What was this all about

Does anyone know?

From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera

14 Nov 1482, Westminster
Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal


A J

A J Hibbard wrote:

"Does anyone know?

From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
14 Nov 1482, Westminster
Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"

Doug here:
Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
before EIV died?
Doug

Douglas & AJ -



I thought Richard was Edward's Constable. Is it possible that he was ill at
that time, or if he was engaged in the incursion into Scotland at that
point, that the position would have been taken from him? Or am I merely
mis-remembering?



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 Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about






A J Hibbard wrote:

"Does anyone know?

From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
14 Nov 1482, Westminster
Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"

Doug here:
Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
before EIV died?
Doug

Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that

I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> "Does anyone know?
>
> From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
>
> Doug here:
> Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> before EIV died?
> Doug
>

Thanks everyone for the ideas. It seems to me that when I asked recently
someone (sorry I can't remember who it was, but thank you) agreed that
until Richard was crowned he would still have been Constable of England.
Hence my concern about appointing commissioners to fulfill that role.
Maybe once I get around to looking at the actual records in Foedera, the
context will become clearer.

The other thing that's clear from the Syllabus is that business continued
at Westminster even when Richard (& presumably other monarchs) were
elsewhere. I've come far enough with my timeline to see that Rhoda Edwards
timeline indicates Richard to be one place, while whatever document in the
Syllabus was being generated elsewhere (generally Westminster). Again this
should become clearer to me once I read what the references in the Syllabus
mean, & get to the documents themselves.

If anyone wants access to the Google spreadsheet, let me know - it's
growing like Topsey & I'm wondering if it's manageable to try to put
"everything" in one document (say include a Bishop Morton timeline too,
since he's been discussed in the last few days, I have included whatever
references I find to characters of interest) or if there's a better
alternative?

A J


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent
> Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers'
> authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey
> Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who
> were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was
> Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy
> despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but
> was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas
> Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E
> Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
>
> I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of
> Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had
> commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James
> Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett,
> was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had
> connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against
> Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was
> part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye
> on him.
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > "Does anyone know?
> >
> > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> Wallyngton &
> > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable
> of
> > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed
> in
> > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the
> Admiralty
> > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > before EIV died?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>

Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
>
> I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > "Does anyone know?
> >
> > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > before EIV died?
> > Doug
> >
>

That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
Subject: Re: What was this all about

 

Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
>
> I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > "Does anyone know?
> >
> > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > before EIV died?
> > Doug
> >
>

Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>  
>
> Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> >
> > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > before EIV died?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken. His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of Leicester.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: What was this all about



Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> >
> > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > before EIV died?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Stephen. I nearly added Stephen will know to my post.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken. His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of Leicester.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
>
> Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> > PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> > >
> > > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Does anyone know?
> > > >
> > > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > > before EIV died?
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not sure that this enlightens me much, but here's the text of the document
I was asking about earlier

14 Nov 1482, Westminster
Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal


Does anyone read anything at all unusual "between the lines" so to speak?
(My 2 years of Latin in the distant past give me only a rough idea what
this says, & Google Translate isn't much of an improvement as far as I can
tell).

De Officiariis Constabulariatus Angliae constitutis.
Rex omnibus, ad quos &c Salutem.
Sciatis Nos,
De Fidelitate, Circumspectione, & Industria Nobis Dilectorum Dominorum
Willielmi Parre, Jacobi Haryngton, Jacobi Tyrell, Militum (quorum unum
eorum, altero absente, hac vice Viceconstabularium esse volumus) &
Magistrorum, Johannis Wallyngton, Willielmi Lacy, Willielmi Fuller, &
Georgii Warde, in Legibus Bacallariorum, plurimium confidentes,
Fecisse, Ordinasse, Deputasse, ac Praesentium Tenore Constituisse, ipsos
Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum, &
Georgium, Commissarios nostros Generales in Officio Constabulariatus nostri
Angliae,
Ipsosque Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum,
& Georgium Commissarios nostros, ut praedicitur, Deputamus, Ordinamus, &
Constituimus,
Habendum & Occupandum dictum Officium iisdem, Willielmo Jacobo, Jacobo, &
Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, & corum cuilibet, conjunctim &
divisim,
Damus insuper, & per Praesentes Concedimus eisdem Willielmo, Jacbo, Jacobo,
& Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, Auctoritatem & Potestatem ad
Cognoscendum, Procedendum, & Statuendum de & super Causis, Querelis,
Negotiis, Excessibus, Criminibus, tam publicis quam privatis quibuscumque,
cujuscumque Naturae seu Conditionis fuerint, etiam si Capitalia forent pro
quibus Poena Capitits esset infligendum, quorum Cognitio ad Officium Curiae
Constabulariatus nostri Angliae & Judices ejusdem de jure sive de
consuetudine dinoseitur seu debeat pertinere, etiam quemadmodium Causae,
Querelae, & Negotia Excessus & Crimina hujusmodi in Curia praedicta,
tempore, bonae memoriae, Edwardi, quondam Regis Angliae, illo Nonime Primo
Progenitoris nostri, pertinere & citra consuerverunt,
Necnon de & super ac in quibuscumque Negotiis etiam Crimina Laesae
Magestatis, per quoscumque Subditos nostros tam infra Regnum Angliae quam
Villa Calesii, ac partibus eisdem adjacentibus, ant alibi ubicumque in
Locis Jurisdictionibus, Potellati & imperio nostris quomodulibet subjectis
qualitereumque commissa concernentibus, & ad nostrum Cognitionem,
Correctionem, & Punitionem, ex Praerogativa, Corona, & Imperio nostro, mero
aut mixto Jure seu Consuetudine spectantia & pertinentia, Causas & Negotia
hujusmodi sive Crimina & Excessus, ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto, seu
ad Partis alicujus instantiam contigerit inchoari aut attemptari, cum
omnibus & singulis suis emergentibus, incidentibus, dependentibus, &
Connexis quibuscumque, Audiendum, Discutiendum, & Fine legitimo atque
debito Termiandum & Exequendum,
Necnon ad Procedendum de & super Excessibus, Criminibus etiam Laesae
Magestatis per Accusationem, Inquisitionem, seu Denunciationem, summarie &
de plano sine strepitu & figura judicii, prout vobis Commissariis nostris
antedictis videbitur expedire, sola Facti veritate inspecta, ac
Appellatione remota, cum cujuslibet Poenae sive Cohertionis legitimae in
hac parte plenaria Potestate,
Caeteraque omnia & singula quae ad Officium praedictum pertinent &
pertinere debent Faciendum, Excercendum, Expediendum, & Exequendum,
assumpto vobis in Actorum vestrorum Scribam aliquo fideli Tabellione qui
singula conscribat Acta in praemissis Negotiis, Tenore Praesentium,
Committimus Vices nostras,
Volumus etiam & Deputamus Dilectum & Fidelem nostrum Thomam Grey Militem in
hac vice Vicemarescallum nostrum, & quod praefatis Viceconstabulario &
Commissariis associetur & assistat judicialiter in Praemissis,
Mandantes eidem Thomae Praesentium per Tenorem quod omnia, quae ad Officium
Vicemarescalli pertinent facienda, faciat & exequatur, prout decet.
In cujus &c.
Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium, decimo quarto Die Novembris. / Per ipsum
Regent.

A J



On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken.
> His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of
> Leicester.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford
> Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland?
> Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins
> just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use
> his authority at the Tower.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was
> there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months
> of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's
> knowledge) and was recalled whený Edward found out. Similarly Edward used
> Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of
> Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to
> (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons
> Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over
> the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> > PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> > ý
> >
> > Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was
> anticipating Edward's death.
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his
> agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers'
> authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey
> Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who
> were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was
> Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy
> despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but
> was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas
> Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E
> Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> > >
> > > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of
> Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had
> commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James
> Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett,
> was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had
> connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against
> Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was
> part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye
> on him.
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Does anyone know?
> > > >
> > > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> Wallyngton &
> > > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> constable of
> > > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization
> existed in
> > > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the
> Admiralty
> > > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather
> than
> > > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified
> just
> > > > before EIV died?
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Yes he was Sir Edmund Dudley and I've checked would have been too young (23 in 1492) to be Dudley of the Tower. He was grandson of John Sutton, Baron Dudley. Is this our Dudley of the Tower?



