
to heir to the *French* throne!
Doug
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 17:16:53
With regard to your last paragraph Claire, Lord Strange was the son of Stanley and Eleanor Neville ( I think it was Eleanor, certainly one of Warwick's sisters and cousin to Cecily) and Richard would be reluctant to kill a relative.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
>
>
> > What he says is, given the
> speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
> that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
> information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
> rightful king.
>
> More than that - it would be a betrayal of the English succession, since it
> would mean Hastings had conspired with Edward to place a bastard on the
> throne and Richard evidently thought that legitimacy mattered (personally I
> don't - I think what matters is how much of the "Blood Royal" the king has,
> however he came by it - but Richard thought it mattered). And Richard would
> want to believe it was mainly Hastings' fault, because he wouldn't want to
> believe the extent to which his brother had cynically betrayed the kingdom
> (as he would probably see it) just to get his end away.
>
> Incidentally, if the "three mistresses" Edward referred to *weren't* all
> Jane Shore, as I've always assumed, but were three different women, could he
> have been making a dangerous joke and could one of them have been EW? *He*
> knew she was really only his mistress, even though she probably didn't.
>
> > whereas Henry pardoned Stillington
>
> That might just mean that Henry was too good a Catholic to execute a cleric,
> though, just like Richard with Morton.
>
> > Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
> who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
> orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
> when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life.
>
> That presupposes that Richard really did mean to kill a hostage who hadn't
> (recently) done anything himself to deserve it, which I'm reluctant to
> believe.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
>
>
> > What he says is, given the
> speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
> that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
> information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
> rightful king.
>
> More than that - it would be a betrayal of the English succession, since it
> would mean Hastings had conspired with Edward to place a bastard on the
> throne and Richard evidently thought that legitimacy mattered (personally I
> don't - I think what matters is how much of the "Blood Royal" the king has,
> however he came by it - but Richard thought it mattered). And Richard would
> want to believe it was mainly Hastings' fault, because he wouldn't want to
> believe the extent to which his brother had cynically betrayed the kingdom
> (as he would probably see it) just to get his end away.
>
> Incidentally, if the "three mistresses" Edward referred to *weren't* all
> Jane Shore, as I've always assumed, but were three different women, could he
> have been making a dangerous joke and could one of them have been EW? *He*
> knew she was really only his mistress, even though she probably didn't.
>
> > whereas Henry pardoned Stillington
>
> That might just mean that Henry was too good a Catholic to execute a cleric,
> though, just like Richard with Morton.
>
> > Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
> who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
> orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
> when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life.
>
> That presupposes that Richard really did mean to kill a hostage who hadn't
> (recently) done anything himself to deserve it, which I'm reluctant to
> believe.
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 17:21:19
Hilary Jones wrote:
> A couple more questions:
> Â
> [snip]
> Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
Carol responds:
It depends on the date in October. Apparently, he attended Henry Tudor's coronation (from which we need not infer loyalty to Henry considering that Henry's mother and Buckingham had prominent roles in Richard's!) on October [?] according to girders.net (which, I agree, is not particularly reliable, especially with regard to Morton, but here he names his source as a Ricardian article, vol. 53, pp.23-27, which I haven't seen). Earlier in October, he must have been still in prison in York (or traveling to London on his way to the coronation). As for "far from his diocese," he doesn't seem to have been near it very often! He may have remained in London, watched by Henry's men, until he received a general pardon on November 22.
What was the date of Henry's Parliament, at which Henry made sure that Stillington did *not* appear (another sign that Titulus Regius was probably based on solid evidence that Henry didn't want *his* Parliament to see or hear. (I still want to know who attended both Henry's first and Richard's only Parliament. Possibly, those men kept their mouths shut for fear of retribution from Tudor. Of course, it's hard to present evidence either for or against an act of Parliament if that act remains unread!)
The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in the Simnel conspiracy. My hunch is that if he did go abroad (probably after rather than before his pardon since that Henry would have pardoned him for going there), it was to Margaret's court in Burgundy.
The articles in question, which might answer your questions, are "Robert Stillington" by A, J. Mowat, vol. 53 (June 1976), pp. 23-28, and "A Further Account of Robert Stillington" by W. E. Hampton, vol. 54 (September 1976), pp. 24-27. (Oh, for the good old days when the Ricardian came out four times a year!) There are two other articles devoted to Stillington, two to the precontract, and thirteen(!), not all of them by J A-H, to Eleanor Talbot/Butler.
To return to Stillington, did he have any specific connections with Viscount Lovell or the Earl of Lincoln, the instigators (with Margaret) of the rebellion? Or was Burgundy simply the obvious place for a Yorkist sympathizer who had testified that Edward's sons and daughters were illegitimate to go after Bosworth (assuming that he went there, and his implication in the conspiracy suggests that he did? I can't see him working with Elizabeth Woodville or her son Dorset, both also implicated.)
It just occurred to me that *Rous* should have been involved in a conspiracy to place the young Earl of Warwick (not Edward's sons) on the throne. Hmmm. Maybe he was and showed his "regret" by turning into Henry's tool?
Carol
> A couple more questions:
> Â
> [snip]
> Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
Carol responds:
It depends on the date in October. Apparently, he attended Henry Tudor's coronation (from which we need not infer loyalty to Henry considering that Henry's mother and Buckingham had prominent roles in Richard's!) on October [?] according to girders.net (which, I agree, is not particularly reliable, especially with regard to Morton, but here he names his source as a Ricardian article, vol. 53, pp.23-27, which I haven't seen). Earlier in October, he must have been still in prison in York (or traveling to London on his way to the coronation). As for "far from his diocese," he doesn't seem to have been near it very often! He may have remained in London, watched by Henry's men, until he received a general pardon on November 22.
What was the date of Henry's Parliament, at which Henry made sure that Stillington did *not* appear (another sign that Titulus Regius was probably based on solid evidence that Henry didn't want *his* Parliament to see or hear. (I still want to know who attended both Henry's first and Richard's only Parliament. Possibly, those men kept their mouths shut for fear of retribution from Tudor. Of course, it's hard to present evidence either for or against an act of Parliament if that act remains unread!)
The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in the Simnel conspiracy. My hunch is that if he did go abroad (probably after rather than before his pardon since that Henry would have pardoned him for going there), it was to Margaret's court in Burgundy.
The articles in question, which might answer your questions, are "Robert Stillington" by A, J. Mowat, vol. 53 (June 1976), pp. 23-28, and "A Further Account of Robert Stillington" by W. E. Hampton, vol. 54 (September 1976), pp. 24-27. (Oh, for the good old days when the Ricardian came out four times a year!) There are two other articles devoted to Stillington, two to the precontract, and thirteen(!), not all of them by J A-H, to Eleanor Talbot/Butler.
To return to Stillington, did he have any specific connections with Viscount Lovell or the Earl of Lincoln, the instigators (with Margaret) of the rebellion? Or was Burgundy simply the obvious place for a Yorkist sympathizer who had testified that Edward's sons and daughters were illegitimate to go after Bosworth (assuming that he went there, and his implication in the conspiracy suggests that he did? I can't see him working with Elizabeth Woodville or her son Dorset, both also implicated.)
It just occurred to me that *Rous* should have been involved in a conspiracy to place the young Earl of Warwick (not Edward's sons) on the throne. Hmmm. Maybe he was and showed his "regret" by turning into Henry's tool?
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 17:28:49
Hi, Hilary
I haven't read JAH's book on Eleanor yet, so I can't say anything about it from personal experience. But Hancock credits him as the source of his info on Eleanor. However, I also thought the suggestion that Hancock makes of the Virgin in the Church possibly being based on Eleanor was not only quite speculative, but I really didn't see what relevance it had to the rest of the book. I think it was just one of those flights of fancy the portrait could be modeled on *any* lady of the day, really.
Also, I agree with you that the fact that Catesby's family was upwardly mobile doesn't mean that *our* Catesby wasn't uncommonly ambitious. However, regardless of the other facts of the case, I think the fact that Catesby *did* benefit under Richard's reign, in contrast to Stillington, is a possible clue that it may have been Catesby who disclosed the pre-contract to Richard. It just seems to make sense, in the whole scheme of things. Stillington may have been wealthy he may well have benefitted under Edward he was Edward's Chancellor, wasn't he? The main thing is that Stillington doesn't seem to have profited after 13 June 1483, in contrast to Catesby. And, again, as you say, perhaps H7 scrupled not to kill a man of the cloth. But if Stillington performed at Henry's coronation, that suggests to me that he was, more or less, in Henry's good graces at that point, don't you think?
Thanks for your perspicacious comments! As I said, this is a fascinating discussion. I know very little personally about these questions, but I think it is worthwhile to present some of Hancock's arguments for everyone's consideration. I envy you if you live in Catesby and Eleanor's old neighborhood! There is nothing like local knowledge when it comes to historical research! J
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:30 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Can I just say that it's nothing to do with Hancock being American per se. Just that if he'd looked at a few more Northants churches he would have realised that several have ceilings like Ashby St Ledger and Burton Dassett (Warks) and he claims that the Catesbys coveted Chipping Dorset (Burton Dassett) because they wanted to create a market there when there was one up the road at Chipping Warden. What they actually coveted was nearby Ladbroke, which they'd been in dispute over for many years.
