The house of York, the Archbishop, and Edward IV's will

On pp. 85-86 of "Bosworth 1485," Michael K. Jones
discusses a "high-level meeting" that took place at
"Baynard's Castle, Cecily's London residence" on May
7, 1483. Jones writes:

"It had been agreed in the presence of the Archbishop
of Canterbury that Edward IV's will would not be
executed. This gives us a clear indication of the
family's evolving strategy.

Naturally, Edward had believed his successor would be
his elder son by Elizabeth Woodville, and his will,
updated and revised shortly before his death,
contained bequests and provisions for his heir and
other offspring. Goods that he had wished to pass on
to chosen beneficiaries were now confiscated on the
authority of the Archbishop. The decision was one of
powerful symbolic importance, the beginning of the
formal setting aside of Edward IV's authority and
legitimacy, for what more intrinsic right can there be
than to have one's will enacted? Under the auspices
of his mother, the right of the late King to determine
dynastic succession was now undermined. An
illigitimate son had no right to his legacy.
[footnote 2] These rights would now pass back to what
the family regarded as the legitimate line, that is
Richard, the true surviving son of the Duke of York.
It appears from the entry in his register that the
Archbishop of Canterbury was highly impressed by the
person and presence of Cecily, whose rank and dignity
within the realm he extolled. Clearly this most
unusual decision requried the moral authority of
Cecily herself, and the choice of her residence for
the meeting probably meant that these events were
taking place with her sanction.

For the foremost churchman in the land to give his
consent to this measure, we can assume that persuasive
evidence was offered to justify it. It is possible
that as this stage Cecily revealed to the Archbishop
that her eldest son had been a bastard. If so, what
had previously been spoken of only in high emotion and
within the family, was emerging as a measured
rationale for ruthless public action."

Footnote 2: "The crucial reference is "Registrum
Thome Bourgchier, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, AD
1454-1486, ed. F.R.H. DuBoulay (Canterbury and York
Soc., LIV, 1957) pp. 52-53. The entry makes clear
that the decision to confiscate Edward IV's goods took
place at Baynard's Castle. I am greatful to Dr.
Rowena Archer for drawing it to my attention and
discussing its significance with me."

***

I have a lot of questions about what Jones says:

1 - Who would have atended that "high-level meeting"
besides Cecily, Richard, and the Archbishop? Could
only two members of "the house of York" prevent the
execution of Edward IV's will? Sometimes Jones
writes as if the "house of York" includes many people,
even the Woodvilles (p. 83). At other times, he
writes as if "the House of York" is just Cecily and
Richard, whose decisions represent all other members.

2 - Did Cecily and Richard really represent all
members of "the House of York?" (except the
Woodvilles) Would all of the non-Woodville members
have agreed to disinheriting Edward V, just because
Cecily and Richard claimed that disinheritance would
prevent a bastard line from contaminating the English
throne? Wouldn't anyone have objected to killing
Edward IV's sons? How would those objections have
been overruled? How would those objections have been
kept quiet before Richard actually took over? Even if
Cecily and Richard hadn't admitted they planned to
kill Edward IV's sons, other members of "the house of
York" must have realized the possibility.

3 - Would the Archbishop have agreed to disinheriting
Edward IV's sons and confiscating his goods so soon
after Cecily admitted to commiting adultery at that
meeting? [if she did] Wouldn't he have said he needed
time to think it over first? Wouldn't the Archbishop
have asked questions about "the house of York's" plans
for the future of Edward IV's sons? Would Cecily and
Richard have dared to lie to the Archbishop if they
were actually planning to kill Edward IV's sons?
Would the Archbishop have endangered his own soul by
cooperating if he suspected that "the house of York"
would kill Edward IV's sons?

4 - Is it possible that Jones is wrong about the
timing of Cecily's admission of adultery? If he's
wrong, what other possibilities are there?

5 - If Cecily and Richard had a plan for Edward IV's
sons that convinced the Archbisop to cooperate with
the disinheritance, isn't it possible that they
carried out that plan, rather than killing Edward IV's
sons? Even if events after that May 7th meeting
forced them to modify that plan, they may have done
all they could to carry it out, and they may have
succeeded.

6 - Could the Archbishop's involvement have been an
incentive to keep Edward IV's sons alive? Didn't the
Archbishop have the power to condemn Cecily, Richard
and the rest of "the house of York" if the Archbishop
believed them guilty of murder? Wouldn't Cecily and
Richard, acting for the entire "house of York" have
done everything they could to keep the Archbishop
convinced that Edward IV's sons were alive and safe
somewhere?