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: What was this all about


 

Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken. His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of Leicester.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> >
> > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > before EIV died?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Haven't attacked the Latin (more used to Caesar's Gallic War) but Ross says that on 15 Nov 1482 Edward issued writs to summon Parliament the main purpose of which was to 'vote for money for the hasty defence of the realm'. Ross interprets this as Edward's intention to renew the war with Scotland whilst there was also chaos on the Continent and Maximilien was urging Edward also to invade France. It looks as though these were appointed to act during the absence of Edward and Richard in Scotland and because of fears for the safety of the realm
(Ross E4 page 290)


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 6:56
Subject: Re: What was this all about


Not sure that this enlightens me much, but here's the text of the document
I was asking about earlier

14 Nov 1482, Westminster
Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal


Does anyone read anything at all unusual "between the lines" so to speak?
(My 2 years of Latin in the distant past give me only a rough idea what
this says, & Google Translate isn't much of an improvement as far as I can
tell).

De Officiariis Constabulariatus Angliae constitutis.
Rex omnibus, ad quos &c Salutem.
Sciatis Nos,
De Fidelitate, Circumspectione, & Industria Nobis Dilectorum Dominorum
Willielmi Parre, Jacobi Haryngton, Jacobi Tyrell, Militum (quorum unum
eorum, altero absente, hac vice Viceconstabularium esse volumus) &
Magistrorum, Johannis Wallyngton, Willielmi Lacy, Willielmi Fuller, &
Georgii Warde, in Legibus Bacallariorum, plurimium confidentes,
Fecisse, Ordinasse, Deputasse, ac Praesentium Tenore Constituisse, ipsos
Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum, &
Georgium, Commissarios nostros Generales in Officio Constabulariatus nostri
Angliae,
Ipsosque Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum,
& Georgium Commissarios nostros, ut praedicitur, Deputamus, Ordinamus, &
Constituimus,
Habendum & Occupandum dictum Officium iisdem, Willielmo Jacobo, Jacobo, &
Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, & corum cuilibet, conjunctim &
divisim,
Damus insuper, & per Praesentes Concedimus eisdem Willielmo, Jacbo, Jacobo,
& Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, Auctoritatem & Potestatem ad
Cognoscendum, Procedendum, & Statuendum de & super Causis, Querelis,
Negotiis, Excessibus, Criminibus, tam publicis quam privatis quibuscumque,
cujuscumque Naturae seu Conditionis fuerint, etiam si Capitalia forent pro
quibus Poena Capitits esset infligendum, quorum Cognitio ad Officium Curiae
Constabulariatus nostri Angliae & Judices ejusdem de jure sive de
consuetudine dinoseitur seu debeat pertinere, etiam quemadmodium Causae,
Querelae, & Negotia Excessus & Crimina hujusmodi in Curia praedicta,
tempore, bonae memoriae, Edwardi, quondam Regis Angliae, illo Nonime Primo
Progenitoris nostri, pertinere & citra consuerverunt,
Necnon de & super ac in quibuscumque Negotiis etiam Crimina Laesae
Magestatis, per quoscumque Subditos nostros tam infra Regnum Angliae quam
Villa Calesii, ac partibus eisdem adjacentibus, ant alibi ubicumque in
Locis Jurisdictionibus, Potellati & imperio nostris quomodulibet subjectis
qualitereumque commissa concernentibus, & ad nostrum Cognitionem,
Correctionem, & Punitionem, ex Praerogativa, Corona, & Imperio nostro, mero
aut mixto Jure seu Consuetudine spectantia & pertinentia, Causas & Negotia
hujusmodi sive Crimina & Excessus, ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto, seu
ad Partis alicujus instantiam contigerit inchoari aut attemptari, cum
omnibus & singulis suis emergentibus, incidentibus, dependentibus, &
Connexis quibuscumque, Audiendum, Discutiendum, & Fine legitimo atque
debito Termiandum & Exequendum,
Necnon ad Procedendum de & super Excessibus, Criminibus etiam Laesae
Magestatis per Accusationem, Inquisitionem, seu Denunciationem, summarie &
de plano sine strepitu & figura judicii, prout vobis Commissariis nostris
antedictis videbitur expedire, sola Facti veritate inspecta, ac
Appellatione remota, cum cujuslibet Poenae sive Cohertionis legitimae in
hac parte plenaria Potestate,
Caeteraque omnia & singula quae ad Officium praedictum pertinent &
pertinere debent Faciendum, Excercendum, Expediendum, & Exequendum,
assumpto vobis in Actorum vestrorum Scribam aliquo fideli Tabellione qui
singula conscribat Acta in praemissis Negotiis, Tenore Praesentium,
Committimus Vices nostras,
Volumus etiam & Deputamus Dilectum & Fidelem nostrum Thomam Grey Militem in
hac vice Vicemarescallum nostrum, & quod praefatis Viceconstabulario &
Commissariis associetur & assistat judicialiter in Praemissis,
Mandantes eidem Thomae Praesentium per Tenorem quod omnia, quae ad Officium
Vicemarescalli pertinent facienda, faciat & exequatur, prout decet.
In cujus &c.
Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium, decimo quarto Die Novembris. / Per ipsum
Regent.

A J



On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken.
> His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of
> Leicester.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford
> Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland?
> Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins
> just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use
> his authority at the Tower.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was
> there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months
> of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's
> knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used
> Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of
> Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to
> (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons
> Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over
> the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> > PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was
> anticipating Edward's death.
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his
> agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers'
> authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey
> Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who
> were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was
> Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy
> despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but
> was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas
> Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E
> Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> > >
> > > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of
> Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had
> commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James
> Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett,
> was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had
> connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against
> Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was
> part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye
> on him.
> > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Does anyone know?
> > > >
> > > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> Wallyngton &
> > > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> constable of
> > > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization
> existed in
> > > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the
> Admiralty
> > > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather
> than
> > > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified
> just
> > > > before EIV died?
> > > > Doug
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think not. The surname is different and I think the tax collector is a commoner but can check later.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: What was this all about



Yes he was Sir Edmund Dudley and I've checked would have been too young (23 in 1492) to be Dudley of the Tower. He was grandson of John Sutton, Baron Dudley. Is this our Dudley of the Tower?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: What was this all about




Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken. His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of Leicester.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> >
> > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > before EIV died?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

What with BBC TV giving us a re-run of The Tudors, a couple of radio
dramas, along with the new series of documentaries, which, in spite of
the presence of Starkey, I am looking forward to, especially the one on
Anne Boleyn, I decided to take another look at Wolf Hall.
On Kindle the two books would cost me 10UKP while my local supermarket
gave them to me for 7!

I was given the hard back when it came out and couldn't get on with it
and gave up fairly early.

Now I am wondering why as I think it is marvelous, and one of the best
written novels I have ever read. Her research is so good I honestly feel
myself there in the Tudor court, safe enough as had I been there for
real I would have early on lost my head for my Yorkist loyalties.

