Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford

Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
English Historical Review*?

From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--

More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
occasions.


If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.

There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books *Richard
III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
the Hicks work?

A J

It's Richard's cartulary British Library Cotton Julius BXII.
 
Josephine Wilkinson devotes some space to it as an illustration of Richard's aquisitiveness. She also devotes a chapter to the Anne Beauchamp/Countess of Oxford lands issue where she does. to her credit say that it was only right that R on behalf of Edward should confiscate the latter's lands because her son was a traitor and could use their proceeds for bad ends.


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 4:25
Subject: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford


 

Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
English Historical Review*?

From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--

More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
occasions.

If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.

There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books *Richard
III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
the Hicks work?

A J

From: A J Hibbard
To:
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:25 AM
Subject: Michael Hicks The Last Days of
Elizabeth Countess of Oxford


> If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.

Well, it was Edward who took away the countess of Warwick's lands and
declared her legally dead, albeit he did it to stop George and Richard
squabbling over their wives' inheritance from her. You *could* see the
countess's subsequent move to Middleham as imprisonment if you wanted to be
negative but Middleham was a very large and comfortable house in a nice
little town, and there's that letter about Richard supposedly complaining
about the countess spending too much of his money on holy relics, which
suggests that he'd effectively told her "If you need anything, just charge
it to my account" and had come to regret it.

She wasn't helpless, either - she was ferociously articulate, litiginous and
strong-willed and for her son-in-law to agree to share a house with her
suggests either mutual affection or great self-sacrifice on his part. So
any oppressing was being done by Edward, and although Richard didn't
actually say "No, no, I will not profit by my mother-in-law's misfortune -
give her lands back to her" he was at least making sure that her enforced
retirement was a very comfortable one, and one where she had the company of
her daughter and grandson.

The countess of Oxford was an extremely rich grande dame and a determined
enemy, and Richard was a scrawny little youth of about 18 iirc, so the
balance of power in their conversation probably lay with her. Confiscating
her lands was dubiously legal but politically it was a sensible move because
she was going to use that money to fund a pro-Lancastrian invasion, and
again the dubious legality is all Edward's. Iirc Richard offered her a
choice - either stay free but we will take away control of your money and
pay you a pension instead, or keep control of your money but live under
genteel house arrest so we can see what you spend it on.

She chose house arrest so Richard offered her lodgings at Middleham - a very
comfortable country house, remember. The reocnstructions make it look like
a lovely cosy country cottage inflated to the size of a grand hotel. She
burst into tears and declared that the journey into the wild north (a
journey which Richard must have regarded as quite routine) would be too much
for a poor old lady like her and was he trying to kill her? so he
backpedalled and told her to choose where she wanted to stay, then, and she
ended up living in one of her own mansions Down South, on a pension.

Financially it was sharp practice but she was a very powerful enemy, so
keeping control of her was a sensible move, and given that controlling her
was a political neccessity I think the facts suggest that Richard did it in
as *un*bullying a way as he could, and tried to accommodate her wishes.

There is one bit of business where Richard *might* have been being a bully
on Edward's behalf but it literally depends on how you read it. About 20
years after his death there was a court case in which a letter which Duke
Richard had written to one of the Pastons was cited as evidence.

The Paston guy had been involved in some sort of land dispute. Edward had
wanted something from him, and Richard had written him a letter which said
that he should do what Edward wanted, otherwise "it will cost him that he
holds dearest".

This was interpreted by the court as meaning "If he doesn't do what my
brother says we will make sure he loses that land he's so set on", and it
*could* mean that.

But we also know from the "most untrue creature" postscript that Richard at
least some of the time used "him that" as an alternative to "he who". The
Pastons were family friends of the York boys, so it's possible to read "it
will cost him that he holds dearest" as "Tell him to do what the king my
brother wants otherwise my brother, whom he holds dearest, will lose out".

Nope, but this is covered to some degree in Bertram Fields "Royal Blood". I would have to look out what he says, but the Countess of Oxford accusation, he suggests there was a degree of "crocodile tears" over the possibility of being made to go and live in the savage north, and that she was a dangerous character to leave with all her monies and lands intact.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
> English Historical Review*?
>
> From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
> in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--
>
> More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
> threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
> over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
> these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
> lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
> aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
> of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
> different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
> for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
> occasions.
>
>
> If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
> material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
> presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.
>
> There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books *Richard
> III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
> Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
> severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
> available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
> the Hicks work?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>

Hi, A J!