Yes the Catesbys were intertwined with the Butlers - Catesby senior married Joan Barre who was Eleanor's cousin. But the Catesbys had been MPs for Coventry since the early 1300s and were favoured by the Black Prince to carry out a number of hearings. They'd taken on Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and became retainers to his son Richard. No doubt Richard Neville also took them on as did Clarence. In other words they'd been on the make for a very long time, by service and marriage. And they'd continue to be so for another century afterwards, but locally, not nationally.
I'm actually ambivalent to Catesby. But Stillington wasn't this poor old man. For a start he owned Marylebone and Great Sambridge in London, plus manors in Yorkshire. Must have been worth a fortune. How did he come to own that? And Stillington was also related through the marriage and inheritance of his granddaughter to the Barres/Butlers
It's a good theory and a good read but nowhere near as thorough as JAH.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:55
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
I haven't read JAH's book on Eleanor yet, so I can't say anything about it from personal experience. But Hancock credits him as the source of his info on Eleanor. However, I also thought the suggestion that Hancock makes of the Virgin in the Church possibly being based on Eleanor was not only quite speculative, but I really didn't see what relevance it had to the rest of the book. I think it was just one of those flights of fancy the portrait could be modeled on *any* lady of the day, really.
Also, I agree with you that the fact that Catesby's family was upwardly mobile doesn't mean that *our* Catesby wasn't uncommonly ambitious. However, regardless of the other facts of the case, I think the fact that Catesby *did* benefit under Richard's reign, in contrast to Stillington, is a possible clue that it may have been Catesby who disclosed the pre-contract to Richard. It just seems to make sense, in the whole scheme of things. Stillington may have been wealthy he may well have benefitted under Edward he was Edward's Chancellor, wasn't he? The main thing is that Stillington doesn't seem to have profited after 13 June 1483, in contrast to Catesby. And, again, as you say, perhaps H7 scrupled not to kill a man of the cloth. But if Stillington performed at Henry's coronation, that suggests to me that he was, more or less, in Henry's good graces at that point, don't you think?
Thanks for your perspicacious comments! As I said, this is a fascinating discussion. I know very little personally about these questions, but I think it is worthwhile to present some of Hancock's arguments for everyone's consideration. I envy you if you live in Catesby and Eleanor's old neighborhood! There is nothing like local knowledge when it comes to historical research! J
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:30 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Can I just say that it's nothing to do with Hancock being American per se. Just that if he'd looked at a few more Northants churches he would have realised that several have ceilings like Ashby St Ledger and Burton Dassett (Warks) and he claims that the Catesbys coveted Chipping Dorset (Burton Dassett) because they wanted to create a market there when there was one up the road at Chipping Warden. What they actually coveted was nearby Ladbroke, which they'd been in dispute over for many years.
Yes the Catesbys were intertwined with the Butlers - Catesby senior married Joan Barre who was Eleanor's cousin. But the Catesbys had been MPs for Coventry since the early 1300s and were favoured by the Black Prince to carry out a number of hearings. They'd taken on Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and became retainers to his son Richard. No doubt Richard Neville also took them on as did Clarence. In other words they'd been on the make for a very long time, by service and marriage. And they'd continue to be so for another century afterwards, but locally, not nationally.
I'm actually ambivalent to Catesby. But Stillington wasn't this poor old man. For a start he owned Marylebone and Great Sambridge in London, plus manors in Yorkshire. Must have been worth a fortune. How did he come to own that? And Stillington was also related through the marriage and inheritance of his granddaughter to the Barres/Butlers
It's a good theory and a good read but nowhere near as thorough as JAH.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:55
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 17:29:01
Carol earlier:
>
> It depends on the date in October. Apparently, he attended Henry Tudor's coronation (from which we need not infer loyalty to Henry considering that Henry's mother and Buckingham had prominent roles in Richard's!) on October [?] according to girders.net (which, I agree, is not particularly reliable, especially with regard to Morton, but here he names his source as a Ricardian article, vol. 53, pp.23-27, which I haven't seen). Earlier in October, he must have been still in prison in York (or traveling to London on his way to the coronation). As for "far from his diocese," he doesn't seem to have been near it very often! He may have remained in London, watched by Henry's men, until he received a general pardon on November 22. [snip]
Carol again:
The problem with long posts is that you think they're finished and hit Send prematurely. Henry's coronation was on October 30, which means that we can definitely interpret "far from his diocese" as either in prison in York, traveling to London, or in London for the coronation, willy nilly.
Carol
>
> It depends on the date in October. Apparently, he attended Henry Tudor's coronation (from which we need not infer loyalty to Henry considering that Henry's mother and Buckingham had prominent roles in Richard's!) on October [?] according to girders.net (which, I agree, is not particularly reliable, especially with regard to Morton, but here he names his source as a Ricardian article, vol. 53, pp.23-27, which I haven't seen). Earlier in October, he must have been still in prison in York (or traveling to London on his way to the coronation). As for "far from his diocese," he doesn't seem to have been near it very often! He may have remained in London, watched by Henry's men, until he received a general pardon on November 22. [snip]
Carol again:
The problem with long posts is that you think they're finished and hit Send prematurely. Henry's coronation was on October 30, which means that we can definitely interpret "far from his diocese" as either in prison in York, traveling to London, or in London for the coronation, willy nilly.
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 17:39:53
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking
> refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at
> least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different
> Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in
> April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in
> the Simnel conspiracy.
Now, what was he doing supporting a revolt in favour of somebody claiming to
be one of the missing boys, if he himself believed those boys to be
illeigitmate? Did he think "Better York's bastard tham Lancaster's", or
what?
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking
> refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at
> least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different
> Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in
> April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in
> the Simnel conspiracy.
Now, what was he doing supporting a revolt in favour of somebody claiming to
be one of the missing boys, if he himself believed those boys to be
illeigitmate? Did he think "Better York's bastard tham Lancaster's", or
what?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 18:05:23
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>[snip]
> However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died without being illegitimated â€" would Richard have been their heir, as nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn’t the situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
Carol responds:
When Edward had only daughters, George was his heir. Richard at that time was second in line, bumped to third, then fourth, then fifth with the birth of sons to both brothers (not counting any short-lived babies). The girls were never included in the succession until the supposed deaths of EoY's brothers and the all-too-real deaths of both her uncles on her father's side. In fifteenth-century England, women weren't considered as potential queens regnant, only as persons through whom the succession could pass in default of a direct male heir. If Henry had claimed the throne through Elizabeth, she might have had some degree of power (a situation he avoided by claiming by right of conquest), but her husband would still be king--especially, in Henry's case, because he probably knew that she was still tainted by illegitimacy, the repeal of Titulus Regius or no). If we look at Richard II's chosen heir, Roger Mortimer, he would have been king through right of his wife and their eldest son would have ruled through his mother's claim. Philippa herself would never have been a ruling queen.
What would have become of Elizabeth's claim if Henry Tudor had married someone else, I don't know. I think she would have remained conveniently illegitimate and Henry wouldn't have had to worry about whether her brothers were dead or alive (and ahead of her in the line of succession) unless they appeared and challenged both Titulus Regius and his right (by conquest) to his usurped throne.
To make a long story short, Edward's daughters were never ahead of Richard (or George) in the line of succession. EoY became important only because the pro-Edward Yorkists wanted Tudor's sons to be descended from Edward IV, under whom they had presumably prospered. Henry's promise to marry her (after his faction spread the rumor that her brothers were dead) was their sole reason for supporting the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor (aside from whatever animus they held against Richard). It's rather like former Warwick supporters coming over to Richard because he had married Warwick's daughter (before they had reason to be personally loyal to him) except that he was only a duke at the time.
Carol
>[snip]
> However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys died without being illegitimated â€" would Richard have been their heir, as nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldn’t the situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
Carol responds:
When Edward had only daughters, George was his heir. Richard at that time was second in line, bumped to third, then fourth, then fifth with the birth of sons to both brothers (not counting any short-lived babies). The girls were never included in the succession until the supposed deaths of EoY's brothers and the all-too-real deaths of both her uncles on her father's side. In fifteenth-century England, women weren't considered as potential queens regnant, only as persons through whom the succession could pass in default of a direct male heir. If Henry had claimed the throne through Elizabeth, she might have had some degree of power (a situation he avoided by claiming by right of conquest), but her husband would still be king--especially, in Henry's case, because he probably knew that she was still tainted by illegitimacy, the repeal of Titulus Regius or no). If we look at Richard II's chosen heir, Roger Mortimer, he would have been king through right of his wife and their eldest son would have ruled through his mother's claim. Philippa herself would never have been a ruling queen.
What would have become of Elizabeth's claim if Henry Tudor had married someone else, I don't know. I think she would have remained conveniently illegitimate and Henry wouldn't have had to worry about whether her brothers were dead or alive (and ahead of her in the line of succession) unless they appeared and challenged both Titulus Regius and his right (by conquest) to his usurped throne.