So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul




--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks. Makes sense. What I understood sounded like business as usual.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Haven't attacked the Latin (more used to Caesar's Gallic War) but Ross
> says that on 15 Nov 1482 Edward issued writs to summon Parliament the main
> purpose of which was to 'vote for money for the hasty defence of the
> realm'. Ross interprets this as Edward's intention to renew the war with
> Scotland whilst there was also chaos on the Continent and Maximilien was
> urging Edward also to invade France. It looks as though these were
> appointed to act during the absence of Edward and Richard in Scotland and
> because of fears for the safety of the realm
> (Ross E4 page 290)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 6:56
>
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> Not sure that this enlightens me much, but here's the text of the document
> I was asking about earlier
>
> 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal
>
> Does anyone read anything at all unusual "between the lines" so to speak?
> (My 2 years of Latin in the distant past give me only a rough idea what
> this says, & Google Translate isn't much of an improvement as far as I can
> tell).
>
> De Officiariis Constabulariatus Angliae constitutis.
> Rex omnibus, ad quos &c Salutem.
> Sciatis Nos,
> De Fidelitate, Circumspectione, & Industria Nobis Dilectorum Dominorum
> Willielmi Parre, Jacobi Haryngton, Jacobi Tyrell, Militum (quorum unum
> eorum, altero absente, hac vice Viceconstabularium esse volumus) &
> Magistrorum, Johannis Wallyngton, Willielmi Lacy, Willielmi Fuller, &
> Georgii Warde, in Legibus Bacallariorum, plurimium confidentes,
> Fecisse, Ordinasse, Deputasse, ac Praesentium Tenore Constituisse, ipsos
> Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum, &
> Georgium, Commissarios nostros Generales in Officio Constabulariatus nostri
> Angliae,
> Ipsosque Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum,
> & Georgium Commissarios nostros, ut praedicitur, Deputamus, Ordinamus, &
> Constituimus,
> Habendum & Occupandum dictum Officium iisdem, Willielmo Jacobo, Jacobo, &
> Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, & corum cuilibet, conjunctim &
> divisim,
> Damus insuper, & per Praesentes Concedimus eisdem Willielmo, Jacbo, Jacobo,
> & Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, Auctoritatem & Potestatem ad
> Cognoscendum, Procedendum, & Statuendum de & super Causis, Querelis,
> Negotiis, Excessibus, Criminibus, tam publicis quam privatis quibuscumque,
> cujuscumque Naturae seu Conditionis fuerint, etiam si Capitalia forent pro
> quibus Poena Capitits esset infligendum, quorum Cognitio ad Officium Curiae
> Constabulariatus nostri Angliae & Judices ejusdem de jure sive de
> consuetudine dinoseitur seu debeat pertinere, etiam quemadmodium Causae,
> Querelae, & Negotia Excessus & Crimina hujusmodi in Curia praedicta,
> tempore, bonae memoriae, Edwardi, quondam Regis Angliae, illo Nonime Primo
> Progenitoris nostri, pertinere & citra consuerverunt,
> Necnon de & super ac in quibuscumque Negotiis etiam Crimina Laesae
> Magestatis, per quoscumque Subditos nostros tam infra Regnum Angliae quam
> Villa Calesii, ac partibus eisdem adjacentibus, ant alibi ubicumque in
> Locis Jurisdictionibus, Potellati & imperio nostris quomodulibet subjectis
> qualitereumque commissa concernentibus, & ad nostrum Cognitionem,
> Correctionem, & Punitionem, ex Praerogativa, Corona, & Imperio nostro, mero
> aut mixto Jure seu Consuetudine spectantia & pertinentia, Causas & Negotia
> hujusmodi sive Crimina & Excessus, ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto, seu
> ad Partis alicujus instantiam contigerit inchoari aut attemptari, cum
> omnibus & singulis suis emergentibus, incidentibus, dependentibus, &
> Connexis quibuscumque, Audiendum, Discutiendum, & Fine legitimo atque
> debito Termiandum & Exequendum,
> Necnon ad Procedendum de & super Excessibus, Criminibus etiam Laesae
> Magestatis per Accusationem, Inquisitionem, seu Denunciationem, summarie &
> de plano sine strepitu & figura judicii, prout vobis Commissariis nostris
> antedictis videbitur expedire, sola Facti veritate inspecta, ac
> Appellatione remota, cum cujuslibet Poenae sive Cohertionis legitimae in
> hac parte plenaria Potestate,
> Caeteraque omnia & singula quae ad Officium praedictum pertinent &
> pertinere debent Faciendum, Excercendum, Expediendum, & Exequendum,
> assumpto vobis in Actorum vestrorum Scribam aliquo fideli Tabellione qui
> singula conscribat Acta in praemissis Negotiis, Tenore Praesentium,
> Committimus Vices nostras,
> Volumus etiam & Deputamus Dilectum & Fidelem nostrum Thomam Grey Militem in
> hac vice Vicemarescallum nostrum, & quod praefatis Viceconstabulario &
> Commissariis associetur & assistat judicialiter in Praemissis,
> Mandantes eidem Thomae Praesentium per Tenorem quod omnia, quae ad Officium
> Vicemarescalli pertinent facienda, faciat & exequatur, prout decet.
> In cujus &c.
> Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium, decimo quarto Die Novembris. / Per ipsum
> Regent.
>
> A J
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken.
> > His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of
> > Leicester.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> > Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford
> > Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of
> Northumberland?
> > Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related.
> Collins
> > just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use
> > his authority at the Tower.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@
> ...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was
> > there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early
> months
> > of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's
> > knowledge) and was recalled whený Edward found out. Similarly Edward used
> > Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of
> > Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to
> > (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons
> > Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over
> > the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> > > PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> > > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was
> > anticipating Edward's death.
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his
> > agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over
> Rivers'
> > authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey
> > Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who
> > were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was
> > Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was
> Deputy
> > despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but
> > was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to
> Thomas
> > Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. (
> R.E
> > Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of
> > Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had
> > commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard.
> James
> > Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett,
> > was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also
> had
> > connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against
> > Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was
> > part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an
> eye
> > on him.
> > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> > Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Does anyone know?
> > > > >
> > > > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> > Wallyngton &
> > > > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> > constable of
> > > > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization
> > existed in
> > > > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the
> > Admiralty
> > > > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather
> > than
> > > > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified
> > just
> > > > > before EIV died?
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Paul -



I just checked - both *Wolf Hall* and *Bring Up the Bodies* are available
for kindle (for $13.99 ea. But there is a two-book edition for $24.98.
That's Cdn. $$$ btw). It's so easy with 1-click. J The two-book set is now
sitting in my kindle, just waiting for a sunny beach day. In the meantime,
at night I've been reading Matthew Lewis's *Loyalty* - that's the one which
starts out with Hans Holbein calling on Sir Thomas More. It's not bad, for
anyone looking for more Ricardian fiction to read - the kindle version only
costs $3.99, which makes up, to some extent, for the annoying typos that
occur from time to time due to the digital transcription. L



Thanks for the recommendation! J



Loyaulte me lie,


Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:43 AM
To:
Subject: More Tudors





What with BBC TV giving us a re-run of The Tudors, a couple of radio
dramas, along with the new series of documentaries, which, in spite of
the presence of Starkey, I am looking forward to, especially the one on
Anne Boleyn, I decided to take another look at Wolf Hall.
On Kindle the two books would cost me 10UKP while my local supermarket
gave them to me for 7!

I was given the hard back when it came out and couldn't get on with it
and gave up fairly early.

Now I am wondering why as I think it is marvelous, and one of the best
written novels I have ever read. Her research is so good I honestly feel
myself there in the Tudor court, safe enough as had I been there for
real I would have early on lost my head for my Yorkist loyalties.

So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I recall
reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left it
all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick, which
had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched to
Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
accomplishment.

Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was not
able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Thanks. Makes sense. What I understood sounded like business as usual.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Haven't attacked the Latin (more used to Caesar's Gallic War) but Ross
> says that on 15 Nov 1482 Edward issued writs to summon Parliament the
> main purpose of which was to 'vote for money for the hasty defence of
> the realm'. Ross interprets this as Edward's intention to renew the
> war with Scotland whilst there was also chaos on the Continent and
> Maximilien was urging Edward also to invade France. It looks as though
> these were appointed to act during the absence of Edward and Richard
> in Scotland and because of fears for the safety of the realm (Ross E4
> page 290)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 6:56
>
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> Not sure that this enlightens me much, but here's the text of the
> document I was asking about earlier
>
> 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> Wallyngton &
> 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> constable of England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal
>
> Does anyone read anything at all unusual "between the lines" so to speak?
> (My 2 years of Latin in the distant past give me only a rough idea
> what this says, & Google Translate isn't much of an improvement as far
> as I can tell).
>
> De Officiariis Constabulariatus Angliae constitutis.
> Rex omnibus, ad quos &c Salutem.
> Sciatis Nos,
> De Fidelitate, Circumspectione, & Industria Nobis Dilectorum Dominorum
> Willielmi Parre, Jacobi Haryngton, Jacobi Tyrell, Militum (quorum unum
> eorum, altero absente, hac vice Viceconstabularium esse volumus) &
> Magistrorum, Johannis Wallyngton, Willielmi Lacy, Willielmi Fuller, &
> Georgii Warde, in Legibus Bacallariorum, plurimium confidentes,
> Fecisse, Ordinasse, Deputasse, ac Praesentium Tenore Constituisse,
> ipsos Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum,
> Willielmum, & Georgium, Commissarios nostros Generales in Officio
> Constabulariatus nostri Angliae, Ipsosque Willielmum, Jacobum,
> Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum, & Georgium Commissarios
> nostros, ut praedicitur, Deputamus, Ordinamus, & Constituimus,
> Habendum & Occupandum dictum Officium iisdem, Willielmo Jacobo,
> Jacobo, & Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, & corum cuilibet,
> conjunctim & divisim, Damus insuper, & per Praesentes Concedimus
> eisdem Willielmo, Jacbo, Jacobo, & Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, &
> Georgio, Auctoritatem & Potestatem ad Cognoscendum, Procedendum, &
> Statuendum de & super Causis, Querelis, Negotiis, Excessibus,
> Criminibus, tam publicis quam privatis quibuscumque, cujuscumque
> Naturae seu Conditionis fuerint, etiam si Capitalia forent pro quibus
> Poena Capitits esset infligendum, quorum Cognitio ad Officium Curiae
> Constabulariatus nostri Angliae & Judices ejusdem de jure sive de
> consuetudine dinoseitur seu debeat pertinere, etiam quemadmodium
> Causae, Querelae, & Negotia Excessus & Crimina hujusmodi in Curia
> praedicta, tempore, bonae memoriae, Edwardi, quondam Regis Angliae,
> illo Nonime Primo Progenitoris nostri, pertinere & citra
> consuerverunt, Necnon de & super ac in quibuscumque Negotiis etiam
> Crimina Laesae Magestatis, per quoscumque Subditos nostros tam infra
> Regnum Angliae quam Villa Calesii, ac partibus eisdem adjacentibus,
> ant alibi ubicumque in Locis Jurisdictionibus, Potellati & imperio
> nostris quomodulibet subjectis qualitereumque commissa concernentibus,
> & ad nostrum Cognitionem, Correctionem, & Punitionem, ex Praerogativa,
> Corona, & Imperio nostro, mero aut mixto Jure seu Consuetudine
> spectantia & pertinentia, Causas & Negotia hujusmodi sive Crimina &
> Excessus, ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto, seu ad Partis alicujus
> instantiam contigerit inchoari aut attemptari, cum omnibus & singulis
> suis emergentibus, incidentibus, dependentibus, & Connexis
> quibuscumque, Audiendum, Discutiendum, & Fine legitimo atque debito
> Termiandum & Exequendum, Necnon ad Procedendum de & super Excessibus,
> Criminibus etiam Laesae Magestatis per Accusationem, Inquisitionem,
> seu Denunciationem, summarie & de plano sine strepitu & figura
> judicii, prout vobis Commissariis nostris antedictis videbitur
> expedire, sola Facti veritate inspecta, ac Appellatione remota, cum
> cujuslibet Poenae sive Cohertionis legitimae in hac parte plenaria
> Potestate, Caeteraque omnia & singula quae ad Officium praedictum
> pertinent & pertinere debent Faciendum, Excercendum, Expediendum, &
> Exequendum, assumpto vobis in Actorum vestrorum Scribam aliquo fideli
> Tabellione qui singula conscribat Acta in praemissis Negotiis, Tenore
> Praesentium, Committimus Vices nostras, Volumus etiam & Deputamus
> Dilectum & Fidelem nostrum Thomam Grey Militem in hac vice
> Vicemarescallum nostrum, & quod praefatis Viceconstabulario &
> Commissariis associetur & assistat judicialiter in Praemissis,
> Mandantes eidem Thomae Praesentium per Tenorem quod omnia, quae ad
> Officium Vicemarescalli pertinent facienda, faciat & exequatur, prout
decet.
> In cujus &c.
> Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium, decimo quarto Die Novembris. / Per
> ipsum Regent.
>
> A J
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Lark
> <stephenmlark@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken.
> > His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and
> > Robert of Leicester.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> > Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in
> > Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of
> Northumberland?
> > Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related.
> Collins
> > just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm
> > to use his authority at the Tower.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@
> ...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he
> > > was
> > there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early
> months
> > of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without
> > Edward's
> > knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward
> > used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the
> > execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like
> > when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And
> > yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd
> > supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> > > PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> > > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers
> > > was
> > anticipating Edward's death.
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to
> > > > his
> > agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over
> Rivers'
> > authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey
> > Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people
> > who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the
> > Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and
> > Anthony was
> Deputy
> > despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of
> > Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain.
> > Giving it to
> Thomas
> > Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it.
> > (
> R.E
> > Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post
> > > > of
> > Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had
> > commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard.
> James
> > Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at
> > Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative?
> > Richard also
> had
> > connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against
> > Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it
> > was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would
> > keep an
> eye
> > on him.
> > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> > Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Does anyone know?
> > > > >
> > > > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> > Wallyngton &
> > > > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> > constable of
> > > > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military
> > > > > organization
> > existed in
> > > > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century
> > > > > the
> > Admiralty
> > > > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice)
> > > > > rather
> > than
> > > > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission
> > > > > re-verified
> > just
> > > > > before EIV died?
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I liked it too.

On May 16, 2013, at 5:42 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



What with BBC TV giving us a re-run of The Tudors, a couple of radio
dramas, along with the new series of documentaries, which, in spite of
the presence of Starkey, I am looking forward to, especially the one on
Anne Boleyn, I decided to take another look at Wolf Hall.
On Kindle the two books would cost me 10UKP while my local supermarket
gave them to me for 7!

I was given the hard back when it came out and couldn't get on with it
and gave up fairly early.

Now I am wondering why as I think it is marvelous, and one of the best
written novels I have ever read. Her research is so good I honestly feel
myself there in the Tudor court, safe enough as had I been there for
real I would have early on lost my head for my Yorkist loyalties.

So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

A J Hibbard wrote:

"Thanks everyone for the ideas. It seems to me that when I asked recently
someone (sorry I can't remember who it was, but thank you) agreed that until
Richard was crowned he would still have been Constable of England. Hence my
concern about appointing commissioners to fulfill that role.
Maybe once I get around to looking at the actual records in Foedera,
thecontext will become clearer.
The other thing that's clear from the Syllabus is that business continued at
Westminster even when Richard (& presumably other monarchs) were elsewhere.
I've come far enough with my timeline to see that Rhoda Edwards timeline
indicates Richard to be one place, while whatever document in the Syllabus
was being generated elsewhere (generally Westminster). Again this should
become clearer to me once I read what the references in the Syllabus mean, &
get to the documents themselves.
If anyone wants access to the Google spreadsheet, let me know - it's growing
like Topsey & I'm wondering if it's manageable to try to put "everything" in
one document (say include a Bishop Morton timeline too, since he's been
discussed in the last few days, I have included whatever references I find
to characters of interest) or if there's a better
alternative?"

