Stillington, Fauconberg and the rumour about Edward

You may recall I said to Carol (I think) that there's correspondence between Richard and Stillington about issuing a writ for the execution of convicted men in July 1471. There also follows correspondence from others urging him to deal with prisoners in Kent and the Cinque Ports (as though he has been tardy in doing so).
Having investigated this, it's almost certainly to do with the rebellion of the Bastard of Fauconberg, Warwick's cousin, which was put down just after Teweksbury by Edward and Richard.
Fauconberg was put into Richard's care, went North with him, and then seemed to escape, for the next time we hear of him is when he is executed in Southampton in September 1471.
No reason is given for his execution - he had been pardoned for rebelling but Buck says 'he told some tales' and was put to death. Wilkinson suggests that this was about Edward's legitimacy, but it could just have easily been about the pre-contract (Warwick's wife could well have known).
This is yet another scenario. Did Stillington (who seems to have been in charge of dealing with the prisoners and condemned) learn of the pre-contract through Fauconberg? Did he pass on the knowledge to Clarence and was he finally used by someone to de-stablise the Crown in 1483? He certainly seems to have owned a lot of manors close to London by the time he died, including Tyburn.
Sorry Stephen, it's not what you want to hear and I retain an open mind. I can still find no really close relationship between Stillington and the Talbots or indeed between Stillington and Edward until much later than 1461.

hjnatdat wrote"

"You may recall I said to Carol (I think) that there's correspondence
between Richard and Stillington about issuing a writ for the execution of
convicted men in July 1471. There also follows correspondence from others
urging him to deal with prisoners in Kent and the Cinque Ports (as though he
has been tardy in doing so).
Having investigated this, it's almost certainly to do with the rebellion of
the Bastard of Fauconberg, Warwick's cousin, which was put down just after
Teweksbury by Edward and Richard.
Fauconberg was put into Richard's care, went North with him, and then seemed
to escape, for the next time we hear of him is when he is executed in
Southampton in September 1471.
No reason is given for his execution - he had been pardoned for rebelling
but Buck says 'he told some tales' and was put to death. Wilkinson suggests
that this was about Edward's legitimacy, but it could just have easily been
about the pre-contract (Warwick's wife could well have known).
This is yet another scenario. Did Stillington (who seems to have been in
charge of dealing with the prisoners and condemned) learn of the
pre-contract through Fauconberg? Did he pass on the knowledge to Clarence
and was he finally used by someone to de-stablise the Crown in 1483? He
certainly seems to have owned a lot of manors close to London by the time he
died, including Tyburn.
Sorry Stephen, it's not what you want to hear and I retain an open mind. I
can still find no really close relationship between Stillington and the
Talbots or indeed between Stillington and Edward until much later than
1461."

Doug here:
Could pardons have conditions attached to them, creating a form of
probation, that Fauconberg didn't live up to? Perhaps Fauconberg was
executed because he broke the conditions of his pardon; either by "escaping"
or rejoining those he was supposed to avoid? How much time elapsed between
Fauconberg going north with Richard and his being executed in Southampton?
Was it enough for Fauconberg to return to his old associates, which could
easily look as if he was *also* returning to his old ways and *that* was the
reason for his execution?
Rather drastic for "breaking parole" perhaps, but...
Doug

Hi Doug, Nevill offered to surrender his ships to Edward in lieu of a pardon and received his pardon from Edward on 10 June together with letters of protection - so he wasn't on parole. He then went into the service of Richard who was travelling back and forth to the North (Waurin). After 3 July Richard went North and we hear nothing until 11 Sept when Robert Cosyn (any relation to Thomas Cosyn) and John Cole were commissioned to seize the good of Thomas Fauconberg traitor. Four days' later according to Paston he was dead and his head set upon London Bridge.
No-one really knows why (he had been pardoned for earlier crimes so it was not breaking of parole). It's Buck who apparently speculates that he was trying to take to sea and stir up another revolt after 'telling tales'.
I haven't looked at Buck yet; but still not quite sure either why Stillington was dealing with the traitors, and seemed to still be doing so well into 1472. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 17:25
Subject: Re: Stillington, Fauconberg and the rumour about Edward

 


hjnatdat wrote"