To make a long story short, Edward's daughters were never ahead of Richard (or George) in the line of succession. EoY became important only because the pro-Edward Yorkists wanted Tudor's sons to be descended from Edward IV, under whom they had presumably prospered. Henry's promise to marry her (after his faction spread the rumor that her brothers were dead) was their sole reason for supporting the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor (aside from whatever animus they held against Richard). It's rather like former Warwick supporters coming over to Richard because he had married Warwick's daughter (before they had reason to be personally loyal to him) except that he was only a duke at the time.
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 18:17:04
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> To make a long story short, Edward's daughters were never ahead of Richard
> (or George) in the line of succession.
But what about any prospective sons they might have in the future?
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> To make a long story short, Edward's daughters were never ahead of Richard
> (or George) in the line of succession.
But what about any prospective sons they might have in the future?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 18:20:05
As Jo Tey said in reference to Henry's killing of Richard's natural son John: "His claim was better than Henry's. He was the illegitimate only son of a king. Henry was the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a younger son of a king."
-----Original Message-----
From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking
> refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at
> least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different
> Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in
> April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in
> the Simnel conspiracy.
Now, what was he doing supporting a revolt in favour of somebody claiming to
be one of the missing boys, if he himself believed those boys to be
illeigitmate? Did he think "Better York's bastard tham Lancaster's", or
what?
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-----Original Message-----
From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking
> refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at
> least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different
> Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in
> April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in
> the Simnel conspiracy.
Now, what was he doing supporting a revolt in favour of somebody claiming to
be one of the missing boys, if he himself believed those boys to be
illeigitmate? Did he think "Better York's bastard tham Lancaster's", or
what?
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 18:28:01
It worked the same for the Trastamara line down in Castile:
Enrique IV was king of Castile. His younger half-siblings were Isabel
(born 1451) and Alfonso (born 1453). He also had one child (maybe.....)
daughter, Juana, born, I think, 1461 or so. Poor Juana was considered,
almost from birth of being the child of Beltran de la Cueva; Enrique was
also an extremely unsuccessful monarch who was deposed in extremely
dramatic fashion, in favor of youngest half-sibling Alfonso, who was all of
14 at the time. It was only when Alfonso died that Isabel became
important, and eventually overstepped Juana "la Beltraneja" to rule.
Similarly, the Catholic Kings had five children who survived infancy. Only
one, Juan, the second child, was a boy. But he was considered the heir,
over and above his sister Isabel jr., from the moment he was born. In
Castile, as in England, there was no Salic Law operating, so,
theoretically, women *could* rule, if it came down to no choice in the
matter. France and Aragon were different, and when prince Juan died at age
19, it took a lot of wheedling and such to get the Aragonese cortes to
recognize the child of Isabel jr. (if a boy, which he was, but who then
died in babyhood). At that point, the wheedling came back to bite Isabel
and Fernando, because now the male child of Juana and Philip the Handsome
became the recognized heir. This was Charles V, which was extremely bad
luck for Spain, the Netherlands, Francois I and Rome.
Whether he liked it or not, Henry VIII's line of succession followed this
tradition: first the son, followed by eldest then younger female(s), only
when males ran out. In that generation, males were actually a rare
commodity.
(Though it had Salic Law, Aragon *did* have an oath (there's a monograph
that claims this is a myth, but if it is, it still reflects the temperament
of the Aragonese toward authority): the king had to exchange it with the
equivalent of the Chief Justice, and the gathered nobility:
"We, who are no better than you, accept you, who are no better than we, as
our lawful sovereign, as long as you uphold our laws, rights and
privileges. And if not, not.")
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> > However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys
> died without being illegitimated ýý" would Richard have been their heir, as
> nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed
> to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldnýýýt the
> situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth
> I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> When Edward had only daughters, George was his heir. Richard at that time
> was second in line, bumped to third, then fourth, then fifth with the birth
> of sons to both brothers (not counting any short-lived babies). The girls
> were never included in the succession until the supposed deaths of EoY's
> brothers and the all-too-real deaths of both her uncles on her father's
> side. In fifteenth-century England, women weren't considered as potential
> queens regnant, only as persons through whom the succession could pass in
> default of a direct male heir. If Henry had claimed the throne through
> Elizabeth, she might have had some degree of power (a situation he avoided
> by claiming by right of conquest), but her husband would still be
> king--especially, in Henry's case, because he probably knew that she was
> still tainted by illegitimacy, the repeal of Titulus Regius or no). If we
> look at Richard II's chosen heir, Roger Mortimer, he would have been king
> through right of his wife and their eldest son would have ruled through his
> mother's claim. Philippa herself would never have been a ruling queen.
>
> What would have become of Elizabeth's claim if Henry Tudor had married
> someone else, I don't know. I think she would have remained conveniently
> illegitimate and Henry wouldn't have had to worry about whether her
> brothers were dead or alive (and ahead of her in the line of succession)
> unless they appeared and challenged both Titulus Regius and his right (by
> conquest) to his usurped throne.
>
> To make a long story short, Edward's daughters were never ahead of Richard
> (or George) in the line of succession. EoY became important only because
> the pro-Edward Yorkists wanted Tudor's sons to be descended from Edward IV,
> under whom they had presumably prospered. Henry's promise to marry her
> (after his faction spread the rumor that her brothers were dead) was their
> sole reason for supporting the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor (aside from
> whatever animus they held against Richard). It's rather like former Warwick
> supporters coming over to Richard because he had married Warwick's daughter
> (before they had reason to be personally loyal to him) except that he was
> only a duke at the time.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Enrique IV was king of Castile. His younger half-siblings were Isabel
(born 1451) and Alfonso (born 1453). He also had one child (maybe.....)
daughter, Juana, born, I think, 1461 or so. Poor Juana was considered,
almost from birth of being the child of Beltran de la Cueva; Enrique was
also an extremely unsuccessful monarch who was deposed in extremely
dramatic fashion, in favor of youngest half-sibling Alfonso, who was all of
14 at the time. It was only when Alfonso died that Isabel became
important, and eventually overstepped Juana "la Beltraneja" to rule.
Similarly, the Catholic Kings had five children who survived infancy. Only
one, Juan, the second child, was a boy. But he was considered the heir,
over and above his sister Isabel jr., from the moment he was born. In
Castile, as in England, there was no Salic Law operating, so,
theoretically, women *could* rule, if it came down to no choice in the
matter. France and Aragon were different, and when prince Juan died at age
19, it took a lot of wheedling and such to get the Aragonese cortes to
recognize the child of Isabel jr. (if a boy, which he was, but who then
died in babyhood). At that point, the wheedling came back to bite Isabel
and Fernando, because now the male child of Juana and Philip the Handsome
became the recognized heir. This was Charles V, which was extremely bad
luck for Spain, the Netherlands, Francois I and Rome.
Whether he liked it or not, Henry VIII's line of succession followed this
tradition: first the son, followed by eldest then younger female(s), only
when males ran out. In that generation, males were actually a rare
commodity.
(Though it had Salic Law, Aragon *did* have an oath (there's a monograph
that claims this is a myth, but if it is, it still reflects the temperament
of the Aragonese toward authority): the king had to exchange it with the
equivalent of the Chief Justice, and the gathered nobility:
"We, who are no better than you, accept you, who are no better than we, as
our lawful sovereign, as long as you uphold our laws, rights and
privileges. And if not, not.")
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:05 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> > However, I do have a question about the right to the throne if the boys
> died without being illegitimated ýý" would Richard have been their heir, as
> nearest, oldest male relative, or would the right to the throne have passed
> to Elizabeth of York, as nearest relative? In effect, wouldnýýýt the
> situation at that point have been the same as when Mary and then Elizabeth
> I inherited the throne after Edward VI died?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> When Edward had only daughters, George was his heir. Richard at that time
> was second in line, bumped to third, then fourth, then fifth with the birth
> of sons to both brothers (not counting any short-lived babies). The girls
> were never included in the succession until the supposed deaths of EoY's
> brothers and the all-too-real deaths of both her uncles on her father's
> side. In fifteenth-century England, women weren't considered as potential
> queens regnant, only as persons through whom the succession could pass in
> default of a direct male heir. If Henry had claimed the throne through
> Elizabeth, she might have had some degree of power (a situation he avoided
> by claiming by right of conquest), but her husband would still be
> king--especially, in Henry's case, because he probably knew that she was
> still tainted by illegitimacy, the repeal of Titulus Regius or no). If we
> look at Richard II's chosen heir, Roger Mortimer, he would have been king
> through right of his wife and their eldest son would have ruled through his
> mother's claim. Philippa herself would never have been a ruling queen.
>
> What would have become of Elizabeth's claim if Henry Tudor had married
> someone else, I don't know. I think she would have remained conveniently
> illegitimate and Henry wouldn't have had to worry about whether her
> brothers were dead or alive (and ahead of her in the line of succession)
> unless they appeared and challenged both Titulus Regius and his right (by
> conquest) to his usurped throne.