Doug here;
Might the "commissioners" have been in charge of whatever day-to-day work
the office of Constable entailed? Where stores of arms were kept, paying for
their manufacture, things such as that? Was the Constable the official
charged with seeing that the physical defenses of the realm; ie, castles,
Towers (hint, hint) and so on were maintained? After all, as the Constable,
whoever he was, couldn't be be everwhere, the "commissioners" might have
been a regularized form of deputation.
I checked my masterlist of books and the only one that *might* have relevant
information seems to be something called "Historical Studies of the English
Parliament" in two volvumes and edited by E.B. Fryde and E. Miller. Don't
know when it was published.
Sorry to just add more questions and, unfortunately, my Latin isn't even up
to Caesar's "Gaul", so I can't help there!
Doug

That's twice what I paid for the two paperbacks!
Paul

On 16/05/2013 12:21, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, Paul -
>
>
>
> I just checked - both *Wolf Hall* and *Bring Up the Bodies* are available
> for kindle (for $13.99 ea. But there is a two-book edition for $24.98.
> That's Cdn. $$$ btw). It's so easy with 1-click. J The two-book set is now
> sitting in my kindle, just waiting for a sunny beach day. In the meantime,
> at night I've been reading Matthew Lewis's *Loyalty* - that's the one which
> starts out with Hans Holbein calling on Sir Thomas More. It's not bad, for
> anyone looking for more Ricardian fiction to read - the kindle version only
> costs $3.99, which makes up, to some extent, for the annoying typos that
> occur from time to time due to the digital transcription. L
>
>
>
> Thanks for the recommendation! J
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: More Tudors
>
>
>
>
>
> What with BBC TV giving us a re-run of The Tudors, a couple of radio
> dramas, along with the new series of documentaries, which, in spite of
> the presence of Starkey, I am looking forward to, especially the one on
> Anne Boleyn, I decided to take another look at Wolf Hall.
> On Kindle the two books would cost me 10UKP while my local supermarket
> gave them to me for 7!
>
> I was given the hard back when it came out and couldn't get on with it
> and gave up fairly early.
>
> Now I am wondering why as I think it is marvelous, and one of the best
> written novels I have ever read. Her research is so good I honestly feel
> myself there in the Tudor court, safe enough as had I been there for
> real I would have early on lost my head for my Yorkist loyalties.
>
> So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
> beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
> straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
> How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes I realised afterwards I'd had a touch of the sun - rushing off!  The tax collector was the son of Sir John Dudley, so not quite a commoner ,and was introduced to Emspon by Reggie Bray.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 9:23
Subject: Re: What was this all about


 

I think not. The surname is different and I think the tax collector is a commoner but can check later.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Yes he was Sir Edmund Dudley and I've checked would have been too young (23 in 1492) to be Dudley of the Tower. He was grandson of John Sutton, Baron Dudley. Is this our Dudley of the Tower?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken. His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of Leicester.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> >
> > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > before EIV died?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Paul -

I didn't check on the price of the paperbacks, as I was really after the
convenience of the kindle version, these books (essentially "fluff") fitting
my criteria for preferred purchasing for my kindle. They are the kind of
thing that I would unduly clutter up my compact house - on the kindle, they
really don't take any space at all!



But I noted that the latest Dan Brown book, *Inferno,* lists at $15.00 (for
the paperback, I presume) and $15.99 for the kindle version. When I saw
that, I said, I don't need that $16.00 worth (and there's 15% tax on top of
that); I'll just borrow it from the library!



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 Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: More Tudors





That's twice what I paid for the two paperbacks!
Paul

On 16/05/2013 12:21, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hi, Paul -
>
>
>
> I just checked - both *Wolf Hall* and *Bring Up the Bodies* are available
> for kindle (for $13.99 ea. But there is a two-book edition for $24.98.
> That's Cdn. $$$ btw). It's so easy with 1-click. J The two-book set is now
> sitting in my kindle, just waiting for a sunny beach day. In the meantime,
> at night I've been reading Matthew Lewis's *Loyalty* - that's the one
which
> starts out with Hans Holbein calling on Sir Thomas More. It's not bad, for
> anyone looking for more Ricardian fiction to read - the kindle version
only
> costs $3.99, which makes up, to some extent, for the annoying typos that
> occur from time to time due to the digital transcription. L
>
>
>
> Thanks for the recommendation! J
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:43 AM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: More Tudors
>
>
>
>
>
> What with BBC TV giving us a re-run of The Tudors, a couple of radio
> dramas, along with the new series of documentaries, which, in spite of
> the presence of Starkey, I am looking forward to, especially the one on
> Anne Boleyn, I decided to take another look at Wolf Hall.
> On Kindle the two books would cost me 10UKP while my local supermarket
> gave them to me for 7!
>
> I was given the hard back when it came out and couldn't get on with it
> and gave up fairly early.
>
> Now I am wondering why as I think it is marvelous, and one of the best
> written novels I have ever read. Her research is so good I honestly feel
> myself there in the Tudor court, safe enough as had I been there for
> real I would have early on lost my head for my Yorkist loyalties.
>
> So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
> beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
> straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
> How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight as fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like Richard's hump


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
Subject: RE: What was this all about

 

Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I recall
reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left it
all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick, which
had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched to
Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
accomplishment.

Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was not
able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Thanks. Makes sense. What I understood sounded like business as usual.