Unfortunately I'm not expert on these dealings at all. I am sure there are
people here who can respond to Hicks' statement much better than I can.
However, I would note that as Richard was designated to be Edward's deputy
in the North, he needed wealth and property in order to carry out that
trust. Now, I don't know if the Countess of Oxford was herself a traitor,
but her husband certainly was. I know more about the ins and outs with the
Countess of Warwick, and in that case, of course, there was a family
connection and Richard offered her a home at Middleham and I believe she
also received an allowance. This was typical of the day, as Cecily had also
received an allowance from Henry VI after her husband was killed. When
Edward became king, it was in effect a revolution that required the transfer
of lands and properties in order to enable the Yorks to carry out their
plans. BTW, in the case of the Countess of Warwick, there was also the
influence of George, looking to get as much of Warwick's estates as
possible, Richard, I believe came off distinctly second best in the
competition for Warwick's estates, and he seems to have been content with
that, and a careful manager as well. As I said, I am less conversant with
the dealings with the Countess of Oxford, but I suspect there were also
mitigating factors in that case as well.



I wish I knew more about that contretemps!



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 A J Hibbard
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 12:25 AM
To:
Subject: Michael Hicks The Last Days of
Elizabeth Countess of Oxford





Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
English Historical Review*?

From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--

More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
occasions.

If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.

There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books
*Richard
III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
the Hicks work?

A J

Thanks for all the replies. I'll keep Bertram Fields by my side as I work
through the article! And will probably actually check a book out of the
library for the first time in years since I see no one has checked out the
Hicks book.

Since this group has such a positive feeling about Richard's attitude to
women, I really want to see where the holes might be in the arguments put
forward by Hicks & Pollard.

A J


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi, A J!
>
> Unfortunately I'm not expert on these dealings at all. I am sure there are
> people here who can respond to Hicks' statement much better than I can.
> However, I would note that as Richard was designated to be Edward's deputy
> in the North, he needed wealth and property in order to carry out that
> trust. Now, I don't know if the Countess of Oxford was herself a traitor,
> but her husband certainly was. I know more about the ins and outs with the
> Countess of Warwick, and in that case, of course, there was a family
> connection and Richard offered her a home at Middleham and I believe she
> also received an allowance. This was typical of the day, as Cecily had also
> received an allowance from Henry VI after her husband was killed. When
> Edward became king, it was in effect a revolution that required the
> transfer
> of lands and properties in order to enable the Yorks to carry out their
> plans. BTW, in the case of the Countess of Warwick, there was also the
> influence of George, looking to get as much of Warwick's estates as
> possible, Richard, I believe came off distinctly second best in the
> competition for Warwick's estates, and he seems to have been content with
> that, and a careful manager as well. As I said, I am less conversant with
> the dealings with the Countess of Oxford, but I suspect there were also
> mitigating factors in that case as well.
>
> I wish I knew more about that contretemps!
>
> 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 A J Hibbard
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 12:25 AM
> To:
>
> Subject: Michael Hicks The Last Days of
> Elizabeth Countess of Oxford
>
> Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
> English Historical Review*?
>
>
> From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
> in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--
>
>
> More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
> threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
> over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
> these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
> lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
> aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
> of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
> different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
> for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
> occasions.
>
> If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
> material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
> presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.
>
> There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books
> *Richard
> III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
>
> Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
> severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
> available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
> the Hicks work?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's absolutely capable of a different interpretation, one that Hicks himself finds hard to hide. The Countess does seem to have been lending support (probably mainly financial) to her son the Earl of Oxford, who was planning an invasion! She was also brought before the King's Council at this period. Richard clearly (to my mind) interviewed her in his capacity as Lord Constable and tried to find a way to deal with the problem short of locking her up in the Tower, whch had already happened to her once in the early 1460s. Another suggestion he made was confining her in his own household at Middleham, but that was clearly unacceptable to her. In the event the agreement was that she would have the current feoffees (feoffees were nominal owners but really trustees to the use of the feoffor) of her lands pass their estate in the same to Richard. He thus became the new feoffee, agreeing to pay the Countess a fixed annual income from the proceeds of the rents, to support a younger son who was studying at Cambridge, etc. With her death, Richard became the free owner of these lands.
In order to be restored to these estates, Oxford had to demonstrate duress. This was easy to do if the treasonable context was kept out of the inquiry, as it was. In fact, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen Richard bullying or threatening the Countess.
Marie
P.S. This subject was discussed on the forum a while back, so you should be able to pick up the posts.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
> English Historical Review*?
>
> From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
> in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--
>
> More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
> threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
> over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
> these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
> lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
> aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
> of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
> different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
> for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
> occasions.
>
>
> If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
> material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
> presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.
>
> There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books *Richard
> III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
> Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
> severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
> available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
> the Hicks work?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>

Thanks, I'll check out the old posts. What else has been published
rebutting the Hicks/Pollard arguments - anything with comparable visibility?