>
> To make a long story short, Edward's daughters were never ahead of Richard
> (or George) in the line of succession. EoY became important only because
> the pro-Edward Yorkists wanted Tudor's sons to be descended from Edward IV,
> under whom they had presumably prospered. Henry's promise to marry her
> (after his faction spread the rumor that her brothers were dead) was their
> sole reason for supporting the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor (aside from
> whatever animus they held against Richard). It's rather like former Warwick
> supporters coming over to Richard because he had married Warwick's daughter
> (before they had reason to be personally loyal to him) except that he was
> only a duke at the time.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 19:55:26
Johanne Tournier wrote:
[snip] In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
> all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated (presided?) at Henry's coronation. [snip]
Carol responds:
I'm somewhat less impressed than you seem to be with Hancock's book, possibly because his tedious writing style gives me a headache. <smile> He pays too much attention to More, for one, and he seems to take his own interpretation of events for granted. (Personally, I don't believe that Lord Strange was ever in danger of execution without a trial. Look how careful Richard was to conduct Buckingham's trial and execution by the book. I don't think he wanted another Hastings incident in which his motives and methods were questioned.)
That aside, Stillington didn't preside at Henry's coronation. That was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier's job. (He had also crowned Richard and Anne.) We have a description of the material given Stillington for the splendid robes he wore at Richard's coronation: "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know what tartaryn is). At Richard's coronation, according to girders.net, he "walked on Richard's left in the coronation procession. He said the prayer "Deus qui scis humanum" over the King at the West Door. He and the Bishop of Durham supported Richard as he approached the altar before the anointing. They supported the crown as Richard sat on the Throne as the bishops and nobles made their fealty, and as the Mass was sung." (source: Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," pp. 37, 39-42).
Stillington's role in Henry's coronation was probably smaller than his role in Richard's, and, as we know from buckingham and MB, participation in or attendance at a coronation is no indication of future loyalty. Stillington seems to have shown his Yorkist colors by joining the Simnel rebellion not long after his pardon (by virtue of his "grete age") on November 22, 1485, presumably on behalf of the young Earl of Warwick rather than the sons of Edward IV made illegitimate by his testimony.
He continued to perform duties under Richard III similar to those he performed for Edward after he lost the chancellorship, but, as you say, there seems to have been no record of a reward. (Then again, why would Richard reward him for coming forward with an unpalatable truth about the brother he had once idolized that would, if proven true, in essence force Richard to take the crown rather than remain protector? What a heart-rending choice for this son of York!)
Back to Stillington and Catesby, Henry Tudor, whatever else may be said of him, was as much a Catholic as Richard had been, and, unlike his son, would not have executed a priest, so Stillington was never in danger of sharing Catesby's fate. Catesby, however, had been Speaker of the House under Richard (nominated by the Parliament that had passed Titulus Regius to please Richard) and may have aided Stillington in drawing up the arguments used in persuading Richard to become kind, which would be reason enough for Henry to regard him as dangerous. (According to Hicks's DNB biography of Stillington, a 1488 yearbook credits Stillington with drawing up the petition though Hicks seems to think that Stillington had by then become associated in the public mind with Richard's "usurpation." I suspect that he really did draw up the arguments, based on real evidence and canon law, perhaps with Catesby's help with regard to inheritance law. Had he not done so, Henry would have had no reason to make sure that his Parliament did not hear Stillington's testimony.)
Carol
[snip] In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
> all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated (presided?) at Henry's coronation. [snip]
Carol responds:
I'm somewhat less impressed than you seem to be with Hancock's book, possibly because his tedious writing style gives me a headache. <smile> He pays too much attention to More, for one, and he seems to take his own interpretation of events for granted. (Personally, I don't believe that Lord Strange was ever in danger of execution without a trial. Look how careful Richard was to conduct Buckingham's trial and execution by the book. I don't think he wanted another Hastings incident in which his motives and methods were questioned.)
That aside, Stillington didn't preside at Henry's coronation. That was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier's job. (He had also crowned Richard and Anne.) We have a description of the material given Stillington for the splendid robes he wore at Richard's coronation: "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know what tartaryn is). At Richard's coronation, according to girders.net, he "walked on Richard's left in the coronation procession. He said the prayer "Deus qui scis humanum" over the King at the West Door. He and the Bishop of Durham supported Richard as he approached the altar before the anointing. They supported the crown as Richard sat on the Throne as the bishops and nobles made their fealty, and as the Mass was sung." (source: Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," pp. 37, 39-42).
Stillington's role in Henry's coronation was probably smaller than his role in Richard's, and, as we know from buckingham and MB, participation in or attendance at a coronation is no indication of future loyalty. Stillington seems to have shown his Yorkist colors by joining the Simnel rebellion not long after his pardon (by virtue of his "grete age") on November 22, 1485, presumably on behalf of the young Earl of Warwick rather than the sons of Edward IV made illegitimate by his testimony.
He continued to perform duties under Richard III similar to those he performed for Edward after he lost the chancellorship, but, as you say, there seems to have been no record of a reward. (Then again, why would Richard reward him for coming forward with an unpalatable truth about the brother he had once idolized that would, if proven true, in essence force Richard to take the crown rather than remain protector? What a heart-rending choice for this son of York!)
Back to Stillington and Catesby, Henry Tudor, whatever else may be said of him, was as much a Catholic as Richard had been, and, unlike his son, would not have executed a priest, so Stillington was never in danger of sharing Catesby's fate. Catesby, however, had been Speaker of the House under Richard (nominated by the Parliament that had passed Titulus Regius to please Richard) and may have aided Stillington in drawing up the arguments used in persuading Richard to become kind, which would be reason enough for Henry to regard him as dangerous. (According to Hicks's DNB biography of Stillington, a 1488 yearbook credits Stillington with drawing up the petition though Hicks seems to think that Stillington had by then become associated in the public mind with Richard's "usurpation." I suspect that he really did draw up the arguments, based on real evidence and canon law, perhaps with Catesby's help with regard to inheritance law. Had he not done so, Henry would have had no reason to make sure that his Parliament did not hear Stillington's testimony.)
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 20:56:12
From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> As Jo Tey said in reference to Henry's killing of Richard's natural son
> John: "His claim was better than Henry's. He was the illegitimate only son
> of a king. Henry was the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a
> younger son of a king."
It's not as simple as that, though, because anybody who supported Lancaster
would have disregarded the whole Yoprkist claim anyway, so they would have
seen John as the son of a Duke who got above himself - and Henry's claim was
based mainly on conquest anyway, which was a legitimate way of taking a
throne, if not a popular one. John would only really be much threat to him
if John could muster a very large army and conquer him back.
I know Buck says that an illegitimate son of Richard was murdered at the
same time Warbeck and Warwick were executed, but I rememebr in the '70s or
'80s there was an article in the Ricardian which said that the name "John
Gloster" appeared in a list of people Henry had pardoned *after* John was
supposedly sentenced to death. Does anybody know anything about this?
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> As Jo Tey said in reference to Henry's killing of Richard's natural son
> John: "His claim was better than Henry's. He was the illegitimate only son
> of a king. Henry was the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a
> younger son of a king."
It's not as simple as that, though, because anybody who supported Lancaster
would have disregarded the whole Yoprkist claim anyway, so they would have
seen John as the son of a Duke who got above himself - and Henry's claim was
based mainly on conquest anyway, which was a legitimate way of taking a
throne, if not a popular one. John would only really be much threat to him
if John could muster a very large army and conquer him back.
I know Buck says that an illegitimate son of Richard was murdered at the
same time Warbeck and Warwick were executed, but I rememebr in the '70s or
'80s there was an article in the Ricardian which said that the name "John
Gloster" appeared in a list of people Henry had pardoned *after* John was
supposedly sentenced to death. Does anybody know anything about this?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 21:01:09
If this really was John of Gloucester, and he survived, maybe there are after all direct descendants of Richard III?
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
I know Buck says that an illegitimate son of Richard was murdered at the
same time Warbeck and Warwick were executed, but I rememebr in the '70s or
'80s there was an article in the Ricardian which said that the name "John
Gloster" appeared in a list of people Henry had pardoned *after* John was
supposedly sentenced to death. Does anybody know anything about this?
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
I know Buck says that an illegitimate son of Richard was murdered at the
same time Warbeck and Warwick were executed, but I rememebr in the '70s or
'80s there was an article in the Ricardian which said that the name "John
Gloster" appeared in a list of people Henry had pardoned *after* John was
supposedly sentenced to death. Does anybody know anything about this?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 21:26:44
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > A couple more questions:
> > Â
> > [snip]
> > Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It depends on the date in October. Apparently, he attended Henry Tudor's coronation
Marie butts in:
Who attended Henry's coronation is not very clear. What the heralds did was to cannibalise the list drawn up for Richard's coronation, and there are consequently multiple crossings out. According to the notes I once made, Bishop Stillingtons name was one of those crossed out and replaced.