A J

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Haven't attacked the Latin (more used to Caesar's Gallic War) but Ross
> says that on 15 Nov 1482 Edward issued writs to summon Parliament the
> main purpose of which was to 'vote for money for the hasty defence of
> the realm'. Ross interprets this as Edward's intention to renew the
> war with Scotland whilst there was also chaos on the Continent and
> Maximilien was urging Edward also to invade France. It looks as though
> these were appointed to act during the absence of Edward and Richard
> in Scotland and because of fears for the safety of the realm (Ross E4
> page 290)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 6:56
>
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> Not sure that this enlightens me much, but here's the text of the
> document I was asking about earlier
>
> 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> Wallyngton &
> 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> constable of England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal
>
> Does anyone read anything at all unusual "between the lines" so to speak?
> (My 2 years of Latin in the distant past give me only a rough idea
> what this says, & Google Translate isn't much of an improvement as far
> as I can tell).
>
> De Officiariis Constabulariatus Angliae constitutis.
> Rex omnibus, ad quos &c Salutem.
> Sciatis Nos,
> De Fidelitate, Circumspectione, & Industria Nobis Dilectorum Dominorum
> Willielmi Parre, Jacobi Haryngton, Jacobi Tyrell, Militum (quorum unum
> eorum, altero absente, hac vice Viceconstabularium esse volumus) &
> Magistrorum, Johannis Wallyngton, Willielmi Lacy, Willielmi Fuller, &
> Georgii Warde, in Legibus Bacallariorum, plurimium confidentes,
> Fecisse, Ordinasse, Deputasse, ac Praesentium Tenore Constituisse,
> ipsos Willielmum, Jacobum, Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum,
> Willielmum, & Georgium, Commissarios nostros Generales in Officio
> Constabulariatus nostri Angliae, Ipsosque Willielmum, Jacobum,
> Jacobum, & Johannem, Willielmum, Willielmum, & Georgium Commissarios
> nostros, ut praedicitur, Deputamus, Ordinamus, & Constituimus,
> Habendum & Occupandum dictum Officium iisdem, Willielmo Jacobo,
> Jacobo, & Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, & Georgio, & corum cuilibet,
> conjunctim & divisim, Damus insuper, & per Praesentes Concedimus
> eisdem Willielmo, Jacbo, Jacobo, & Johanni, Willielmo, Willielmo, &
> Georgio, Auctoritatem & Potestatem ad Cognoscendum, Procedendum, &
> Statuendum de & super Causis, Querelis, Negotiis, Excessibus,
> Criminibus, tam publicis quam privatis quibuscumque, cujuscumque
> Naturae seu Conditionis fuerint, etiam si Capitalia forent pro quibus
> Poena Capitits esset infligendum, quorum Cognitio ad Officium Curiae
> Constabulariatus nostri Angliae & Judices ejusdem de jure sive de
> consuetudine dinoseitur seu debeat pertinere, etiam quemadmodium
> Causae, Querelae, & Negotia Excessus & Crimina hujusmodi in Curia
> praedicta, tempore, bonae memoriae, Edwardi, quondam Regis Angliae,
> illo Nonime Primo Progenitoris nostri, pertinere & citra
> consuerverunt, Necnon de & super ac in quibuscumque Negotiis etiam
> Crimina Laesae Magestatis, per quoscumque Subditos nostros tam infra
> Regnum Angliae quam Villa Calesii, ac partibus eisdem adjacentibus,
> ant alibi ubicumque in Locis Jurisdictionibus, Potellati & imperio
> nostris quomodulibet subjectis qualitereumque commissa concernentibus,
> & ad nostrum Cognitionem, Correctionem, & Punitionem, ex Praerogativa,
> Corona, & Imperio nostro, mero aut mixto Jure seu Consuetudine
> spectantia & pertinentia, Causas & Negotia hujusmodi sive Crimina &
> Excessus, ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto, seu ad Partis alicujus
> instantiam contigerit inchoari aut attemptari, cum omnibus & singulis
> suis emergentibus, incidentibus, dependentibus, & Connexis
> quibuscumque, Audiendum, Discutiendum, & Fine legitimo atque debito
> Termiandum & Exequendum, Necnon ad Procedendum de & super Excessibus,
> Criminibus etiam Laesae Magestatis per Accusationem, Inquisitionem,
> seu Denunciationem, summarie & de plano sine strepitu & figura
> judicii, prout vobis Commissariis nostris antedictis videbitur
> expedire, sola Facti veritate inspecta, ac Appellatione remota, cum
> cujuslibet Poenae sive Cohertionis legitimae in hac parte plenaria
> Potestate, Caeteraque omnia & singula quae ad Officium praedictum
> pertinent & pertinere debent Faciendum, Excercendum, Expediendum, &
> Exequendum, assumpto vobis in Actorum vestrorum Scribam aliquo fideli
> Tabellione qui singula conscribat Acta in praemissis Negotiis, Tenore
> Praesentium, Committimus Vices nostras, Volumus etiam & Deputamus
> Dilectum & Fidelem nostrum Thomam Grey Militem in hac vice
> Vicemarescallum nostrum, & quod praefatis Viceconstabulario &
> Commissariis associetur & assistat judicialiter in Praemissis,
> Mandantes eidem Thomae Praesentium per Tenorem quod omnia, quae ad
> Officium Vicemarescalli pertinent facienda, faciat & exequatur, prout
decet.
> In cujus &c.
> Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium, decimo quarto Die Novembris. / Per
> ipsum Regent.
>
> A J
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Lark
> <stephenmlark@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken.
> > His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and
> > Robert of Leicester.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: ricard1an
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> > Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in
> > Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of
> Northumberland?
> > Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related.
> Collins
> > just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm
> > to use his authority at the Tower.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@
> ...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he
> > > was
> > there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early
> months
> > of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without
> > Edward's
> > knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward
> > used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the
> > execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like
> > when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And
> > yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd
> > supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> > > PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> > > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers
> > > was
> > anticipating Edward's death.
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to
> > > > his
> > agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over
> Rivers'
> > authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey
> > Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people
> > who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the
> > Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and
> > Anthony was
> Deputy
> > despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of
> > Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain.
> > Giving it to
> Thomas
> > Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it.
> > (
> R.E
> > Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post
> > > > of
> > Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had
> > commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard.
> James
> > Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at
> > Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative?
> > Richard also
> had
> > connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against
> > Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it
> > was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would
> > keep an
> eye
> > on him.
> > > > --- In , "Douglas Eugene
> > Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Does anyone know?
> > > > >
> > > > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> > Wallyngton &
> > > > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> > constable of
> > > > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug here:
> > > > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military
> > > > > organization
> > existed in
> > > > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century
> > > > > the
> > Admiralty
> > > > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice)
> > > > > rather
> > than
> > > > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission
> > > > > re-verified
> > just
> > > > > before EIV died?
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I confess to having 'wikid' both and Edmund Dudley is the grandson of John Sutton Baron Dudley by his second son, Sir John Sutton Dudley. They changed the surname. And old Lord Dudley would indeed have been 83 at the time we're talking about. 



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 9:23
Subject: Re: What was this all about


 

I think not. The surname is different and I think the tax collector is a commoner but can check later.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Yes he was Sir Edmund Dudley and I've checked would have been too young (23 in 1492) to be Dudley of the Tower. He was grandson of John Sutton, Baron Dudley. Is this our Dudley of the Tower?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Dudley (of "and Empson") was a commoner, unless I am very much mistaken. His son was the Duke of Northumberland, father of Guildford and Robert of Leicester.
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Not sure about that. There was also the Dudley family as in Guildford Dudley of Lady Jane Grey fame. His father was Earl/Duke of Northumberland? Not sure about whether the Dudley of Dudley and Empson was related. Collins just mentions his name and the fact that he was too old and infirm to use his authority at the Tower.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That isn't entirely true about Hastings. When Captain of Calais he was there at the time of the death of Charles of Burgundy and the early months of 1478. He was the only one who gave help to Margaret (without Edward's knowledge) and was recalled when Edward found out. Similarly Edward used Buckingham to take over from Richard at the time of the execution of Clarence. So he used people he didn't particularly like when he needed to (sorry I'm not including Hastings in that). And yes, one of the reasons Stanley disliked Richard was because he'd supported the Harringtons over the ownership of Hornby Castle.
> PS Is Dudley the father of Dudley and Empson of H7 fame?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 19:53
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Sorry should have written that's why Collins thinks that Rivers was anticipating Edward's death.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just before Edward died Anthony Lord Rivers wrote from Ludlow to his agent Master Andrew Dymmock in London instructing him to hand over Rivers' authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to his nephew Thomas Grey Marquis of Dorset. Apparently Edward gave out appointments to people who were not able to use any power attached. The Constable of the Tower was Lord Dudley who was too old and infirm to do the job and Anthony was Deputy despite being 200 miles away in Ludlow. Hasting was Captain of Calais but was permenently tied up in London as Lord Chamberlain. Giving it to Thomas Grey was putting active power in the hands of someoneable to use it. ( R.E Collins The Death of Edward IV") This is why Collins thinks that
> >
> > I am not sure, but what AJ is referring to is possibly the post of Constable of England. Richard was Constable and possibly he had commissioners. Some of the men could have had connections to Richard. James Tyrrell did as we know and one of Richard's Squires, who died at Barnett, was Thomas Parr. Could William Parr have been a relative? Richard also had connections to the Harrington family, didn't he defend them against Stanley? Edward possibly gave the job to Thomas Grey because, if it was part of Richard's Constableship, Edward knew that Richard would keep an eye on him.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> > > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton &
> > > 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of
> > > England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Wasn't the Constable the head of whatever military organization existed in
> > > the kingdom? I know that at various times in the 17th century the Admiralty
> > > was placed "in commission" (Samuel Pepys was a member twice) rather than
> > > appointing a First Lord, perhaps this is something similar?
> > > Isn't that the Sir Thomas Grey who had his commission re-verified just
> > > before EIV died?
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother of getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as he'd ever been and had no such problem.

It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem, but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what I'm talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you had.

He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not having the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight as fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like Richard's hump
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> Subject: RE: What was this all about
>
>  
>
> Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I recall
> reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left it
> all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick, which
> had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched to
> Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> accomplishment.
>
> Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was not
> able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne

Good points.... You don't let out the seams of a suit of armor. And he and his horse were probably not happy with a long ride.
It seems like every little thing is of interest, and this is like. 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
The question of servants is fascinating. Not like more recent times when a letter of reference was needed. There were so many jobs, on so many levels, and it seems that any Tom, Dick or Harriet could be added to the staff.



On May 16, 2013, at 12:22 PM, "wednesdayas_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
S


I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother of getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as he'd ever been and had no such problem.

It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem, but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what I'm talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you had.