A J


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> It's absolutely capable of a different interpretation, one that Hicks
> himself finds hard to hide. The Countess does seem to have been lending
> support (probably mainly financial) to her son the Earl of Oxford, who was
> planning an invasion! She was also brought before the King's Council at
> this period. Richard clearly (to my mind) interviewed her in his capacity
> as Lord Constable and tried to find a way to deal with the problem short of
> locking her up in the Tower, whch had already happened to her once in the
> early 1460s. Another suggestion he made was confining her in his own
> household at Middleham, but that was clearly unacceptable to her. In the
> event the agreement was that she would have the current feoffees (feoffees
> were nominal owners but really trustees to the use of the feoffor) of her
> lands pass their estate in the same to Richard. He thus became the new
> feoffee, agreeing to pay the Countess a fixed annual income from the
> proceeds of the rents, to support a younger son who was studying at
> Cambridge, etc. With her death, Richard became the free owner of these
> lands.
> In order to be restored to these estates, Oxford had to demonstrate
> duress. This was easy to do if the treasonable context was kept out of the
> inquiry, as it was. In fact, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen
> Richard bullying or threatening the Countess.
> Marie
> P.S. This subject was discussed on the forum a while back, so you should
> be able to pick up the posts.
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
> > English Historical Review*?
>
> >
> > From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's
> statement
> > in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--
>
> >
> > More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
> > threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into
> handing
> > over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
> > these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of
> Warwick"]
> > lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard,
> barely
> > aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
> > of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
> > different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
> > for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on
> these
> > occasions.
> >
> >
> > If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
> > material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
> > presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.
> >
> > There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books
> *Richard
> > III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
>
> > Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
> > severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
> > available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading
> through
> > the Hicks work?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

This seems to be the old double standard. When Richard did it, it was pure evil; when Henry VI, Edward IV, and Henry VII did something very similar to a widow of a traitor than it was par for the course, nothing to see here.

Richard was not perfect, he was a medieval prince, as acquisitive as his peers, but he seemed to have been more generous to the widows than Henry VII. Francis Lovell's wife, Anne Fitzhugh, was granted an annuity of £20 in 1489. In contrast, Richard III gave Elizabeth Countess of Oxford 500 marks [£166] per year for life, payment of her debt of £240.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's absolutely capable of a different interpretation, one that Hicks himself finds hard to hide. The Countess does seem to have been lending support (probably mainly financial) to her son the Earl of Oxford, who was planning an invasion! She was also brought before the King's Council at this period. Richard clearly (to my mind) interviewed her in his capacity as Lord Constable and tried to find a way to deal with the problem short of locking her up in the Tower, whch had already happened to her once in the early 1460s. Another suggestion he made was confining her in his own household at Middleham, but that was clearly unacceptable to her. In the event the agreement was that she would have the current feoffees (feoffees were nominal owners but really trustees to the use of the feoffor) of her lands pass their estate in the same to Richard. He thus became the new feoffee, agreeing to pay the Countess a fixed annual income from the proceeds of the rents, to support a younger son who was studying at Cambridge, etc. With her death, Richard became the free owner of these lands.
> In order to be restored to these estates, Oxford had to demonstrate duress. This was easy to do if the treasonable context was kept out of the inquiry, as it was. In fact, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen Richard bullying or threatening the Countess.
> Marie
> P.S. This subject was discussed on the forum a while back, so you should be able to pick up the posts.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone else read through this article, published in 1988 in *The
> > English Historical Review*?
> >
> > From a quick skim, it looks to be of the same tenor as Pollard's statement
> > in *Richard III and the Princes in the Tower*--
> >
> > More fully documented is the treatment of the countess of Oxford,
> > threatened too with imprisonment in Middleham, who was bullied into handing
> > over her estates to Richard in 1473. The importance of the harassment of
> > these two dowagers [the other being "the defenceless countess of Warwick"]
> > lies in the revelation of the unscrupulous lengths to which Richard, barely
> > aged twenty, was prepared to go to get his own way. It puts his treatment
> > of his nephews, similarly vulnerable and defenceless in 1483, in a
> > different light. It was not unprecedented or out of character. Respect
> > for the principle of justice was the last thing on Richard's mind on these
> > occasions.
> >
> >
> > If someone has already been through this article & looked at the source
> > material to see if a different interpretation is possible than the one
> > presented by Hicks, I'd be glad to know about it.
> >
> > There's also a reference in Pollard's book to another of Hicks' books *Richard
> > III as Duke of Gloucester* in which he is said to have used a register
> > Richard kept of is grants of land & offices. Already having contracted a
> > severe dislike for these 2 gentleman, I'm wondering if this "register" is
> > available in unaldulterated form, or if not, if it is worth wading through
> > the Hicks work?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Thanks, I'll check out the old posts. What else has been published
> rebutting the Hicks/Pollard arguments - anything with comparable visibility?