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > A couple more questions:
> > Â
> > [snip]
> > Where was Stillington in October 1485 - the will of a colleague says he was 'far from his diocese' which almost implies he was on a foreign mission
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It depends on the date in October. Apparently, he attended Henry Tudor's coronation
Marie butts in:
Who attended Henry's coronation is not very clear. What the heralds did was to cannibalise the list drawn up for Richard's coronation, and there are consequently multiple crossings out. According to the notes I once made, Bishop Stillingtons name was one of those crossed out and replaced.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 21:34:26
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know
> what tartaryn is).
Tartan, maybe?
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know
> what tartaryn is).
Tartan, maybe?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 21:43:28
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> If this really was John of Gloucester, and he survived, maybe there are
> after all direct descendants of Richard III?
Exactly. And even of Henry did kill him, well, given the amount of power
Richard gave him I've always assumed John was about 17 in 1485, so he could
well have had bastards of his own before Henry arrested him - we just don't
know who they were. I'd cvertainly like to think there are still
descendants of Richard in the world.
[Left of field plot bunny. Henry spares John on condition he keeps his head
down and doesn't tell anybody who he is. John keeps his promise but doesn't
want to disown his father, so he claims him by another route. John becomes
Richard of Eastwell.]
Then of course there was my late boyfriend Norman, a staunch Ricardian, who
swore blind that while doing research in the National Portrait Gallery of
Scotland about 20 years previously he'd found evidence that Richard's
daughter Katherine died in childbirth and had a daughter, also Katherine,
who was sent to Scotland to protect her from the Tudors, and married into
the Wishart family - but he couldn't remember what it was he'd found :( I
was at least able to establish that even though the Wisharts are very well
documented, there were two women who married into the family at the right
time and whose names are not known.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> If this really was John of Gloucester, and he survived, maybe there are
> after all direct descendants of Richard III?
Exactly. And even of Henry did kill him, well, given the amount of power
Richard gave him I've always assumed John was about 17 in 1485, so he could
well have had bastards of his own before Henry arrested him - we just don't
know who they were. I'd cvertainly like to think there are still
descendants of Richard in the world.
[Left of field plot bunny. Henry spares John on condition he keeps his head
down and doesn't tell anybody who he is. John keeps his promise but doesn't
want to disown his father, so he claims him by another route. John becomes
Richard of Eastwell.]
Then of course there was my late boyfriend Norman, a staunch Ricardian, who
swore blind that while doing research in the National Portrait Gallery of
Scotland about 20 years previously he'd found evidence that Richard's
daughter Katherine died in childbirth and had a daughter, also Katherine,
who was sent to Scotland to protect her from the Tudors, and married into
the Wishart family - but he couldn't remember what it was he'd found :( I
was at least able to establish that even though the Wisharts are very well
documented, there were two women who married into the family at the right
time and whose names are not known.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 22:35:24
Claire, you have a perfect synopsis, and a rattling good book at your fingertips. How intriguing to think of Richard's daughter having a daughter, and then a Scottish connection.
I do hate these lingering memories of having read/discovered something a long time ago, and then being totally unable to remember where/what/how. I know they happen, and that your late boyfriend definitely did discover something. It's happened to me. I happened on something about Ankarette Twynyho back in the early 70s, in Gloucester Reference Library, going through various rolls. Whatever I found made me sit up and explained all sorts of things. To me, anyway, but I'm an amateur. However, after all this time (with decades of early 19th-century stuff in between) I no longer have my notes, and can't for the life of me remember what it was I discovered. It's been driving me mad ever since the AT thread began. I was researching for a novel about Warwick the Kingmaker's wife, Anne Beauchamp. I may have the trawl through the book again in the hope of a memory jog. The trouble is, I hate my work from back then. Can't bear to look at it! Old-fashioned, clumpy and definitely not what I'd write now. Taste changes so much as well can't have the hero being too rough' these days. Not p.c. Well, that's what I've found with US publishers. The Brits have more round objects.
Sandra
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> If this really was John of Gloucester, and he survived, maybe there are
> after all direct descendants of Richard III?
Exactly. And even of Henry did kill him, well, given the amount of power
Richard gave him I've always assumed John was about 17 in 1485, so he could
well have had bastards of his own before Henry arrested him - we just don't
know who they were. I'd cvertainly like to think there are still
descendants of Richard in the world.
[Left of field plot bunny. Henry spares John on condition he keeps his head
down and doesn't tell anybody who he is. John keeps his promise but doesn't
want to disown his father, so he claims him by another route. John becomes
Richard of Eastwell.]
Then of course there was my late boyfriend Norman, a staunch Ricardian, who
swore blind that while doing research in the National Portrait Gallery of
Scotland about 20 years previously he'd found evidence that Richard's
daughter Katherine died in childbirth and had a daughter, also Katherine,
who was sent to Scotland to protect her from the Tudors, and married into
the Wishart family - but he couldn't remember what it was he'd found :( I
was at least able to establish that even though the Wisharts are very well
documented, there were two women who married into the family at the right
time and whose names are not known.
I do hate these lingering memories of having read/discovered something a long time ago, and then being totally unable to remember where/what/how. I know they happen, and that your late boyfriend definitely did discover something. It's happened to me. I happened on something about Ankarette Twynyho back in the early 70s, in Gloucester Reference Library, going through various rolls. Whatever I found made me sit up and explained all sorts of things. To me, anyway, but I'm an amateur. However, after all this time (with decades of early 19th-century stuff in between) I no longer have my notes, and can't for the life of me remember what it was I discovered. It's been driving me mad ever since the AT thread began. I was researching for a novel about Warwick the Kingmaker's wife, Anne Beauchamp. I may have the trawl through the book again in the hope of a memory jog. The trouble is, I hate my work from back then. Can't bear to look at it! Old-fashioned, clumpy and definitely not what I'd write now. Taste changes so much as well can't have the hero being too rough' these days. Not p.c. Well, that's what I've found with US publishers. The Brits have more round objects.
Sandra
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> If this really was John of Gloucester, and he survived, maybe there are
> after all direct descendants of Richard III?
Exactly. And even of Henry did kill him, well, given the amount of power
Richard gave him I've always assumed John was about 17 in 1485, so he could
well have had bastards of his own before Henry arrested him - we just don't
know who they were. I'd cvertainly like to think there are still
descendants of Richard in the world.
[Left of field plot bunny. Henry spares John on condition he keeps his head
down and doesn't tell anybody who he is. John keeps his promise but doesn't
want to disown his father, so he claims him by another route. John becomes
Richard of Eastwell.]
Then of course there was my late boyfriend Norman, a staunch Ricardian, who
swore blind that while doing research in the National Portrait Gallery of
Scotland about 20 years previously he'd found evidence that Richard's
daughter Katherine died in childbirth and had a daughter, also Katherine,
who was sent to Scotland to protect her from the Tudors, and married into
the Wishart family - but he couldn't remember what it was he'd found :( I
was at least able to establish that even though the Wisharts are very well
documented, there were two women who married into the family at the right
time and whose names are not known.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-04-30 23:56:56
Hi, Carol -
When I mentioned Hancock's book in an email to you that I sent last week, I
wrote "although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would highly
recommend the book." I certainly did find Hancock's writing style a bit
tedious. I would also say that there is quite a bit of repetition - that is,
when he's talking about Hastings, he mentions Jane Shore's possible
involvement/knowledge, and then when he discusses Jane in her own chapter,
he goes over the same material once more. I don't particularly recall him
giving More a lot of credence, except in the events of June 13, 1483, and
that rather cautiously. But Hancock is not the only one to use More as a
source for the Council meeting of that date - I seem to recall JAH also
treats More's recital of the events of that day seriously, though also with
caution. My recollection is JAH used More, because he is the only source for
that meeting.
My bottom line - Hancock's book is not perfect - but he is the first writer
that I have found to create a scenario that I find persuasive, regarding how
Richard came to order Hastings' execution in what was seemingly an
uncharacteristically harsh manner. And he provides a lot of information on
the different aspects of the matter, especially about Catesby's background
and possible motivation. It makes sense, and for that reason I believe it's
a "must-read" for anyone interested in Richard III.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Johanne Tournier wrote:
[snip] In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
> all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. [snip]
Carol responds:
I'm somewhat less impressed than you seem to be with Hancock's book,
possibly because his tedious writing style gives me a headache. <smile> He
pays too much attention to More, for one, and he seems to take his own
interpretation of events for granted. (Personally, I don't believe that Lord
Strange was ever in danger of execution without a trial. Look how careful
Richard was to conduct Buckingham's trial and execution by the book. I don't
think he wanted another Hastings incident in which his motives and methods
were questioned.)
That aside, Stillington didn't preside at Henry's coronation. That was the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier's job. (He had also crowned
Richard and Anne.) We have a description of the material given Stillington
for the splendid robes he wore at Richard's coronation: "16 yards of scarlet
with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know what tartaryn is). At
Richard's coronation, according to girders.net, he "walked on Richard's left
in the coronation procession. He said the prayer "Deus qui scis humanum"
over the King at the West Door. He and the Bishop of Durham supported
Richard as he approached the altar before the anointing. They supported the
crown as Richard sat on the Throne as the bishops and nobles made their
fealty, and as the Mass was sung." (source: Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation
of Richard III: The Extant Documents," pp. 37, 39-42).