He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not having the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight by 1475, but we seem toý accept the other exaggerations about his weight as fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like Richard's hump
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> Subject: RE: What was this all about
>
> ý
>
> Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I recall
> reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left it
> all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick, which
> had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched to
> Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> accomplishment.
>
> Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was not
> able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne

Hi, Weds, Hilary et al –



Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
presented on the situation vis-à-vis Scotland during Edward’s reign,
especially focusing on Richard’s Scottish campaigns, and it is fascinating.
It basically confirms Matthew Lewis’s conclusions, I would say, but really
helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us don’t know
much about.



So, bottom line – apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one meeting –
October, 1481 – took place at Nottingham, and the second – June, 1482 – took
place at Fotheringhay.



However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
(in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day – an amazing distance.
Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London – that
would then equate to about 3 ½ days travel. I think it is fair to say that
an average day’s travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles per
day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about





I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer
fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother of
getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as
he'd ever been and had no such problem.

It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who
hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what I'm
talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
had.

He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not having
the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
(again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight
by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight as
fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
Richard's hump
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> Subject: RE: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
recall
> reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left
it
> all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick, which
> had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched
to
> Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> accomplishment.
>
> Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
not
> able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne

Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a
primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by
internet sources as having established the military post system, and the
figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the
idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh
horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were
meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention
to what this person has to say).

Another thought that since this was called a post(ing) system - maybe
that's what the riders did, implying that the horses were trotting most of
the time.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi, Weds, Hilary et al ý
>
> Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
> presented on the situation vis-ý-vis Scotland during Edwardýs reign,
> especially focusing on Richardýs Scottish campaigns, and it is fascinating.
> It basically confirms Matthew Lewisýs conclusions, I would say, but really
> helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
> makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us donýt know
> much about.
>
> So, bottom line ý apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
> occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one meeting
> ý
> October, 1481 ý took place at Nottingham, and the second ý June, 1482 ý
> took
> place at Fotheringhay.
>
> However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
> problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
> setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
> (in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day ý an amazing distance.
> Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London ý that
> would then equate to about 3 ý days travel. I think it is fair to say that
> an average dayýs travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles
> per
> day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
> faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer
> fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother
> of
> getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as
> he'd ever been and had no such problem.
>
> It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
> but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who
> hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what
> I'm
> talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
> had.
>
> He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not
> having
> the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
> health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
> Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
> (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight
> by 1475, but we seem toý accept the other exaggerations about his weight as
> fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
> weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
> Richard's hump
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> > Subject: RE: What was this all about
> >
> > ý
> >
> > Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
> recall
> > reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left
> it
> > all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> > reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> > not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick,
> which
> > had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched
> to
> > Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> > accomplishment.
> >
> > Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> > confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
> not
> > able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, AJ!
That particular point is not footnoted, although it is the conclusion of a
paragraph in which Ms. Bryce cites Kendall and Ross saying that Edward's
health was apparently beginning to fail - he would be dead within a year -
but she also cites Ross in saying that Edward's presence was needed in
London to deal with the volatile dealings with Brittany, Burgundy and
France. Then she notes:

"Whatever the reason, on 12th June Richard was re-commissioned as
Lieutenant-General, and given command of operations. Edward would keep
abreast of events by a newly established courier system which could relay
information between the Duke and the king at a breakneck speed of 100 miles
a day."

Ms. Bryce is a member of this Forum - perhaps she can cite her source for
this information, although as you note, it seems to be widely claimed. It's
certainly an interesting tidbit from my point of view.

Hope this helps!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about

Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a
primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by internet
sources as having established the military post system, and the figure of
covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the idea that
relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh horses,
don't know about the riders, since so many communications were meant to be
verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention to what this
person has to say).

Another thought that since this was called a post(ing) system - maybe that's
what the riders did, implying that the horses were trotting most of the
time.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi, Weds, Hilary et al –
>
> Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper
> she presented on the situation vis-à-vis Scotland during Edward’s
> reign, especially focusing on Richard’s Scottish campaigns, and it is
fascinating.
> It basically confirms Matthew Lewis’s conclusions, I would say, but
> really helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English
> relations. It makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most
> of us don’t know much about.
>
> So, bottom line – apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
> occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one
> meeting – October, 1481 – took place at Nottingham, and the second –
> June, 1482 – took place at Fotheringhay.
>
> However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
> problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London
> by setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover
> distances (in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day – an amazing
distance.
> Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London –
> that would then equate to about 3 ½ days travel. I think it is fair to
> say that an average day’s travel in them thar days would have been
> about 20 miles per day, so this system of messengers would have
> traveled roughly five times faster than average. (Sort of a medieval
> Pony Express. J)
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> wednesday_mc
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no
> longer fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the
> embarrassment/bother of getting a new suit made...especially if Little
> Brother was the same size as he'd ever been and had no such problem.
>
> It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the
> problem, but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for
> days. Anyone who hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire
> day will know what I'm talking about. The muscles forget and punish
> you in places you forgot you had.
>
> He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not
> having the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
> health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
> Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
> (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on
> weight by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about
> his weight as fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the
> extent of the weight gain and the gorging seem to be later
> embellishments, a bit like Richard's hump
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> > Subject: RE: What was this all about
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
> recall
> > reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so
> > left
> it
> > all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was
> > just reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it
> > indicates that not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the
> > town of Berwick,
> which
> > had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard
> > marched
> to
> > Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an
> > unprecedented accomplishment.
> >
> > Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can
> > anyone confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that
> > Edward was
> not
> > able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Johanne,   I think when you were away we covered this. Edward did indeed meet with Richard at Fotheringhay and the result was that Richard and Albany decided to head for Scotland whilst Edward went to review the troops in Dover (Ross E4). I also posted about the courier system which, I think we concluded, was set up by Richard and did indeed travel at high speed. That could be Ross again, but it's late here and will be in my earier post if you have the patience to look it up.
 
If not, come back to me and I'll hunt it out tomorrow. H


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 19:07
Subject: RE: What was this all about

 

Hi, Weds, Hilary et al 

Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
presented on the situation vis-à-vis Scotland during Edward's reign,
especially focusing on Richard's Scottish campaigns, and it is fascinating.
It basically confirms Matthew Lewis's conclusions, I would say, but really
helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us don't know
much about.

So, bottom line  apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one meeting 
October, 1481  took place at Nottingham, and the second  June, 1482  took
place at Fotheringhay.

However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
(in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day  an amazing distance.
Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London  that
would then equate to about 3 ½ days travel. I think it is fair to say that
an average day's travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles per
day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about

I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer
fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother of
getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as
he'd ever been and had no such problem.

It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who
hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what I'm
talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
had.

He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not having
the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
<hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
(again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight
by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight as
fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
Richard's hump
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> Subject: RE: What was this all about
>
> Â
>
> Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
recall
> reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left
it
> all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick, which
> had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched
to
> Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> accomplishment.
>
> Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
not
> able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne

Hi, See what I said to Carol. It's in the archives (here) but too late to dig out now.  Without looking up the original source I think it involved a number of staging posts about 20 miles apart, so that there were regular changes of horses and people on standby - but it did exist and was almost certainly established by Richard.



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 19:17
Subject: Re: What was this all about


Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
post(ing) system.  I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a
primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by
internet sources as having established the military post system, and the
figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the
idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh
horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were
meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention
to what this person has to say).