Marion


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> On pp. 85-86 of "Bosworth 1485," Michael K. Jones
> discusses a "high-level meeting" that took place at
> "Baynard's Castle, Cecily's London residence" on May
> 7, 1483. Jones writes:
>
> "It had been agreed in the presence of the Archbishop
> of Canterbury that Edward IV's will would not be
> executed. This gives us a clear indication of the
> family's evolving strategy.
>
> Naturally, Edward had believed his successor would be
> his elder son by Elizabeth Woodville, and his will,
> updated and revised shortly before his death,
> contained bequests and provisions for his heir and
> other offspring. Goods that he had wished to pass on
> to chosen beneficiaries were now confiscated on the
> authority of the Archbishop. The decision was one of
> powerful symbolic importance, the beginning of the
> formal setting aside of Edward IV's authority and
> legitimacy, for what more intrinsic right can there be
> than to have one's will enacted? Under the auspices
> of his mother, the right of the late King to determine
> dynastic succession was now undermined. An
> illigitimate son had no right to his legacy.
> [footnote 2] These rights would now pass back to what
> the family regarded as the legitimate line, that is
> Richard, the true surviving son of the Duke of York.
> It appears from the entry in his register that the
> Archbishop of Canterbury was highly impressed by the
> person and presence of Cecily, whose rank and dignity
> within the realm he extolled. Clearly this most
> unusual decision requried the moral authority of
> Cecily herself, and the choice of her residence for
> the meeting probably meant that these events were
> taking place with her sanction.
>
> For the foremost churchman in the land to give his
> consent to this measure, we can assume that persuasive
> evidence was offered to justify it. It is possible
> that as this stage Cecily revealed to the Archbishop
> that her eldest son had been a bastard. If so, what
> had previously been spoken of only in high emotion and
> within the family, was emerging as a measured
> rationale for ruthless public action."

Perhaps again we need the full text. I'm sure there's something in
Harley 433 where Richard blames the continuing failure to execute
Edward's will on the Woodvilles having stolen the treasure. I'll try
to look it out.

On the Cecily note, I think this demonstrates what I was going to
respond to Tim about Cecily's backseat approach. I feel we gain this
impression only because:
a) Her role was not formal, therefore most of her lobbying would have
left no records
b) She is only now starting to be properly researched in her own
right.

After all, I think it was either Coppini or Bishop O'Flanagan who
advised someone in 1461 to get in with Cecily if they wanted to gain
influence with Edward IV, "for she can rule the King as she pleases".

(By the by, Tim, that Cecily joined Warwick and Clarence to talk them
back to Edward's side is questioned by Jones. Certainly if he is
right it would make some sense of the Fotheringhay-Berkhamsted
exchange.)

>
> Footnote 2: "The crucial reference is "Registrum
> Thome Bourgchier, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, AD
> 1454-1486, ed. F.R.H. DuBoulay (Canterbury and York
> Soc., LIV, 1957) pp. 52-53. The entry makes clear
> that the decision to confiscate Edward IV's goods took
> place at Baynard's Castle. I am greatful to Dr.
> Rowena Archer for drawing it to my attention and
> discussing its significance with me."
>
> ***
>
> I have a lot of questions about what Jones says:
>
> 1 - Who would have atended that "high-level meeting"
> besides Cecily, Richard, and the Archbishop? Could
> only two members of "the house of York" prevent the
> execution of Edward IV's will? Sometimes Jones
> writes as if the "house of York" includes many people,
> even the Woodvilles (p. 83). At other times, he
> writes as if "the House of York" is just Cecily and
> Richard, whose decisions represent all other members.

I don't think it would have been held to include the Woodvilles,
certainly not where discussions of Edward's bastardy were concerned.
That would be a bit of a tautology.
>
> 2 - Did Cecily and Richard really represent all
> members of "the House of York?" (except the
> Woodvilles) Would all of the non-Woodville members
> have agreed to disinheriting Edward V, just because
> Cecily and Richard claimed that disinheritance would
> prevent a bastard line from contaminating the English
> throne?

I think there may be evidence that Margaret of Burgundy was friendly
to Richard. Certainly, she was outraged at Bosworth even though this
restored Edward's line. Elizabeth of Suffolk's support can perhaps be
inferred from the rise of the Earl of Lincoln under Richard.

Wouldn't anyone have objected to killing
> Edward IV's sons? How would those objections have
> been overruled? How would those objections have been
> kept quiet before Richard actually took over? Even if
> Cecily and Richard hadn't admitted they planned to
> kill Edward IV's sons, other members of "the house of
> York" must have realized the possibility.