Carol responds:

I was under the impression that David Baldwin (of all people, given his stubbornly neutral position on Richard) had presented a very reasonable explanation of Richard's dealings with the Countess of Oxford, but I seem to have downloaded only the Kindle sample and can't find what I'm looking for. Edward had executed the countess's husband and eldest son in February 1462 (when Richard was nine), but he pardoned the nineteen-year-old second son, John de Vere, and allowed him to assume the title Earl of Oxford. That son joined Warwick's rebellion (his wife was Warwick's sister) and fought against Edward at Barnet in 1471 (he's the one who scattered Hastings's forces but was in turn defeated when he returned to fight in the fog and his star with streams was mistaken for Edward's sun in splendor). Unfortunately, he escaped to Scotland and then France with his two brothers and became a pirate. Needless to say, his lands were confiscated, but it wasn't until he was captured, imprisoned, and attainted (again) in 1475 that his mother surrendered her lands to Richard, the twenty-two-old constable. (Almost certainly, Edward was afraid that the countess would use her money to aid her sons.) In 1484, Oxford escaped from prison, aided by the traitor James Blount, to lead the Lancastrian/dissident Yorkist portion of Tudor's troops against the Duke of Norfolk at Bosworth. If only Edward had executed him!

At any rate, the accusations that Richard coerced the old countess (which, as Marie pointed out, omit the mention of her son's treason against Edward IV, as well as his discreditable career as a "privateer") were made long after Richard's death. Of course, no one at that time would testify in favor of the dead "usurper" Richard against the Earl of Oxford, without whose generalship in the Battle of Bosworth Henry could never have become king, or note how reasonable Richard's treatment of her had been (just as he had allowed the Countess of Warwick to stay with him and her daughter in her own home, Middleham, rather than her miserable sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey, apparently allowing her free access to spending money and certainly freedom of movement). The dowager Countess of Oxford's tears, assuming that they were real, may well have been tears of gratitude for Richard's unexpected generosity (at least in contrast with Edward).

Kendall says that Richard as king bestowed an annuity on Oxford's Neville wife (not the countess in question, I realize) despite Oxford's being his enemy. Apparently, this annuity is well attested (Paston letters, p. 102, Calendar of Patent Rolls, and Harleian 433; Kendall also cites Scofield's "Edward IV," vol. II, p. 89). Unfortunately, Kendall says nothing about the dowager countess of Oxford though he does discuss Richard's treatment of his mother-in-law, p. 130 of my old edition) and his kindness to women (and Nevilles) in general (I can't recall the page numbers).

If I come across that explanation of Richard's actions regarding the dowager countess of Oxford, I'll post it.

Carol

Okay, thanks. I'll check the Baldwin book I have.

I have started through the old posts, but usually wind up being distracted
by some interesting thread that's tangential to what I started looking for
in the first place.

I also can't help noticing how the tone of discussion has changed
remarkably in the last 10 years. There seem to have been many
anti-Ricardians on the forum then.