Stillington's role in Henry's coronation was probably smaller than his role
in Richard's, and, as we know from buckingham and MB, participation in or
attendance at a coronation is no indication of future loyalty. Stillington
seems to have shown his Yorkist colors by joining the Simnel rebellion not
long after his pardon (by virtue of his "grete age") on November 22, 1485,
presumably on behalf of the young Earl of Warwick rather than the sons of
Edward IV made illegitimate by his testimony.
He continued to perform duties under Richard III similar to those he
performed for Edward after he lost the chancellorship, but, as you say,
there seems to have been no record of a reward. (Then again, why would
Richard reward him for coming forward with an unpalatable truth about the
brother he had once idolized that would, if proven true, in essence force
Richard to take the crown rather than remain protector? What a heart-rending
choice for this son of York!)
Back to Stillington and Catesby, Henry Tudor, whatever else may be said of
him, was as much a Catholic as Richard had been, and, unlike his son, would
not have executed a priest, so Stillington was never in danger of sharing
Catesby's fate. Catesby, however, had been Speaker of the House under
Richard (nominated by the Parliament that had passed Titulus Regius to
please Richard) and may have aided Stillington in drawing up the arguments
used in persuading Richard to become kind, which would be reason enough for
Henry to regard him as dangerous. (According to Hicks's DNB biography of
Stillington, a 1488 yearbook credits Stillington with drawing up the
petition though Hicks seems to think that Stillington had by then become
associated in the public mind with Richard's "usurpation." I suspect that he
really did draw up the arguments, based on real evidence and canon law,
perhaps with Catesby's help with regard to inheritance law. Had he not done
so, Henry would have had no reason to make sure that his Parliament did not
hear Stillington's testimony.)
Carol
When I mentioned Hancock's book in an email to you that I sent last week, I
wrote "although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would highly
recommend the book." I certainly did find Hancock's writing style a bit
tedious. I would also say that there is quite a bit of repetition - that is,
when he's talking about Hastings, he mentions Jane Shore's possible
involvement/knowledge, and then when he discusses Jane in her own chapter,
he goes over the same material once more. I don't particularly recall him
giving More a lot of credence, except in the events of June 13, 1483, and
that rather cautiously. But Hancock is not the only one to use More as a
source for the Council meeting of that date - I seem to recall JAH also
treats More's recital of the events of that day seriously, though also with
caution. My recollection is JAH used More, because he is the only source for
that meeting.
My bottom line - Hancock's book is not perfect - but he is the first writer
that I have found to create a scenario that I find persuasive, regarding how
Richard came to order Hastings' execution in what was seemingly an
uncharacteristically harsh manner. And he provides a lot of information on
the different aspects of the matter, especially about Catesby's background
and possible motivation. It makes sense, and for that reason I believe it's
a "must-read" for anyone interested in Richard III.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Johanne Tournier wrote:
[snip] In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
> all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. [snip]
Carol responds:
I'm somewhat less impressed than you seem to be with Hancock's book,
possibly because his tedious writing style gives me a headache. <smile> He
pays too much attention to More, for one, and he seems to take his own
interpretation of events for granted. (Personally, I don't believe that Lord
Strange was ever in danger of execution without a trial. Look how careful
Richard was to conduct Buckingham's trial and execution by the book. I don't
think he wanted another Hastings incident in which his motives and methods
were questioned.)
That aside, Stillington didn't preside at Henry's coronation. That was the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier's job. (He had also crowned
Richard and Anne.) We have a description of the material given Stillington
for the splendid robes he wore at Richard's coronation: "16 yards of scarlet
with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know what tartaryn is). At
Richard's coronation, according to girders.net, he "walked on Richard's left
in the coronation procession. He said the prayer "Deus qui scis humanum"
over the King at the West Door. He and the Bishop of Durham supported
Richard as he approached the altar before the anointing. They supported the
crown as Richard sat on the Throne as the bishops and nobles made their
fealty, and as the Mass was sung." (source: Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation
of Richard III: The Extant Documents," pp. 37, 39-42).
Stillington's role in Henry's coronation was probably smaller than his role
in Richard's, and, as we know from buckingham and MB, participation in or
attendance at a coronation is no indication of future loyalty. Stillington
seems to have shown his Yorkist colors by joining the Simnel rebellion not
long after his pardon (by virtue of his "grete age") on November 22, 1485,
presumably on behalf of the young Earl of Warwick rather than the sons of
Edward IV made illegitimate by his testimony.
He continued to perform duties under Richard III similar to those he
performed for Edward after he lost the chancellorship, but, as you say,
there seems to have been no record of a reward. (Then again, why would
Richard reward him for coming forward with an unpalatable truth about the
brother he had once idolized that would, if proven true, in essence force
Richard to take the crown rather than remain protector? What a heart-rending
choice for this son of York!)
Back to Stillington and Catesby, Henry Tudor, whatever else may be said of
him, was as much a Catholic as Richard had been, and, unlike his son, would
not have executed a priest, so Stillington was never in danger of sharing
Catesby's fate. Catesby, however, had been Speaker of the House under
Richard (nominated by the Parliament that had passed Titulus Regius to
please Richard) and may have aided Stillington in drawing up the arguments
used in persuading Richard to become kind, which would be reason enough for
Henry to regard him as dangerous. (According to Hicks's DNB biography of
Stillington, a 1488 yearbook credits Stillington with drawing up the
petition though Hicks seems to think that Stillington had by then become
associated in the public mind with Richard's "usurpation." I suspect that he
really did draw up the arguments, based on real evidence and canon law,
perhaps with Catesby's help with regard to inheritance law. Had he not done
so, Henry would have had no reason to make sure that his Parliament did not
hear Stillington's testimony.)
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 00:03:37
Hi, Hilary (again)
See message below I changed word in 1st. sentence of the 2nd. paragraph to was from wasn't.
Please excuse sloppy writing. J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:29 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, Hilary
I haven't read JAH's book on Eleanor yet, so I can't say anything about it from personal experience. But Hancock credits him as the source of his info on Eleanor. However, I also thought the suggestion that Hancock makes of the Virgin in the Church possibly being based on Eleanor was not only quite speculative, but I really didn't see what relevance it had to the rest of the book. I think it was just one of those flights of fancy the portrait could be modeled on *any* lady of the day, really.
Also, I agree with you that the fact that Catesby's family was upwardly mobile doesn't mean that *our* Catesby [JLT] WAS uncommonly ambitious. However, regardless of the other facts of the case, I think the fact that Catesby *did* benefit under Richard's reign, in contrast to Stillington, is a possible clue that it may have been Catesby who disclosed the pre-contract to Richard. It just seems to make sense, in the whole scheme of things. Stillington may have been wealthy he may well have benefitted under Edward he was Edward's Chancellor, wasn't he? The main thing is that Stillington doesn't seem to have profited after 13 June 1483, in contrast to Catesby. And, again, as you say, perhaps H7 scrupled not to kill a man of the cloth. But if Stillington performed at Henry's coronation, that suggests to me that he was, more or less, in Henry's good graces at that point, don't you think?
Thanks for your perspicacious comments! As I said, this is a fascinating discussion. I know very little personally about these questions, but I think it is worthwhile to present some of Hancock's arguments for everyone's consideration. I envy you if you live in Catesby and Eleanor's old neighborhood! There is nothing like local knowledge when it comes to historical research! J
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:30 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Can I just say that it's nothing to do with Hancock being American per se. Just that if he'd looked at a few more Northants churches he would have realised that several have ceilings like Ashby St Ledger and Burton Dassett (Warks) and he claims that the Catesbys coveted Chipping Dorset (Burton Dassett) because they wanted to create a market there when there was one up the road at Chipping Warden. What they actually coveted was nearby Ladbroke, which they'd been in dispute over for many years.
Yes the Catesbys were intertwined with the Butlers - Catesby senior married Joan Barre who was Eleanor's cousin. But the Catesbys had been MPs for Coventry since the early 1300s and were favoured by the Black Prince to carry out a number of hearings. They'd taken on Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and became retainers to his son Richard. No doubt Richard Neville also took them on as did Clarence. In other words they'd been on the make for a very long time, by service and marriage. And they'd continue to be so for another century afterwards, but locally, not nationally.
I'm actually ambivalent to Catesby. But Stillington wasn't this poor old man. For a start he owned Marylebone and Great Sambridge in London, plus manors in Yorkshire. Must have been worth a fortune. How did he come to own that? And Stillington was also related through the marriage and inheritance of his granddaughter to the Barres/Butlers
It's a good theory and a good read but nowhere near as thorough as JAH.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:55
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
See message below I changed word in 1st. sentence of the 2nd. paragraph to was from wasn't.