T

>
> 3 - Would the Archbishop have agreed to disinheriting
> Edward IV's sons and confiscating his goods so soon
> after Cecily admitted to commiting adultery at that
> meeting? [if she did] Wouldn't he have said he needed
> time to think it over first? Wouldn't the Archbishop
> have asked questions about "the house of York's" plans
> for the future of Edward IV's sons? Would Cecily and
> Richard have dared to lie to the Archbishop if they
> were actually planning to kill Edward IV's sons?
> Would the Archbishop have endangered his own soul by
> cooperating if he suspected that "the house of York"
> would kill Edward IV's sons?
>
> 4 - Is it possible that Jones is wrong about the
> timing of Cecily's admission of adultery? If he's
> wrong, what other possibilities are there?
>
> 5 - If Cecily and Richard had a plan for Edward IV's
> sons that convinced the Archbisop to cooperate with
> the disinheritance, isn't it possible that they
> carried out that plan, rather than killing Edward IV's
> sons? Even if events after that May 7th meeting
> forced them to modify that plan, they may have done
> all they could to carry it out, and they may have
> succeeded.
>
> 6 - Could the Archbishop's involvement have been an
> incentive to keep Edward IV's sons alive? Didn't the
> Archbishop have the power to condemn Cecily, Richard
> and the rest of "the house of York" if the Archbishop
> believed them guilty of murder? Wouldn't Cecily and
> Richard, acting for the entire "house of York" have
> done everything they could to keep the Archbishop
> convinced that Edward IV's sons were alive and safe
> somewhere?
>
> Marion

Sorry, Marion, I know Jones thinks Richard killed the Princes. But
I'm still not sure why you're hung up on this as intrinsic to the
idea of Edward's bastardy. Am I missing something? Surely the Eleanor
Butler story equally made them bastards, with the same possibility
that Richard and Cecily might have seen themselves as purifying the
family line by killing them.
It never occurred to me when I entertained the idea of Edward's
bastardy that Richard's killing the Princes was part of the package.
Let's face it, almost all historians thought Richard killed the
Princes anyway. Having heard Jones speak both before and after
publication of his Bosworth book, I think Edward's bastardy hasn't a
lot to do with his views on the Princes. He sees Richard as a very
militaristic type, and believes no namby-pamby softy could have
succeeded against the Woodvilles in 1483. A lot of people have always
believed Richard would have had to kill Edward V sooner or later as
he was never going to accept his bastardisation, and they do have a
point. From that point of view this new idea makes it more likely
that he would have accepted his bastard status, and so less likely
that he would need to die.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

In 1483 who else would the House of York consist of besides Cecily and Richard, that if Edward IV's line is disregarded.

Both George and Anne were dead, their children still minors.

The de la Poles? Margaret of Burgundy? The latter would be too far away to consult quickly.


Helen



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
- New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> In 1483 who else would the House of York consist of besides Cecily
and Richard, that if Edward IV's line is disregarded.
>
> Both George and Anne were dead, their children still minors.
>
> The de la Poles? Margaret of Burgundy? The latter would be too far
away to consult quickly.
>
>
> Helen


Since relationships mean so much in this era, could someone please
tell me who Archbishop Bourgchiere's family was and who he was
related to?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , Helen Rowe
> <sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> > In 1483 who else would the House of York consist of besides
Cecily
> and Richard, that if Edward IV's line is disregarded.
> >
> > Both George and Anne were dead, their children still minors.
> >
> > The de la Poles? Margaret of Burgundy? The latter would be too
far
> away to consult quickly.
> >
> >
> > Helen
>
>
> Since relationships mean so much in this era, could someone please
> tell me who Archbishop Bourgchiere's family was and who he was
> related to?
>
> Katy

The Archbishop's father had been William Bourchier, Earl of Eu, and
his mother was a daughter of Thomas of Woodstock.
He had three brothers and just one sister, so far as I know:

1) Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex. He died in 1483, early in the
year, I think. His wife, who survived until October 1484, was Richard
Duke of York's only sibling, Isabel. So Henry's family were first
cousins to York's, only there weren't many of them left. Henry's
eldest, William, had married Anne Woodville but died in 1471. The
next two sons had also died early.

2) William, Earl FitzWarin

3) John Lord Berners (d.1474). By 1483 his son was also dead, and
had been succeeded by his teenage son John, who married a daughter of
John Howard (I don't know date of marriage).

4) Eleanor, wife of the Duke of Norfolk who died in 1461. That duke
was the son of Katherine Neville (Cecily's sister).

Marie

>
> I think there may be evidence that Margaret of Burgundy was
friendly
> to Richard. Certainly, she was outraged at Bosworth even though
this
> restored Edward's line. Elizabeth of Suffolk's support can perhaps
be
> inferred from the rise of the Earl of Lincoln under Richard.
>
> Marie