"You may recall I said to Carol (I think) that there's correspondence
between Richard and Stillington about issuing a writ for the execution of
convicted men in July 1471. There also follows correspondence from others
urging him to deal with prisoners in Kent and the Cinque Ports (as though he
has been tardy in doing so).
Having investigated this, it's almost certainly to do with the rebellion of
the Bastard of Fauconberg, Warwick's cousin, which was put down just after
Teweksbury by Edward and Richard.
Fauconberg was put into Richard's care, went North with him, and then seemed
to escape, for the next time we hear of him is when he is executed in
Southampton in September 1471.
No reason is given for his execution - he had been pardoned for rebelling
but Buck says 'he told some tales' and was put to death. Wilkinson suggests
that this was about Edward's legitimacy, but it could just have easily been
about the pre-contract (Warwick's wife could well have known).
This is yet another scenario. Did Stillington (who seems to have been in
charge of dealing with the prisoners and condemned) learn of the
pre-contract through Fauconberg? Did he pass on the knowledge to Clarence
and was he finally used by someone to de-stablise the Crown in 1483? He
certainly seems to have owned a lot of manors close to London by the time he
died, including Tyburn.
Sorry Stephen, it's not what you want to hear and I retain an open mind. I
can still find no really close relationship between Stillington and the
Talbots or indeed between Stillington and Edward until much later than
1461."

Doug here:
Could pardons have conditions attached to them, creating a form of
probation, that Fauconberg didn't live up to? Perhaps Fauconberg was
executed because he broke the conditions of his pardon; either by "escaping"
or rejoining those he was supposed to avoid? How much time elapsed between
Fauconberg going north with Richard and his being executed in Southampton?
Was it enough for Fauconberg to return to his old associates, which could
easily look as if he was *also* returning to his old ways and *that* was the
reason for his execution?
Rather drastic for "breaking parole" perhaps, but...
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:


"Hi Doug, Nevill offered to surrender his ships to Edward in lieu of a
pardon and received his pardon from Edward on 10 June together with letters
of protection - so he wasn't on parole. He then went into the service of
Richard who was travelling back and forth to the North (Waurin). After 3
July Richard went North and we hear nothing until 11 Sept when Robert Cosyn
(any relation to Thomas Cosyn) and John Cole were commissioned to seize the
good of Thomas Fauconberg traitor. Four days' later according to Paston he
was dead and his head set upon London Bridge.
No-one really knows why (he had been pardoned for earlier crimes so it was
not breaking of parole). It's Buck who apparently speculates that he was
trying to take to sea and stir up another revolt after 'telling tales'.
I haven't looked at Buck yet; but still not quite sure either why
Stillington was dealing with the traitors, and seemed to still be doing so
well into 1472."

Doug here:
I presume you mean "in exchange for a pardon" where you have "in lieu of a
pardon"? Although either way, it *seems* as if Fauconberg's surrendering of
his ships was a condition of his pardon. Could the "tales" Fauconberg was
telling, and led to his execution, have been that he was planning *not* to
turn over his ships as required and *was* planning to take those ships to
sea in what was in essence piracy?
And, of course, Fauconberg could then use the proceeds from that to stir up
another revolt.
Is it possible that a reason for "traitors" still being dealt with in 1472
was that, perhaps besideds the numbers involved, it was Edward's policy to
*not* treat them any harsher than absolutely necessary and that the time was
occupied with deals being cut?
Instead of an outright, and wide-ranging, proscription, there were offers
being made and countered, rather than being rejected outright? IOW, those
who had fought against Edward were to be punished, but not to an extent as
to permanently turn them against him? Something such as that?
Doug

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 17:25
Subject: Re: Stillington, Fauconberg and the
rumour about Edward




hjnatdat wrote"

"You may recall I said to Carol (I think) that there's correspondence
between Richard and Stillington about issuing a writ for the execution of
convicted men in July 1471. There also follows correspondence from others
urging him to deal with prisoners in Kent and the Cinque Ports (as though he
has been tardy in doing so).
Having investigated this, it's almost certainly to do with the rebellion of
the Bastard of Fauconberg, Warwick's cousin, which was put down just after
Teweksbury by Edward and Richard.
Fauconberg was put into Richard's care, went North with him, and then seemed
to escape, for the next time we hear of him is when he is executed in
Southampton in September 1471.
No reason is given for his execution - he had been pardoned for rebelling
but Buck says 'he told some tales' and was put to death. Wilkinson suggests
that this was about Edward's legitimacy, but it could just have easily been
about the pre-contract (Warwick's wife could well have known).
This is yet another scenario. Did Stillington (who seems to have been in
charge of dealing with the prisoners and condemned) learn of the
pre-contract through Fauconberg? Did he pass on the knowledge to Clarence
and was he finally used by someone to de-stablise the Crown in 1483? He
certainly seems to have owned a lot of manors close to London by the time he
died, including Tyburn.
Sorry Stephen, it's not what you want to hear and I retain an open mind. I
can still find no really close relationship between Stillington and the
Talbots or indeed between Stillington and Edward until much later than
1461."