A J


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, I'll check out the old posts. What else has been published
> > rebutting the Hicks/Pollard arguments - anything with comparable
> visibility?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was under the impression that David Baldwin (of all people, given his
> stubbornly neutral position on Richard) had presented a very reasonable
> explanation of Richard's dealings with the Countess of Oxford, but I seem
> to have downloaded only the Kindle sample and can't find what I'm looking
> for. Edward had executed the countess's husband and eldest son in February
> 1462 (when Richard was nine), but he pardoned the nineteen-year-old second
> son, John de Vere, and allowed him to assume the title Earl of Oxford. That
> son joined Warwick's rebellion (his wife was Warwick's sister) and fought
> against Edward at Barnet in 1471 (he's the one who scattered Hastings's
> forces but was in turn defeated when he returned to fight in the fog and
> his star with streams was mistaken for Edward's sun in splendor).
> Unfortunately, he escaped to Scotland and then France with his two brothers
> and became a pirate. Needless to say, his lands were confiscated, but it
> wasn't until he was captured, imprisoned, and attainted (again) in 1475
> that his mother surrendered her lands to Richard, the twenty-two-old
> constable. (Almost certainly, Edward was afraid that the countess would use
> her money to aid her sons.) In 1484, Oxford escaped from prison, aided by
> the traitor James Blount, to lead the Lancastrian/dissident Yorkist portion
> of Tudor's troops against the Duke of Norfolk at Bosworth. If only Edward
> had executed him!
>
> At any rate, the accusations that Richard coerced the old countess (which,
> as Marie pointed out, omit the mention of her son's treason against Edward
> IV, as well as his discreditable career as a "privateer") were made long
> after Richard's death. Of course, no one at that time would testify in
> favor of the dead "usurper" Richard against the Earl of Oxford, without
> whose generalship in the Battle of Bosworth Henry could never have become
> king, or note how reasonable Richard's treatment of her had been (just as
> he had allowed the Countess of Warwick to stay with him and her daughter in
> her own home, Middleham, rather than her miserable sanctuary in Beaulieu
> Abbey, apparently allowing her free access to spending money and certainly
> freedom of movement). The dowager Countess of Oxford's tears, assuming that
> they were real, may well have been tears of gratitude for Richard's
> unexpected generosity (at least in contrast with Edward).
>
> Kendall says that Richard as king bestowed an annuity on Oxford's Neville
> wife (not the countess in question, I realize) despite Oxford's being his
> enemy. Apparently, this annuity is well attested (Paston letters, p. 102,
> Calendar of Patent Rolls, and Harleian 433; Kendall also cites Scofield's
> "Edward IV," vol. II, p. 89). Unfortunately, Kendall says nothing about the
> dowager countess of Oxford though he does discuss Richard's treatment of
> his mother-in-law, p. 130 of my old edition) and his kindness to women (and
> Nevilles) in general (I can't recall the page numbers).
>
> If I come across that explanation of Richard's actions regarding the
> dowager countess of Oxford, I'll post it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks. I'll check the Baldwin book I have.
>
> I have started through the old posts, but usually wind up being distracted by some interesting thread that's tangential to what I started looking for in the first place.

Carol responds:

Yahoo makes it difficult to find posts on a particular topic {though it helps to put quotation marks around a key phrase). However, I've managed to find part of the most recent Countess of Oxford discussion and you can possibly trace the discussion from there.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/27822

I didn't find a reference to Baldwin, though I still recall being surprised and pleased to find the Countess of Oxford discussion in his book (I could be wrong--books jumble together in my head unless I take notes or have some particular reason, such as a distinctive writing style, to associate a particular passage with a particular author.)

I did, however, find (in the message I linked to) a reference to a similar discussion of the Countess of Oxford incident in Bertram Fields's otherwise disappointing book, "Royal Blood." (I would recommend the book for anyone just getting to know Richard and the issues surrounding him, but for someone who's been a Ricardian for decades, there's nothing new.)

Anyway, I hope you'll find the post and the discussion it links to helpful.

Carol

Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this. 
He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard" would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.
Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son; this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this. 

--- On Fri, 3/5/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford
To:
Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 18:51
















 













A J Hibbard wrote:

>

> Thanks, I'll check out the old posts. What else has been published

> rebutting the Hicks/Pollard arguments - anything with comparable visibility?



Carol responds:



I was under the impression that David Baldwin (of all people, given his stubbornly neutral position on Richard) had presented a very reasonable explanation of Richard's dealings with the Countess of Oxford, but I seem to have downloaded only the Kindle sample and can't find what I'm looking for. Edward had executed the countess's husband and eldest son in February 1462 (when Richard was nine), but he pardoned the nineteen-year-old second son, John de Vere, and allowed him to assume the title Earl of Oxford. That son joined Warwick's rebellion (his wife was Warwick's sister) and fought against Edward at Barnet in 1471 (he's the one who scattered Hastings's forces but was in turn defeated when he returned to fight in the fog and his star with streams was mistaken for Edward's sun in splendor). Unfortunately, he escaped to Scotland and then France with his two brothers and became a pirate. Needless to say, his lands were confiscated, but it wasn't until he
was captured, imprisoned, and attainted (again) in 1475 that his mother surrendered her lands to Richard, the twenty-two-old constable. (Almost certainly, Edward was afraid that the countess would use her money to aid her sons.) In 1484, Oxford escaped from prison, aided by the traitor James Blount, to lead the Lancastrian/dissident Yorkist portion of Tudor's troops against the Duke of Norfolk at Bosworth. If only Edward had executed him!