Apparently Margaret was on excellent terms with Richard and had her
own beef with Edward to do with letting her down over an issue
connected with her dowry if I remember rightly - sadly can't recall
details. Seems Edward was too apathetic about righting her wrong
where I gather Richard had shown himself more helpful. I would
imagine that this "House of York" meeting must certainly involve the
de la Poles I should have thought, and possibly even Warwick, given
references to his presence at court. There might even have been time
for some close representative of Margaret's to come from Burgundy,
though whether it's likely is a different matter.
Someone earlier - sorry have lost the ref - mentioned the return of
Edward's line to the throne after Bosworth, but I have to take issue
over this on a point (possibly the writer didn't intend it as it
came across to me at least). Tudor allowed Elizabeth no
significance, didn't even attend her coronation. As a figurehead for
Yorkist support, certainly, but by no means can we - nor did Henry -
allow the idea that he was ruling because he was the husband of the
rightful claimant. It is something he makes a big deal about before
Bosworth to get the support but suddenly goes suspiciously quiet
about. Even to the point of there being protests at his tardiness in
keeping his promise to marry her at all. Henry Tudor was all about
the Tudors being the rightful rulers, not York's heirs. The only way
in which his reign can be cinsidered Yorkist is in his use of
Chamber and other methods which Edward IV had used effectively
before him.
Brunhild
Brunhild

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > Since relationships mean so much in this era, could someone
please
> > tell me who Archbishop Bourgchiere's family was and who he was
> > related to?
> >
> > Katy
>
> The Archbishop's father had been William Bourchier, Earl of Eu, and
> his mother was a daughter of Thomas of Woodstock.
> He had three brothers and just one sister, so far as I know:
>
> 1) Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex. He died in 1483, early in the
> year, I think. His wife, who survived until October 1484, was
Richard
> Duke of York's only sibling, Isabel. So Henry's family were first
> cousins to York's, only there weren't many of them left. Henry's
> eldest, William, had married Anne Woodville but died in 1471. The
> next two sons had also died early.
>
> 2) William, Earl FitzWarin
>
> 3) John Lord Berners (d.1474). By 1483 his son was also dead, and
> had been succeeded by his teenage son John, who married a daughter
of
> John Howard (I don't know date of marriage).
>
> 4) Eleanor, wife of the Duke of Norfolk who died in 1461. That duke
> was the son of Katherine Neville (Cecily's sister).
>
> Marie

Re 4)...would that Duke of Norfolk have been John Mowbray, father of
Anne who was married in childhood to Edward IV's son Richard, or his
father?

I was wondering if Archbishop Borchier (apologies to him for
misspelling his name) had anything to gain from all this.

Michael Jones doesn't think anything legal could have resulted merely
from a secret meeting between the Archbishop, the Duchess of York,
and whomever, does he?

Fifteenth Century England was a highly litigious society, with about
as many lawyers per capita and per square foot as we have now. There
were laws covering just about everything, the influence of great
lords notwithstanding, and matters of inheritance were far more
likely to be settled in court than in Court. (Witness the Great
Berkeley Lawsuit, which wound its way through court for literally
decades, during the reigns of four kings, till it all became moot in
Henry VII's reign because he had confiscated and redistributed the
properties in question and there was no more money left to fight over
anyway.)

Such a meeting as Jones describes might well indicate conspiracy and
intent, but I don't think it would have any legal weight, re
disinheriting Edward IV's sons, at all. Maybe it was an early
private conference on grounds for the later Titulus Regius.

Katy

Marie wrote: Perhaps again we need the full text. I'm
sure there's something in Harley 433 where Richard
blames the continuing failure to execute Edward's will
on the Woodvilles having stolen the treasure. I'll
try to look it out.

***

That would be helpful. I remember reading that
somewhere; but I can't find it in my own books; and I
don't have access to Harley 433.

I've looked up Edward's will in my books and compared
what they have to say to what Jones has to say. Every
author gives a different interpretation, but none of
them give me the same feeling that Jones does.

When I re-read Jones' interpretation, I feel as if I'm
reading about a small meeting, limited to people that
Cecily and Richard trusted. To me it sounds like
Cecily and Richard have previously decided not to
execute Edward IV's will and that the Archbishop
agrees with this decision without taking much time to
think about it.

But Paul Murray Kendall's version describes "advisers
and ministers of Edward IV," who "unanimously declined
to administer the will." ... "The late king's goods
were accordingly put under ecclesiastical
sequestration by the Archbishop of Canterbury; on May
23, he appointed a commission to sell sufficient of
them to pay the costs of the royal funeral, which had
amounted to the resounding sum of 1,496 pounds, 17
shillings, 2 pence." [Footnote: Collection of Wills,
pp. 345-48.]

To me this sounds like a much larger meeting, in which
Cecily and Richard's decisions were not approved by
the Archbishop alone.

***

Marie: On the Cecily note, I think this demonstrates
what I was going to respond to Tim about Cecily's
backseat approach. I feel we gain this impression only
because:
a) Her role was not formal, therefore most of her
lobbying would have left no records
b) She is only now starting to be properly researched
in her own right.

***

I hope Joanna L. Chamberlayne's MA dissertation,
"Cecily Neville, Dutchess of York, King's Mother; the
roles of an English noblewoman 1415-95" that Jones
quotes will be published as a book soon. I'd like to
compare it to Jones' biography about Margaret
Beaufort.