Doug here:
Could pardons have conditions attached to them, creating a form of
probation, that Fauconberg didn't live up to? Perhaps Fauconberg was
executed because he broke the conditions of his pardon; either by "escaping"
or rejoining those he was supposed to avoid? How much time elapsed between
Fauconberg going north with Richard and his being executed in Southampton?
Was it enough for Fauconberg to return to his old associates, which could
easily look as if he was *also* returning to his old ways and *that* was the
reason for his execution?
Rather drastic for "breaking parole" perhaps, but...
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

 I honestly don't know but I have looked up Buck who says Fauconberg was beheaded for 'telling tales'.  (He doesn't go into the ship business at all but goes out of his way to mention Fauconberg).
 
I've also looked at some Exechequer extracts which reimburse Dynham etc for going into Kent in 1471 and 1472 to pursue rebels, which is when they keep writing to Stillington to ask what he's doing about them (that's after Richard). Could be that some were once Stillington's mates when he worked for H6?
 
BTW I'd recommend downloading 'Issues of the Exchequer' free in PDF from google books. It's got some really good stuff like the payment for Edward's 'jacquette' and other stuff £141!! And Richard's wages whilst on the Scottish campaign 13s 4d - a doctor got 2s; and best of all the interception of a load of money on its way to Jasper Tudor from the abbot of Gloucester
 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 16:57
Subject: Re: Stillington, Fauconberg and the rumour about Edward

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Hi Doug, Nevill offered to surrender his ships to Edward in lieu of a
pardon and received his pardon from Edward on 10 June together with letters
of protection - so he wasn't on parole. He then went into the service of
Richard who was travelling back and forth to the North (Waurin). After 3
July Richard went North and we hear nothing until 11 Sept when Robert Cosyn
(any relation to Thomas Cosyn) and John Cole were commissioned to seize the
good of Thomas Fauconberg traitor. Four days' later according to Paston he
was dead and his head set upon London Bridge.
No-one really knows why (he had been pardoned for earlier crimes so it was
not breaking of parole). It's Buck who apparently speculates that he was
trying to take to sea and stir up another revolt after 'telling tales'.
I haven't looked at Buck yet; but still not quite sure either why
Stillington was dealing with the traitors, and seemed to still be doing so
well into 1472."

Doug here:
I presume you mean "in exchange for a pardon" where you have "in lieu of a
pardon"? Although either way, it *seems* as if Fauconberg's surrendering of
his ships was a condition of his pardon. Could the "tales" Fauconberg was
telling, and led to his execution, have been that he was planning *not* to
turn over his ships as required and *was* planning to take those ships to
sea in what was in essence piracy?
And, of course, Fauconberg could then use the proceeds from that to stir up
another revolt.
Is it possible that a reason for "traitors" still being dealt with in 1472
was that, perhaps besideds the numbers involved, it was Edward's policy to
*not* treat them any harsher than absolutely necessary and that the time was
occupied with deals being cut?
Instead of an outright, and wide-ranging, proscription, there were offers
being made and countered, rather than being rejected outright? IOW, those
who had fought against Edward were to be punished, but not to an extent as
to permanently turn them against him? Something such as that?
Doug

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 17:25
Subject: Re: Stillington, Fauconberg and the
rumour about Edward

hjnatdat wrote"

"You may recall I said to Carol (I think) that there's correspondence
between Richard and Stillington about issuing a writ for the execution of
convicted men in July 1471. There also follows correspondence from others
urging him to deal with prisoners in Kent and the Cinque Ports (as though he
has been tardy in doing so).
Having investigated this, it's almost certainly to do with the rebellion of
the Bastard of Fauconberg, Warwick's cousin, which was put down just after
Teweksbury by Edward and Richard.
Fauconberg was put into Richard's care, went North with him, and then seemed
to escape, for the next time we hear of him is when he is executed in
Southampton in September 1471.
No reason is given for his execution - he had been pardoned for rebelling
but Buck says 'he told some tales' and was put to death. Wilkinson suggests
that this was about Edward's legitimacy, but it could just have easily been
about the pre-contract (Warwick's wife could well have known).
This is yet another scenario. Did Stillington (who seems to have been in
charge of dealing with the prisoners and condemned) learn of the
pre-contract through Fauconberg? Did he pass on the knowledge to Clarence
and was he finally used by someone to de-stablise the Crown in 1483? He
certainly seems to have owned a lot of manors close to London by the time he
died, including Tyburn.
Sorry Stephen, it's not what you want to hear and I retain an open mind. I
can still find no really close relationship between Stillington and the
Talbots or indeed between Stillington and Edward until much later than
1461."

Doug here:
Could pardons have conditions attached to them, creating a form of
probation, that Fauconberg didn't live up to? Perhaps Fauconberg was
executed because he broke the conditions of his pardon; either by "escaping"
or rejoining those he was supposed to avoid? How much time elapsed between
Fauconberg going north with Richard and his being executed in Southampton?
Was it enough for Fauconberg to return to his old associates, which could
easily look as if he was *also* returning to his old ways and *that* was the
reason for his execution?
Rather drastic for "breaking parole" perhaps, but...
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links