At any rate, the accusations that Richard coerced the old countess (which, as Marie pointed out, omit the mention of her son's treason against Edward IV, as well as his discreditable career as a "privateer") were made long after Richard's death. Of course, no one at that time would testify in favor of the dead "usurper" Richard against the Earl of Oxford, without whose generalship in the Battle of Bosworth Henry could never have become king, or note how reasonable Richard's treatment of her had been (just as he had allowed the Countess of Warwick to stay with him and her daughter in her own home, Middleham, rather than her miserable sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey, apparently allowing her free access to spending money and certainly freedom of movement). The dowager Countess of Oxford's tears, assuming that they were real, may well have been tears of gratitude for Richard's unexpected generosity (at least in contrast with Edward).



Kendall says that Richard as king bestowed an annuity on Oxford's Neville wife (not the countess in question, I realize) despite Oxford's being his enemy. Apparently, this annuity is well attested (Paston letters, p. 102, Calendar of Patent Rolls, and Harleian 433; Kendall also cites Scofield's "Edward IV," vol. II, p. 89). Unfortunately, Kendall says nothing about the dowager countess of Oxford though he does discuss Richard's treatment of his mother-in-law, p. 130 of my old edition) and his kindness to women (and Nevilles) in general (I can't recall the page numbers).



If I come across that explanation of Richard's actions regarding the dowager countess of Oxford, I'll post it.



Carol

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this. 
> He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard" would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.
> Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;

Marie replies:
No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer) had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore, Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that, if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.

When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's Mount.
There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.
Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters tell us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was very probably there at the same time as Anne.




this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this. 


Marie:
Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.

Thank you Marie. Now where do we start putting these counter-arguments to
the nastiness spewed by Hicks? Off to check out the Society & branch's
websites...

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or
> coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son
> assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be
> considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people
> claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed
> mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this.ý
>
> > He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour
> commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's
> no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard"
> would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.
> > Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he
> expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;
>
> Marie replies:
> No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the
> Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would
> also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this
> with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer)
> had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not
> read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore,
> Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could
> not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that,
> if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason
> and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted
> to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable
> outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.
>
> When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at
> university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de
> Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's
> Mount.
> There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of
> Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to
> honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had
> links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of
> the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said
> by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet
> and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.
> Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in
> mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the
> rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters tell
> us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was
> very probably there at the same time as Anne.
>
> this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not
> intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this.ý
>
> Marie:
> Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was
> charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He
> came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for
> her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.
>
>
>

Has anyone here tried their luck with Wikipedia? Has an entry for the Countess been created yet?

Those that frame the story first usually frame it most effectively.



-----Original Message-----
From: ajhibbard@...
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford



Thank you Marie. Now where do we start putting these counter-arguments to
the nastiness spewed by Hicks? Off to check out the Society & branch's
websites...

A J

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or
> coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son
> assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be
> considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people
> claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed
> mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this.ý
>
> > He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour
> commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's
> no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard"
> would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.
> > Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he
> expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;
>
> Marie replies:
> No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the
> Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would
> also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this
> with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer)
> had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not
> read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore,
> Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could
> not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that,
> if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason
> and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted
> to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable
> outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.
>
> When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at
> university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de
> Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's
> Mount.
> There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of
> Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to
> honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had
> links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of
> the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said
> by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet
> and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.
> Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in
> mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the
> rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters tell
> us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was
> very probably there at the same time as Anne.
>
> this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not
> intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this.ý
>
> Marie:
> Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was
> charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He
> came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for
> her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Haven't made it to Wikipedia yet, but here's this entitled Gloucester,
Greed, and Granny: RIchard III and the Countess of Oxford

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/richardiii.html


Here's her list of sources:

Anne Crawford, "Victims of Attainder: The Howard and de Vere Women in the
Late Fifteenth Century," *Reading Medieval Studies*, 1989.

Bertram Fields, *Royal Blood*.

Barbara J. Harris, *English Aristocratic Women, 1450-1550*.

Michael Hicks, Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates and Their Motives in
the Wars of the Roses.

Rosemary Horrox, *Richard III: A Study in Service*.

Paul Murray Kendall, *Richard the Third*.

A. J. Pollard, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower.

Charles Ross, *Richard III*.

James Ross, "Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and the De Vere Estates,
1462-85," *The Ricardian* (2005).

Desmond Seward, *The Wars of the Roses.*

I believe I've seen this author posting to the Richard III Society Facebook
page too.

Really - what to do?