***

Sorry, Marion, I know Jones thinks Richard killed the
Princes. But I'm still not sure why you're hung up on
this as intrinsic to the idea of Edward's bastardy. Am
I missing something?

***

You're missing all of the associations and ideas
buzzing around in my mind that I can't fit neatly into
a post.

***

Here's one: Jones calls Chapter 4 "The Search for
Redemption." That has a lot of religious associations
for me that it might not have for anyone else on the
list. But seeing that heading at the top of every
page of Chapter 4 makes it hard for me to separate
Jones' hypothesis about the bastardy of Edward IV and
his sons, from the widely held belief that Richard III
ordered the killing of Edward IV's sons.

***

It never occurred to me when I entertained the idea of
Edward's bastardy that Richard's killing the Princes
was part of the package.

***

I think I understand your distinction. It's just that
I'm tangled up in associations that you don't have.
The people involved in the events of April 1483-August
1485 apparently weren't tangled up in such
associations, either.

***

Having heard Jones speak both before and after
publication of his Bosworth book, I think Edward's
bastardy hasn't a lot to do with his views on the
Princes. He sees Richard as a very militaristic type,
and believes no namby-pamby softy could have
succeeded against the Woodvilles in 1483.

***

Jones' view of Richard has moderated since he wrote
"Richard as a Soldier" for "Richard III; a Medieval
Kingship." The last paragraph of that article is
harsh.

I'm not sure how anyone could have resolved the
conflict in April-June 1483 without compromising their
ideals or religion.

Part of Richard's misfortune was that his relationship
as uncle made him an example of the wicked uncle
archetype. If the Woodvilles had succeeded in killing
Richard and his son, no one would have compared Edward
V and his supporters to a wicked nephew/cousin
archetype.

***

A lot of people have always believed Richard would
have had to kill Edward V sooner or later as
he was never going to accept his bastardisation, and
they do have a point. From that point of view this new
idea makes it more likely that he would have accepted
his bastard status, and so less likely that he would
need to die.

***

That makes sense. I'd like to believe that Edward V's
acceptance of his bastard status would have relieved
Richard (and Cecily) of the burden of killing him.

It seems to me that it would have been very difficult
for Richard and Edward V to maintain a good working
relationship. Richard's future under Edward V seems
doubtful to me. I've asked myself if Richard would
have lived long enough to go on a crusade if he'd
served as Protector until Edward V reached his
majority. If he had, I think he might have gone on a
crusade and possibly died a more respected death
fighting the Turks.

Marion










__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think there may be evidence that Margaret of Burgundy was
> friendly
> > to Richard. Certainly, she was outraged at Bosworth even though
> this
> > restored Edward's line. Elizabeth of Suffolk's support can
perhaps
> be
> > inferred from the rise of the Earl of Lincoln under Richard.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Apparently Margaret was on excellent terms with Richard and had her
> own beef with Edward to do with letting her down over an issue
> connected with her dowry if I remember rightly - sadly can't recall
> details. Seems Edward was too apathetic about righting her wrong
> where I gather Richard had shown himself more helpful. I would
> imagine that this "House of York" meeting must certainly involve
the
> de la Poles I should have thought, and possibly even Warwick, given
> references to his presence at court. There might even have been
time
> for some close representative of Margaret's to come from Burgundy,
> though whether it's likely is a different matter.
> Someone earlier - sorry have lost the ref - mentioned the return of
> Edward's line to the throne after Bosworth, but I have to take
issue
> over this on a point (possibly the writer didn't intend it as it
> came across to me at least). Tudor allowed Elizabeth no
> significance, didn't even attend her coronation. As a figurehead
for
> Yorkist support, certainly, but by no means can we - nor did Henry -

> allow the idea that he was ruling because he was the husband of the
> rightful claimant. It is something he makes a big deal about before
> Bosworth to get the support but suddenly goes suspiciously quiet
> about. Even to the point of there being protests at his tardiness
in
> keeping his promise to marry her at all. Henry Tudor was all about
> the Tudors being the rightful rulers, not York's heirs. The only
way
> in which his reign can be cinsidered Yorkist is in his use of
> Chamber and other methods which Edward IV had used effectively
> before him.
> Brunhild
> Brunhild

I'd agree with all that, Brunhild. You know how quickly these
messages have to be written. My point was just that Edward's
apparently eldest surviving child was expected to be queen directly
after Bosworth, and did in time become so - and mother of the Prince
of Wales. If this is what Margaret had looked for, then surely her
response to Henry's behaviour would have been to wencourage or
threaten him to give more power to Elizabeth and her family - not to
topple her along with Henry, which is what she actually tried to do.

The question of the identity of the "feigned boys" Margaret backed is
a thorny one, of course, and "Warbeck" did claim to be Elizabeth's
older brother. However, on any reading it has to be said that
Margaret's first response was to back a boy claiming to be Clarence's
son.