Please excuse sloppy writing. J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:29 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, Hilary
I haven't read JAH's book on Eleanor yet, so I can't say anything about it from personal experience. But Hancock credits him as the source of his info on Eleanor. However, I also thought the suggestion that Hancock makes of the Virgin in the Church possibly being based on Eleanor was not only quite speculative, but I really didn't see what relevance it had to the rest of the book. I think it was just one of those flights of fancy the portrait could be modeled on *any* lady of the day, really.
Also, I agree with you that the fact that Catesby's family was upwardly mobile doesn't mean that *our* Catesby [JLT] WAS uncommonly ambitious. However, regardless of the other facts of the case, I think the fact that Catesby *did* benefit under Richard's reign, in contrast to Stillington, is a possible clue that it may have been Catesby who disclosed the pre-contract to Richard. It just seems to make sense, in the whole scheme of things. Stillington may have been wealthy he may well have benefitted under Edward he was Edward's Chancellor, wasn't he? The main thing is that Stillington doesn't seem to have profited after 13 June 1483, in contrast to Catesby. And, again, as you say, perhaps H7 scrupled not to kill a man of the cloth. But if Stillington performed at Henry's coronation, that suggests to me that he was, more or less, in Henry's good graces at that point, don't you think?
Thanks for your perspicacious comments! As I said, this is a fascinating discussion. I know very little personally about these questions, but I think it is worthwhile to present some of Hancock's arguments for everyone's consideration. I envy you if you live in Catesby and Eleanor's old neighborhood! There is nothing like local knowledge when it comes to historical research! J
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:30 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Can I just say that it's nothing to do with Hancock being American per se. Just that if he'd looked at a few more Northants churches he would have realised that several have ceilings like Ashby St Ledger and Burton Dassett (Warks) and he claims that the Catesbys coveted Chipping Dorset (Burton Dassett) because they wanted to create a market there when there was one up the road at Chipping Warden. What they actually coveted was nearby Ladbroke, which they'd been in dispute over for many years.
Yes the Catesbys were intertwined with the Butlers - Catesby senior married Joan Barre who was Eleanor's cousin. But the Catesbys had been MPs for Coventry since the early 1300s and were favoured by the Black Prince to carry out a number of hearings. They'd taken on Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and became retainers to his son Richard. No doubt Richard Neville also took them on as did Clarence. In other words they'd been on the make for a very long time, by service and marriage. And they'd continue to be so for another century afterwards, but locally, not nationally.
I'm actually ambivalent to Catesby. But Stillington wasn't this poor old man. For a start he owned Marylebone and Great Sambridge in London, plus manors in Yorkshire. Must have been worth a fortune. How did he come to own that? And Stillington was also related through the marriage and inheritance of his granddaughter to the Barres/Butlers
It's a good theory and a good read but nowhere near as thorough as JAH.
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 13:55
Subject: RE: Re: Pre Contract.
Hi, All -
Well, the fact that Hancock may be American doesn't bother me in itself. He
certainly seems knowledgeable - and frankly I wouldn't have guessed he was
American without Hilary saying so.
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in these issues read
Hancock's book. His theory makes a lot of sense. What he says is, given the
speed with which Hastings lost his head, the reason is that Richard believed
that Hastings knew all along about the pre-contract but withheld the
information from Richard. That, in itself, was treason to Richard, the
rightful king. Furthermore, it was a betrayal from a man Richard regarded as
his friend, the worst kind of betrayal from Richard's point of view. That,
Hancock believes, is the core of why Richard "lost his cool" and had
Hastings executed summarily. It was an execution which he later regretted,
as one of the commentators (More?) stated, as the old warrior would no doubt
have been a great help to Richard at Bosworth.
Hancock also states that Catesby was intertwined with the Butler (or
Botelor) family from way back, thus there was a reason that he would have
long known about the pre-contract, that it was Hastings who swore Catesby to
secrecy. That by June of 1483, Stillington was the only person alive who was
party to the pre-contract. Thus when Catesby disclosed it, it was
Stillington who confirmed it (only - he didn't make the initial disclosure).
Hancock paints a convincing portrait of Catesby as a young man on the make.
And to support the idea that it was Catesby who made the initial disclosure
to Richard, he compares the relative fortunes of Catesby and Stillington
after this date. Catesby's career soared under Richard, plus he acquired a
lot more land. In contrast, Stillington does not seem to have benefitted at
all. Also in contrast, when Henry won at Bosworth, Catesby was executed
almost immediately, whereas Henry pardoned Stillington who participated
(presided?) at Henry's coronation. Further, Hancock believes that Catesby
stepped into the contretemps in the Tower on June 13, 1483, to defend
Stanley, that Stanley had not been aware of the pre-contract, thus
potentially saving Stanley. Hancock also believes that it was likely Catesby
who had custody of Lord Strange at Bosworth, you know, the person who had
orders to kill Lord Strange if Stanley went over to the other side. That
when Stanley did do so, Catesby spared Lord Strange's life. Therefore,
Catesby had reason to believe that Stanley would intervene to save his life
with Henry, but of course failed to do so. There is an allusion to Stanley's
letting Catesby down in Catesby's will, which was written after Bosworth and
shortly before his execution.
All in all, a fascinating read. Oh, Hancock also supplies transcriptions of
some of the letters he refers to, plus more detailed information on the
Manor of Great Dorsett, and the offices and lands of Catesby in various
appendices in the book.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:35 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Interesting....and thought provoking...Ive never cared much for Catesby so
nothing would surprise me....However it will take a lot to pursuade me to
change my mind on why I believe Hastings lost his head. eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It was that it was Catesby, rather than Stillington, who told
Richard and discredited Hastings at the same time out of ambition. It's
based on Eleanor having been related to Catesby senior's wife and the
proximity of their two estates. It's good, but it has a lot more flaws than
JAH, mainly I would say because the author lacks the access to local
knowledge that JAH has (he's American). Also my personal quibble is that
Catesby hadn't come out of nowhere; the Catesbys had been career lawyers for
nearly two hundred years (one had served the Black Prince). But they'd
always concentrated on using their gains to expand their local landbase, not
on court dabbling on a scale with Cromwell, Wolsey or even Morton later.
>
>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121iv82q9,aid$dSnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
_____
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0 <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=> &bs=> &bs=(132emdqjf(gid$5d9a135e-b192-11
e2-b893-1f5b4d4d66a4,st$1367325296826012,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121nl9au2,aid$OjnYAWKLFuM-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNGgxNnNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MzI1Mjk2>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com> ?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34717/stime=1367325296/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 10:04:06
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I do hate these lingering memories of having read/discovered something a
> long time ago, and then being totally unable to remember where/what/how.
Or knowing what/where/how all except for the name of the damned book. In
the early 1980s I was idly poking about in the library of the School of
Scottish Studies in Edinburgh and I came across a book which was about, or
included, traditions of the Gregara - the MacGregor clan. It helps if you
know that the (unofficial?) motto of the Gregara is "I am Macgregor and my
blood is royal." One of the stories which had been handed down involved a
diplomatic delegation to an English king who had to be Richard. He wasn't
named by name which is probably why the story had been overlooked, just "the
English king", but there was enough internal detail to work out that the
delegation being described pretty-much had to be the one which met Richard
at Nottingham.
According to the story, during the conference a man named Macgregor, who was
one of the aides to the Scottish ambassador, suddenly darted out of the
crowd, snatched the crown from Richard's head and ran with it. He was
brought down almost immediately and dragged before Richard, who demanded to
know what the hell he thought he was playing at. Macgregor replied that
when he was born the local spaewife had predicted that he would end by being
hanged as a thief, and if so he didn't want to die for stealing anything
petty. Needless to say Richard didn't hang him.
But I didn't make a note of the book's title, and when I went back to the
library a couple of years later to find it they'd re-organised the
shelves.... :(
Then there was the little library which used to be up the alley off Fleet
Street that leads to Shoe Lane, and which had a shelf of big Victorian
history books one of which had a lengthy section on Richard which said that
some sources believed Ann to have pressed him to accept the throne, and that
when she died he walked in procession with her coffin and wept in the
street. But when the old printing works were pulled down in about 1985 the
library moved to new premises, and when I went there looking for that book
they'd got rid of it :( Not that finding it would necessarily help all
that much because I remember at the time trying to see where the author had
got this information, and wondering if he or she'd maybe got mixed up with
Richard II, and not being able to find any list of the sources they'd used.
> I know they happen, and that your late boyfriend definitely did discover
> something.
He certainly found something which convinced him, but I just wish I could
check it and see how good his evidence was. Since it was in documentation
at the portrait gallery it was probably something like "This fine 16th C
portrait was left to so-and-so in the will of Katherine Wishart,
granddaughter of the Earl of Huntingdon" or some such.
> I was researching for a novel about Warwick the Kingmaker's wife, Anne
> Beauchamp. I may have the trawl through the book again in the hope of a
> memory jog.
I can roughly date when I saw both these missing sources because I
incorporated both stories, the one about Macgregor and the one about Ann's
coffin, into a poem the first draught of which was written in the mid '80s.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
> I do hate these lingering memories of having read/discovered something a
> long time ago, and then being totally unable to remember where/what/how.