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM, <khafara@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Has anyone here tried their luck with Wikipedia? Has an entry for the
> Countess been created yet?
>
> Those that frame the story first usually frame it most effectively.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ajhibbard@...
> To: <>
> Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 1:27 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days
> of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford
>
> Thank you Marie. Now where do we start putting these counter-arguments to
> the nastiness spewed by Hicks? Off to check out the Society & branch's
> websites...
>
> A J
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton
> <jaangelfire@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or
> > coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son
> > assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be
> > considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people
> > claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed
> > mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this.ý
>
> >
> > > He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour
> > commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren -
> there's
> > no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard"
> > would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.
> > > Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he
> > expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of
> the
> > Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he
> would
> > also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this
> > with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer)
> > had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not
> > read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right,
> therefore,
> > Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could
> > not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that,
> > if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason
> > and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been
> granted
> > to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable
> > outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.
> >
> > When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at
> > university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de
> > Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's
> > Mount.
> > There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of
> > Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to
> > honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had
> > links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of
> > the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said
> > by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet
> > and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.
> > Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in
> > mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the
> > rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters
> tell
> > us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was
> > very probably there at the same time as Anne.
> >
> > this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not
> > intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this.ý
>
> >
> > Marie:
> > Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was
> > charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He
> > came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for
> > her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
> No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer) had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore, Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that, if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.
>
> When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's Mount. [snip]

> Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.
>
Carol responds:

Marie, have you thought about writing an article for the Ricardian on this topic? It would provide some ammunition against Hicks and other detractors who charge Richard with greed.

BTW, by Oxford in that second paragraph, do you mean Hicks?

Carol

Thank you, Marie - very interesting. I can probably take a look at Ross's biography of Oxford next week, and if he says anything else about all this I will post it here. 

--- On Sat, 4/5/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford
To:
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 23:04
















 













--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

>

> Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this. 

> He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard" would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.

> Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;



Marie replies:

No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer) had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore, Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that, if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.



When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's Mount.

There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.

Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters tell us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was very probably there at the same time as Anne.



this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this. 



Marie:

Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.

Marie, Wilkinson is quite interesting on this. Although agreeing that Richard was acting on Edward's instructions by making sure the Countess did not have monies to finance her son she says:
 
a. that it was Edward who summoned her to him daily over Easter 1473 and put pressure on her 'on pain of her own recognizance of £3000 and sureties of £8000' to release her lands
b. that Stillington, as Chancellor 'called her to his Chequer Chamber at Westminster and asked her to tell him the truth, without fear, of her transactions with the Duke of Gloucester'. It is she who said she was 'compellid with grette fere and drede' to make over her lands to Richard.
 
Personally I can see Edward's logic in ordering Richard to make sure she had no way to finance her son, but Stillington's action is quite strange given that he is supposedly an avid Yorkist. 


________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2013, 17:06
Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford

 

Thank you, Marie - very interesting. I can probably take a look at Ross's biography of Oxford next week, and if he says anything else about all this I will post it here. 

--- On Sat, 4/5/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford
To:
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 23:04

 

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

>

> Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this. 

> He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard" would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.

> Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;

Marie replies:

No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer) had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore, Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that, if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.

When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's Mount.

There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.

Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters tell us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was very probably there at the same time as Anne.

this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this. 

Marie:

Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.

Hilary 



Wilkinson notes that in 1471 the applicant had fled England after the Battle of Barnet, plotted for a while with the Archbishop Nevill who had also fallen out of favour with Edward, then harassed Calais for a while, and finally turned to piracy. So it is *very* understandable, imho, that Edward would have feared that the Countess might have provided assistance to her son, the same John de Vere who made the application for the return of the lands 23 years later. J



Wilkinson states that the information about Stillington's interrogating the Countess of Oxford, and her response, comes, not from Stillington or the Countess directly, but rather via William Paston. Apparently William Paston was one of the six deponents who was testifying in the effort of the Countess's son, John de Vere, the 13th. Earl of Oxford, to get his estates returned in 1495, some 23 years after the transfer made by the Countess and her enfeoffees to Richard Duke of Gloucester actually took place. The only way that de Vere could get his estates back was if he could prove that the Countess's and enfeoffees' conveyances were made under duress. And of course Richard was long gone. So I'm pretty sure it would have been quite easy to show that the Countess felt she was under threat (the big threat was that Richard was threatening to send her to Middleham  oooooh! ;-) ) and I don't have much doubt that any threat would have been likely to have been exaggerated by the deponents, a tendency which I have seen on many occasions where disputes have taken place over a much shorter time frame than this one. BTW, the report of what the Countess said to Stillington is probably double hearsay, unless Paston was present, which I doubt, and even then it would have been hearsay, and thus only admissible (today) in legal proceedings if it could come in as an exception to the hearsay rule. In other words, in most cases, oral statements reported by a third party are not admissible to prove the truth of their contents. It is preferred that the parties involved appear in person to testify. Which begs the question  why didn't the 13th. Earl do something about the situation well before 23 years? There were 10 years after Bosworth that he could have made his application. If he were bringing his action today it's probable that de Vere would have been out of time due to unduly delay, which is called laches in legalese.