Marie

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > Since relationships mean so much in this era, could someone
> please
> > > tell me who Archbishop Bourgchiere's family was and who he was
> > > related to?
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > The Archbishop's father had been William Bourchier, Earl of Eu,
and
> > his mother was a daughter of Thomas of Woodstock.

I should have mentioned that Thomas Bourchier's mother was the widow
of Edmund, Earl of Staford, by whom she was the great-grandmother
of "our" Duke of Buckingham. In other words, the Bourchiers were
related to the Staffords.
I think if I remember rightly, Thomas Bourchier, like all his family,
was considered to belong to the York camp during the 1450s.

> > He had three brothers and just one sister, so far as I know:
> >
> > 1) Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex. He died in 1483, early in the
> > year, I think. His wife, who survived until October 1484, was
> Richard
> > Duke of York's only sibling, Isabel. So Henry's family were first
> > cousins to York's, only there weren't many of them left. Henry's
> > eldest, William, had married Anne Woodville but died in 1471. The
> > next two sons had also died early.
> >
> > 2) William, Earl FitzWarin
> >
> > 3) John Lord Berners (d.1474). By 1483 his son was also dead,
and
> > had been succeeded by his teenage son John, who married a
daughter
> of
> > John Howard (I don't know date of marriage).
> >
> > 4) Eleanor, wife of the Duke of Norfolk who died in 1461. That
duke
> > was the son of Katherine Neville (Cecily's sister).
> >
> > Marie
>
> Re 4)...would that Duke of Norfolk have been John Mowbray, father
of
> Anne who was married in childhood to Edward IV's son Richard, or
his
> father?
His father - ie grandfather of Anne Mowbray. Too many dukes of
Norfolk called John. Anne's grandparents were Duke John (son of
Cecily's sister Katherine) and Eleanor Bourchier, and her parents
were their son next Duke John and his wife Elizabeth Talbot, sister
of Lady Eleanor Butler.
>
> I was wondering if Archbishop Borchier (apologies to him for
> misspelling his name) had anything to gain from all this.

Do you mean: might he have been chief executor, and might he
therefore have kept custody of the goods? Don't know, but I wouldn't
have thought he could do anything with them anyway. He seems to have
been about 80 years old and as far as I'm aware didn't have a
reputation for being a grasping schemer.

>
> Michael Jones doesn't think anything legal could have resulted
merely
> from a secret meeting between the Archbishop, the Duchess of York,
> and whomever, does he?

Actually I'm wondering who Edward's executors were. Could this have
been a meeting of the executors? Or a council meeting of some sort. I
think Kendall says there was a council meeting (7 May?) at which it
was unanimoulsly agreed that Edward's will could not be administered
whilst the main beneficiaries remained in sanctuary.

> Fifteenth Century England was a highly litigious society, with
about
> as many lawyers per capita and per square foot as we have now.
There
> were laws covering just about everything, the influence of great
> lords notwithstanding, and matters of inheritance were far more
> likely to be settled in court than in Court. (Witness the Great
> Berkeley Lawsuit, which wound its way through court for literally
> decades, during the reigns of four kings, till it all became moot
in
> Henry VII's reign because he had confiscated and redistributed the
> properties in question and there was no more money left to fight
over
> anyway.)
>
> Such a meeting as Jones describes might well indicate conspiracy
and
> intent, but I don't think it would have any legal weight, re
> disinheriting Edward IV's sons, at all. Maybe it was an early
> private conference on grounds for the later Titulus Regius.
>
> Katy

There doesn't seem to have been any tie-up between the decision not
to administer Edward's will, and Richard's claiming the throne, in
that perparations for Edward V's coronation carried on apace
throughout May.

Marie

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: Perhaps again we need the full text. I'm
> sure there's something in Harley 433 where Richard
> blames the continuing failure to execute Edward's will
> on the Woodvilles having stolen the treasure. I'll
> try to look it out.
>
> ***
>
> That would be helpful. I remember reading that
> somewhere; but I can't find it in my own books; and I
> don't have access to Harley 433.

Okay, I've got it. Actually it doesn't give a reason why the will was
not administered, but does suggest that there was never meant to be a
permanent setting aside of same. It comes from instructions to Thomas
Hutton for Duke Francis of Brittany. It is undated but belongs to
early in Richard's reign, and mentions acts of English piracy
committed after the news of Edward's death got out, recompense for
which "must grow of the goods and treasure belonging to the said king
deceased, whereof as yet no man hath taken administration. And, as
soon as the administration shall be committed to such persons as will
take the charge upon them, the Duke's said subjects shall be paid and
contented with the first creditors."

It sounds to me as though the will would need to be administered for
Richard's benefit apart from anything else. The reference to Edward's
treasure also raises the question of how Edward Woodville's running
off with same would have affected administration.