Or knowing what/where/how all except for the name of the damned book. In
the early 1980s I was idly poking about in the library of the School of
Scottish Studies in Edinburgh and I came across a book which was about, or
included, traditions of the Gregara - the MacGregor clan. It helps if you
know that the (unofficial?) motto of the Gregara is "I am Macgregor and my
blood is royal." One of the stories which had been handed down involved a
diplomatic delegation to an English king who had to be Richard. He wasn't
named by name which is probably why the story had been overlooked, just "the
English king", but there was enough internal detail to work out that the
delegation being described pretty-much had to be the one which met Richard
at Nottingham.
According to the story, during the conference a man named Macgregor, who was
one of the aides to the Scottish ambassador, suddenly darted out of the
crowd, snatched the crown from Richard's head and ran with it. He was
brought down almost immediately and dragged before Richard, who demanded to
know what the hell he thought he was playing at. Macgregor replied that
when he was born the local spaewife had predicted that he would end by being
hanged as a thief, and if so he didn't want to die for stealing anything
petty. Needless to say Richard didn't hang him.
But I didn't make a note of the book's title, and when I went back to the
library a couple of years later to find it they'd re-organised the
shelves.... :(
Then there was the little library which used to be up the alley off Fleet
Street that leads to Shoe Lane, and which had a shelf of big Victorian
history books one of which had a lengthy section on Richard which said that
some sources believed Ann to have pressed him to accept the throne, and that
when she died he walked in procession with her coffin and wept in the
street. But when the old printing works were pulled down in about 1985 the
library moved to new premises, and when I went there looking for that book
they'd got rid of it :( Not that finding it would necessarily help all
that much because I remember at the time trying to see where the author had
got this information, and wondering if he or she'd maybe got mixed up with
Richard II, and not being able to find any list of the sources they'd used.
> I know they happen, and that your late boyfriend definitely did discover
> something.
He certainly found something which convinced him, but I just wish I could
check it and see how good his evidence was. Since it was in documentation
at the portrait gallery it was probably something like "This fine 16th C
portrait was left to so-and-so in the will of Katherine Wishart,
granddaughter of the Earl of Huntingdon" or some such.
> I was researching for a novel about Warwick the Kingmaker's wife, Anne
> Beauchamp. I may have the trawl through the book again in the hope of a
> memory jog.
I can roughly date when I saw both these missing sources because I
incorporated both stories, the one about Macgregor and the one about Ann's
coffin, into a poem the first draught of which was written in the mid '80s.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 10:11:14
Or Tarlatan?
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know
> what tartaryn is).
Tartan, maybe?
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know
> what tartaryn is).
Tartan, maybe?
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 10:52:55
I love the story of the snatched crown. I imagine Richard saw the funny side of it. Although, of course, it might not have been a snatched crown, but a dagger in the heart. Not so funny then.
Sandra
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
According to the story, during the conference a man named Macgregor, who was
one of the aides to the Scottish ambassador, suddenly darted out of the
crowd, snatched the crown from Richard's head and ran with it. He was
brought down almost immediately and dragged before Richard, who demanded to
know what the hell he thought he was playing at. Macgregor replied that
when he was born the local spaewife had predicted that he would end by being
hanged as a thief, and if so he didn't want to die for stealing anything
petty. Needless to say Richard didn't hang him.
Sandra
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
According to the story, during the conference a man named Macgregor, who was
one of the aides to the Scottish ambassador, suddenly darted out of the
crowd, snatched the crown from Richard's head and ran with it. He was
brought down almost immediately and dragged before Richard, who demanded to
know what the hell he thought he was playing at. Macgregor replied that
when he was born the local spaewife had predicted that he would end by being
hanged as a thief, and if so he didn't want to die for stealing anything
petty. Needless to say Richard didn't hang him.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 20:17:16
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> When I mentioned Hancock's book in an email to you that I sent last week, I wrote "although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would highly recommend the book."
Carol responds:
Hi, Johanne. I keep forgetting to check my Yahoo e-mail, and when I do, I tend to find messages that have been sitting unanswered for months. My apologies to anyone who has been waiting for ages for a response. I'll try to get to it soon!
Carol
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> When I mentioned Hancock's book in an email to you that I sent last week, I wrote "although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would highly recommend the book."
Carol responds:
Hi, Johanne. I keep forgetting to check my Yahoo e-mail, and when I do, I tend to find messages that have been sitting unanswered for months. My apologies to anyone who has been waiting for ages for a response. I'll try to get to it soon!
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 21:12:00
Tartaryn was a form of silk, often used for bed hangings. Richard II's half-brother, John Holland, Earl of Huntington, seemed to have quite a few such elaborate hangings, often described as tartaryn. "C. Inq. Misc. File 278 (37). 166. ...On the day of this inquisition there are within the manor of Dartington divers goods of John late earl of Huntingdon...a bed...with 3 querteyns of tarteryn' plated with gold leaf with bulls...a bed of red tarteryn embroidered (embraud) with letters, with a red tarteryn' quyrteyn' appointed therefor and so on.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Or Tarlatan?
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know
> what tartaryn is).
Tartan, maybe?
.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
Or Tarlatan?
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2013, 21:36
Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
> "16 yards of scarlet with a piece of tartaryn for lining"--not that I know
> what tartaryn is).
Tartan, maybe?
.
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 22:33:34
Hi, Carol -
I didn't mean that I addressed the email to you personally. The email I'm
referring to was my second email to this Forum after my return, and I was
responding to your email welcoming me back. It was on the "why people aren't
passionate about King John" thread.
I just thought I'd point out that I did mention previously that Hancock's
literary style was a bit clunky. I still think it's worth reading and
owning. J
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> When I mentioned Hancock's book in an email to you that I sent last week,
I wrote "although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would
highly recommend the book."
Carol responds:
Hi, Johanne. I keep forgetting to check my Yahoo e-mail, and when I do, I
tend to find messages that have been sitting unanswered for months. My
apologies to anyone who has been waiting for ages for a response. I'll try
to get to it soon!
Carol
I didn't mean that I addressed the email to you personally. The email I'm
referring to was my second email to this Forum after my return, and I was
responding to your email welcoming me back. It was on the "why people aren't
passionate about King John" thread.
I just thought I'd point out that I did mention previously that Hancock's
literary style was a bit clunky. I still think it's worth reading and
owning. J
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> When I mentioned Hancock's book in an email to you that I sent last week,
I wrote "although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would
highly recommend the book."
Carol responds:
Hi, Johanne. I keep forgetting to check my Yahoo e-mail, and when I do, I
tend to find messages that have been sitting unanswered for months. My
apologies to anyone who has been waiting for ages for a response. I'll try
to get to it soon!
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-01 23:26:37
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> I didn't mean that I addressed the email to you personally. The email I'm referring to was my second email to this Forum after my return, and I was responding to your email welcoming me back. It was on the "why people aren't passionate about King John" thread.
Carol responds:
Oh. Sorry about that. Since I read the messages from this forum from the website, I never think of them as e-mail. I call them "posts" or "messages." No need to respond--just explaining why I was confused.
Carol
> I didn't mean that I addressed the email to you personally. The email I'm referring to was my second email to this Forum after my return, and I was responding to your email welcoming me back. It was on the "why people aren't passionate about King John" thread.
Carol responds:
Oh. Sorry about that. Since I read the messages from this forum from the website, I never think of them as e-mail. I call them "posts" or "messages." No need to respond--just explaining why I was confused.
Carol
Re: Pre Contract.
2013-05-02 01:02:45
Tamara, that's a very concise description of HT for sure:) I forgot about that line.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:20 PM, khafara@... wrote:
> As Jo Tey said in reference to Henry's killing of Richard's natural son John: "His claim was better than Henry's. He was the illegitimate only son of a king. Henry was the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a younger son of a king."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: whitehound@...
> To: <>
> Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 7:39 am
> Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> > The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking
> > refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at
> > least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different
> > Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in
> > April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in
> > the Simnel conspiracy.
>
> Now, what was he doing supporting a revolt in favour of somebody claiming to
> be one of the missing boys, if he himself believed those boys to be
> illeigitmate? Did he think "Better York's bastard tham Lancaster's", or
> what?
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:20 PM, khafara@... wrote:
> As Jo Tey said in reference to Henry's killing of Richard's natural son John: "His claim was better than Henry's. He was the illegitimate only son of a king. Henry was the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a younger son of a king."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: whitehound@...
> To: <>
> Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 7:39 am
> Subject: Re: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Pre Contract.
>
> > The next we hear of Stillington, according to girders.net, is his taking
> > refuge at Oxford (evidence that he got his degrees there, Hilary or at
> > least had connections there?) in February 1487 (according to a different
> > Ricardian article, vol. 54, pp. 14-27) before he was taken to Windsor in
> > April and imprisoned (permanently) in October 1487 for participating in
> > the Simnel conspiracy.
>
> Now, what was he doing supporting a revolt in favour of somebody claiming to
> be one of the missing boys, if he himself believed those boys to be
> illeigitmate? Did he think "Better York's bastard tham Lancaster's", or
> what?
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.