BTW, it may also be of some interest that two of the six deponents, Sir James Tyrell and William Tunstall, who were both in Richard's service at the time of the initial events, said they had seen no evidence of coercion or compulsion (although Tunstall admitted he had heard rumours to that effect). I, frankly, am surprised that they had the nerve to come out in front of Henry and say that openly. Three of the deponents had earlier been known associates of the Countess herself, and the sixth, Sir John Risley (which happens to be the name of the gentleman who runs Clearwater Seafoods in Nova Scotia  a descendant??) was bailiff of the town and lordship of Lavenham, which had belonged to the de Veres until it was forfeited to Richard, which suggests that he may have been the de Veres' man.



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: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford





Marie, Wilkinson is quite interesting on this. Although agreeing that Richard was acting on Edward's instructions by making sure the Countess did not have monies to finance her son she says:

a. that it was Edward who summoned her to him daily over Easter 1473 and put pressure on her 'on pain of her own recognizance of £3000 and sureties of £8000' to release her lands
b. that Stillington, as Chancellor 'called her to his Chequer Chamber at Westminster and asked her to tell him the truth, without fear, of her transactions with the Duke of Gloucester'. It is she who said she was 'compellid with grette fere and drede' to make over her lands to Richard.

Personally I can see Edward's logic in ordering Richard to make sure she had no way to finance her son, but Stillington's action is quite strange given that he is supposedly an avid Yorkist.


________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@... <mailto:jaangelfire%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2013, 17:06
Subject: Re: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford



Thank you, Marie - very interesting. I can probably take a look at Ross's biography of Oxford next week, and if he says anything else about all this I will post it here.

--- On Sat, 4/5/13, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> > wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Michael Hicks The Last Days of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 4 May, 2013, 23:04



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

>

> Baldwin writes that the only witnesses to Richard's supposed rough or coercive treatment of the Countess were posthumous ones, and that her son assembled them in his attempts to get his estates back, so they cannot be considered dispassionate or disinterested. He adds that although people claimed the countess was distressed, but no-one actually claimed mistreatment or threats by Richard - just that she feared this.Â

> He also takes issue with Hick's claim that Richard did not honour commitments he made to the Countess's children and grandchildren - there's no evidence either way and Baldwin contends that "even Hicks's Richard" would not perjure himself by making vows he did not intend to honour.

> Essentially, Richard took during the Countess's lifetime what he expected to receive on her death in lieu of her son;

Marie replies:

No, I'm pretty sure Hicks is wrong in claiming that Richard's grant of the Earl of Oxford's estates made him Oxford's residual heir (ie that he would also have inherited the countess's estates on her death). I raised this with David Baldwin once and he said that James Ross (Oxford's biographer) had also said to him that he thought that was wrong. Mind you, I've not read Ross's biography of Oxford - too expensive. If I am right, therefore, Richard did not stand to inherit the Countess' lands, and therefore could not have been impatient to hurry the process up. What I do think is that, if the Countess herself had been formally accused or attainted of treason and her estates thereby forfeit to the crown, they would have been granted to Richard. Therefore his tenure of her lands was probably the inevitable outcome of her treason, however he dealt with her.

When Oxford says Richard didn't support the countess' son (Richard?) at university, he omits to tell his readers that this was because Richard de Vere went over to his brother the Earl, and was with him at St Michael's Mount.

There is an interesting possibility that Richard's grant of the manor of Fowlmere to Queens' College, Cambridge, to endow some priests, was to honour a commitment made to the Countess because she seems to have had links with Queens' (I'd have to look up the details), Fowlmere was one of the manors she made over to Richard, and the prayers that were to be said by said priests were not only for servants of Richard's killed at Barnet and Tewkesbury, but also for the late Earl and Countess of Oxford.

Richard and Howard also attended the Countess' funeral. Worth bearing in mind that her daughter-in-law, the younger countess and wife of the rebellious Earl of Oxford, was Anne Neville's aunt. The Paston Letters tell us that she was living in St Martin's Sanctuary after Tewkesbury, so was very probably there at the same time as Anne.

this was done with the agreement of Chancellor Booth, and Edward did not intervene, which has to be taken as evidence that he approved this.Â

Marie:

Yes, I think the absolute key is that Richard, as Lord Constable, was charged with dealing with the Countess and her treasonable activities. He came up with a solution that was, I think, the best possible outcome for her and got him what he would probably have been granted in any case.