>
> I've looked up Edward's will in my books and compared
> what they have to say to what Jones has to say. Every
> author gives a different interpretation, but none of
> them give me the same feeling that Jones does.
>
> When I re-read Jones' interpretation, I feel as if I'm
> reading about a small meeting, limited to people that
> Cecily and Richard trusted. To me it sounds like
> Cecily and Richard have previously decided not to
> execute Edward IV's will and that the Archbishop
> agrees with this decision without taking much time to
> think about it.
>
> But Paul Murray Kendall's version describes "advisers
> and ministers of Edward IV," who "unanimously declined
> to administer the will." ... "The late king's goods
> were accordingly put under ecclesiastical
> sequestration by the Archbishop of Canterbury; on May
> 23, he appointed a commission to sell sufficient of
> them to pay the costs of the royal funeral, which had
> amounted to the resounding sum of 1,496 pounds, 17
> shillings, 2 pence." [Footnote: Collection of Wills,
> pp. 345-48.]
>
> To me this sounds like a much larger meeting, in which
> Cecily and Richard's decisions were not approved by
> the Archbishop alone.
>
> ***I would very much like to have the text of this document from
Bourchier's register.

Marie

>
> Marie: On the Cecily note, I think this demonstrates
> what I was going to respond to Tim about Cecily's
> backseat approach. I feel we gain this impression only
> because:
> a) Her role was not formal, therefore most of her
> lobbying would have left no records
> b) She is only now starting to be properly researched
> in her own right.
>
> ***
>
> I hope Joanna L. Chamberlayne's MA dissertation,
> "Cecily Neville, Dutchess of York, King's Mother; the
> roles of an English noblewoman 1415-95" that Jones
> quotes will be published as a book soon. I'd like to
> compare it to Jones' biography about Margaret

I'm sure this is the young lady who gave a talk on Cecily and Anne
Neville at the York Study Weekend in 2002. It was certainly based on
her dissertation or thesis. I took a few notes. Looking at them I see
the following interesting bits:

1) Cecily was betrothed by the age of 9, and lived with York and her
mother in the royal household until York was 21 (which is what we
just concluded).
2) Pugh is responsible for the claim of Cecily's extravagance, but it
seems he based this on a single order for crimson robes made for her
in 1444, which were probably for her to meet Margaret of Anjou.
3) She spent much time in residence at Westminster during Edward's
reign, at least before his marriage
4) She may have been responsible for the glazing put in at
Fotheringhay in the 1460s
5) Some time between 1463 and 1477 she changed her seal, dropping the
York label and adding the words "Queen who should have been"
6) She was probably in residence at Baynards for Edward's funeral,
which makes her a pivotal figure in the following events
7) She wonders whether the "Orders and Rules of the Princess Cecill"
are a fake.

Marie



> Beaufort.
>
> ***
>
> Sorry, Marion, I know Jones thinks Richard killed the
> Princes. But I'm still not sure why you're hung up on
> this as intrinsic to the idea of Edward's bastardy. Am
> I missing something?
>
> ***
>
> You're missing all of the associations and ideas
> buzzing around in my mind that I can't fit neatly into
> a post.

Just a few then?

>
> ***
>
> Here's one: Jones calls Chapter 4 "The Search for
> Redemption." That has a lot of religious associations
> for me that it might not have for anyone else on the
> list. But seeing that heading at the top of every
> page of Chapter 4 makes it hard for me to separate
> Jones' hypothesis about the bastardy of Edward IV and
> his sons, from the widely held belief that Richard III
> ordered the killing of Edward IV's sons.
>
> ***
>
> It never occurred to me when I entertained the idea of
> Edward's bastardy that Richard's killing the Princes
> was part of the package.
>
> ***
>
> I think I understand your distinction. It's just that
> I'm tangled up in associations that you don't have.
> The people involved in the events of April 1483-August
> 1485 apparently weren't tangled up in such
> associations, either.
>
> ***
>
> Having heard Jones speak both before and after
> publication of his Bosworth book, I think Edward's
> bastardy hasn't a lot to do with his views on the
> Princes. He sees Richard as a very militaristic type,
> and believes no namby-pamby softy could have
> succeeded against the Woodvilles in 1483.
>
> ***
>
> Jones' view of Richard has moderated since he wrote
> "Richard as a Soldier" for "Richard III; a Medieval
> Kingship." The last paragraph of that article is
> harsh.
>
> I'm not sure how anyone could have resolved the
> conflict in April-June 1483 without compromising their
> ideals or religion.
>
> Part of Richard's misfortune was that his relationship
> as uncle made him an example of the wicked uncle
> archetype. If the Woodvilles had succeeded in killing
> Richard and his son, no one would have compared Edward
> V and his supporters to a wicked nephew/cousin
> archetype.
>
> ***
>
> A lot of people have always believed Richard would
> have had to kill Edward V sooner or later as
> he was never going to accept his bastardisation, and
> they do have a point. From that point of view this new
> idea makes it more likely that he would have accepted
> his bastard status, and so less likely that he would
> need to die.
>
> ***
>
> That makes sense. I'd like to believe that Edward V's
> acceptance of his bastard status would have relieved
> Richard (and Cecily) of the burden of killing him.
>
> It seems to me that it would have been very difficult
> for Richard and Edward V to maintain a good working
> relationship. Richard's future under Edward V seems
> doubtful to me. I've asked myself if Richard would
> have lived long enough to go on a crusade if he'd
> served as Protector until Edward V reached his
> majority. If he had, I think he might have gone on a
> crusade and possibly died a more respected death
> fighting the Turks.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

At 02:40 AM 1/12/2004, you wrote:
I think there may be evidence that Margaret of Burgundy was
>friendly to Richard. Certainly, she was outraged at Bosworth even
>though this
> restored Edward's line.

How did Bosworth restore Edward's line?




--Bob Waters

--- In , Bob Waters
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
> At 02:40 AM 1/12/2004, you wrote:
> I think there may be evidence that Margaret of Burgundy was
> >friendly to Richard. Certainly, she was outraged at Bosworth even
> >though this
> > restored Edward's line.
>
> How did Bosworth restore Edward's line?
>
>
>
>
> --Bob Waters

At risk of repeating my response to Marion, I am not regurgitating
Tudor propaganda about the union of the Roses, but merely stating the
fact that thereby Edward's daughter became queen (albeit queen
consort), and Henry's heirs were her issue.

Marie

>
> I'd agree with all that, Brunhild. You know how quickly these
> messages have to be written. My point was just that Edward's
> apparently eldest surviving child was expected to be queen
directly
> after Bosworth, and did in time become so - and mother of the
Prince
> of Wales. If this is what Margaret had looked for, then surely her
> response to Henry's behaviour would have been to wencourage or
> threaten him to give more power to Elizabeth and her family - not
to
> topple her along with Henry, which is what she actually tried to
do.

In which case, Marie, doesn't it seem logical that she either
accepted they were ALL illegitimate and therfore Warwick should get
her vote, or that she knew at least one of the boys was alive and
regarded his claim, legitimacy aside, as better than Elizabeth's
being male? The one I find most interesting reaction-wise is EW. Why
did she apparently support fakes, or indeed anyone who would
possibly lead to Elizabeth her daughter losing her throne? I also
wonder about Henry. His behaviour at E of Y's coronation is very
odd, and his absolute rejection of her having any real public role
smacks of paranoia and maybe something else that I haven't quite put
into a rational explanation yet!
>
> The question of the identity of the "feigned boys" Margaret backed
is
> a thorny one, of course, and "Warbeck" did claim to be Elizabeth's
> older brother. However, on any reading it has to be said that
> Margaret's first response was to back a boy claiming to be
Clarence's
> son.

If R3 did declare Warwick should be his heir then he would be the
logical choice to support or masquerade as, particularly if there
were any real belief in the illegitimacy of E4 or E5. Oh it's co
complex!
B
>
> Marie

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd agree with all that, Brunhild. You know how quickly these
> > messages have to be written. My point was just that Edward's
> > apparently eldest surviving child was expected to be queen
> directly
> > after Bosworth, and did in time become so - and mother of the
> Prince
> > of Wales. If this is what Margaret had looked for, then surely
her
> > response to Henry's behaviour would have been to wencourage or
> > threaten him to give more power to Elizabeth and her family - not
> to
> > topple her along with Henry, which is what she actually tried to
> do.
>
> In which case, Marie, doesn't it seem logical that she either
> accepted they were ALL illegitimate and therfore Warwick should get
> her vote, or that she knew at least one of the boys was alive and
> regarded his claim, legitimacy aside, as better than Elizabeth's
> being male? The one I find most interesting reaction-wise is EW.
Why
> did she apparently support fakes, or indeed anyone who would
> possibly lead to Elizabeth her daughter losing her throne? I also
> wonder about Henry. His behaviour at E of Y's coronation is very
> odd, and his absolute rejection of her having any real public role
> smacks of paranoia and maybe something else that I haven't quite
put
> into a rational explanation yet!
> >
> > The question of the identity of the "feigned boys" Margaret
backed
> is
> > a thorny one, of course, and "Warbeck" did claim to be
Elizabeth's
> > older brother. However, on any reading it has to be said that
> > Margaret's first response was to back a boy claiming to be
> Clarence's
> > son.
>
> If R3 did declare Warwick should be his heir then he would be the
> logical choice to support or masquerade as, particularly if there
> were any real belief in the illegitimacy of E4 or E5.

Only if same. That was my point.

Marie

Oh it's co
> complex!
> B
> >
> > Marie