Another thought that since this was called a post(ing) system - maybe
that's what the riders did, implying that the horses were trotting most of
the time.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi, Weds, Hilary et al 
>
> Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
> presented on the situation vis-à-vis Scotland during Edward's reign,
> especially focusing on Richard's Scottish campaigns, and it is fascinating.
> It basically confirms Matthew Lewis's conclusions, I would say, but really
> helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
> makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us don't know
> much about.
>
> So, bottom line  apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
> occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one meeting
> 
> October, 1481  took place at Nottingham, and the second  June, 1482 
> took
> place at Fotheringhay.
>
> However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
> problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
> setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
> (in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day  an amazing distance.
> Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London  that
> would then equate to about 3 ½ days travel. I think it is fair to say that
> an average day's travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles
> per
> day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
> faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer
> fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother
> of
> getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as
> he'd ever been and had no such problem.
>
> It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
> but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who
> hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what
> I'm
> talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
> had.
>
> He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not
> having
> the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
> health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
> Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
> (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight
> by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight as
> fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
> weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
> Richard's hump
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> > Subject: RE: What was this all about
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
> recall
> > reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left
> it
> > all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> > reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> > not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick,
> which
> > had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched
> to
> > Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> > accomplishment.
> >
> > Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> > confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
> not
> > able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi,



It's been over 2 years since I wrote the paper, and, having taken a quick look in my study, I can't find the file with the research notes amongst all the many years of Ricardian materials. I expect that the information came from Ross, more likely from his Edward IV biography, which I had borrowed, as I don't have a copy in my own library. I can't recall where he discovered this information, but I've found in the past that Charles Ross' scholarship is sound  it's his interpretation of it that I sometimes disagree with.



Tracy





From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: May-16-13 5:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What was this all about





Hi, See what I said to Carol. It's in the archives (here) but too late to dig out now. Without looking up the original source I think it involved a number of staging posts about 20 miles apart, so that there were regular changes of horses and people on standby - but it did exist and was almost certainly established by Richard.

________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 19:17
Subject: Re: What was this all about


Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a
primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by
internet sources as having established the military post system, and the
figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the
idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh
horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were
meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention
to what this person has to say).

Another thought that since this was called a post(ing) system - maybe
that's what the riders did, implying that the horses were trotting most of
the time.

A J

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi, Weds, Hilary et al 
>
> Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
> presented on the situation vis-à-vis Scotland during Edward's reign,
> especially focusing on Richard's Scottish campaigns, and it is fascinating.
> It basically confirms Matthew Lewis's conclusions, I would say, but really
> helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
> makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us don't know
> much about.
>
> So, bottom line  apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
> occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one meeting
> 
> October, 1481  took place at Nottingham, and the second  June, 1482 
> took
> place at Fotheringhay.
>
> However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
> problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
> setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
> (in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day  an amazing distance.
> Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London  that
> would then equate to about 3 ½ days travel. I think it is fair to say that
> an average day's travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles
> per
> day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
> faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
>
> I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no longer
> fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother
> of
> getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size as
> he'd ever been and had no such problem.
>
> It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
> but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone who
> hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what
> I'm
> talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
> had.
>
> He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not
> having
> the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
>
> <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
> health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
> Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
> (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on weight
> by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight as
> fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
> weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
> Richard's hump
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> > Subject: RE: What was this all about
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
> recall
> > reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so left
> it
> > all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> > reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates that
> > not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick,
> which
> > had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard marched
> to
> > Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an unprecedented
> > accomplishment.
> >
> > Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can anyone
> > confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
> not
> > able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Okay, I'll have a hunt among my books to see if I have Ross's *Edward IV*.
I generally try to avoid him, so I'm not sure.

Thanks.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Tracy Bryce <tbryce@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Itýs been over 2 years since I wrote the paper, and, having taken a quick
> look in my study, I canýt find the file with the research notes amongst all
> the many years of Ricardian materials. I expect that the information came
> from Ross, more likely from his Edward IV biography, which I had borrowed,
> as I donýt have a copy in my own library. I canýt recall where he
> discovered this information, but Iýve found in the past that Charles Rossý
> scholarship is sound ý itýs his interpretation of it that I sometimes
> disagree with.
>
> Tracy
>
> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: May-16-13 5:25 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Hi, See what I said to Carol. It's in the archives (here) but too late to
> dig out now. Without looking up the original source I think it involved a
> number of staging posts about 20 miles apart, so that there were regular
> changes of horses and people on standby - but it did exist and was almost
> certainly established by Richard.
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
> To: " <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> " <
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 19:17
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
> post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a
> primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by
> internet sources as having established the military post system, and the
> figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the
> idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh
> horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were
> meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention
> to what this person has to say).
>
> Another thought that since this was called a post(ing) system - maybe
> that's what the riders did, implying that the horses were trotting most of
> the time.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >wrote:
>
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi, Weds, Hilary et al ý
> >
> > Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
> > presented on the situation vis-ý-vis Scotland during Edwardýs reign,
> > especially focusing on Richardýs Scottish campaigns, and it is
> fascinating.
> > It basically confirms Matthew Lewisýs conclusions, I would say, but
> really
> > helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
> > makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us donýt know
> > much about.
> >
> > So, bottom line ý apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
> > occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one
> meeting
> > ý
> > October, 1481 ý took place at Nottingham, and the second ý June, 1482 ý
> > took
> > place at Fotheringhay.
> >
> > However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
> > problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
> > setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
> > (in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day ý an amazing distance.
> > Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London ý that
> > would then equate to about 3 ý days travel. I think it is fair to say
> that
> > an average dayýs travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles
> > per
> > day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
> > faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> >
> > or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
> > To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> >
> > I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no
> longer
> > fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother
> > of
> > getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size
> as
> > he'd ever been and had no such problem.
> >
> > It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
> > but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone
> who
> > hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what
> > I'm
> > talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
> > had.
> >
> > He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not
> > having
> > the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> >
> > <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
> > health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
> > Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
> > (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on
> weight
> > by 1475, but we seem toý accept the other exaggerations about his weight
> as
> > fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
> > weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
> > Richard's hump
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > > To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> > > Subject: RE: What was this all about
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
> > recall
> > > reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so
> left
> > it
> > > all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> > > reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates
> that
> > > not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick,
> > which
> > > had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard
> marched
> > to
> > > Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an
> unprecedented
> > > accomplishment.
> > >
> > > Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can
> anyone
> > > confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
> > not
> > > able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 I don't think it's in Ross E4 (he's nasty about Richard in Scotland) except as a passing note. It's one of the older books - could be Kendall. I'll try and find it again later tody H 



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 17 May 2013, 0:30
Subject: Re: What was this all about


Okay, I'll have a hunt among my books to see if I have Ross's *Edward IV*.
I generally try to avoid him, so I'm not sure.

Thanks.

A J


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Tracy Bryce <tbryce@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi,
>
> It's been over 2 years since I wrote the paper, and, having taken a quick
> look in my study, I can't find the file with the research notes amongst all
> the many years of Ricardian materials. I expect that the information came
> from Ross, more likely from his Edward IV biography, which I had borrowed,
> as I don't have a copy in my own library. I can't recall where he
> discovered this information, but I've found in the past that Charles Ross'
> scholarship is sound  it's his interpretation of it that I sometimes
> disagree with.
>
> Tracy
>
> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> Sent: May-16-13 5:25 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Hi, See what I said to Carol. It's in the archives (here) but too late to
> dig out now. Without looking up the original source I think it involved a
> number of staging posts about 20 miles apart, so that there were regular
> changes of horses and people on standby - but it did exist and was almost
> certainly established by Richard.
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@... <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com> >
> To: " <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> " <
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 19:17
> Subject: Re: What was this all about
>
> Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
> post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a
> primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by
> internet sources as having established the military post system, and the
> figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the
> idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh
> horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were
> meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention
> to what this person has to say).
>
> Another thought that since this was called a post(ing) system - maybe
> that's what the riders did, implying that the horses were trotting most of
> the time.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >wrote:
>
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi, Weds, Hilary et al 
> >
> > Tracy Bryce of the Canadian branch kindly sent me a copy of a paper she
> > presented on the situation vis-à-vis Scotland during Edward's reign,
> > especially focusing on Richard's Scottish campaigns, and it is
> fascinating.
> > It basically confirms Matthew Lewis's conclusions, I would say, but
> really
> > helps to understand the complexity of the Scottish-English relations. It
> > makes for a fascinating scenario that I think that most of us don't know
> > much about.
> >
> > So, bottom line  apparently Edward met with Richard on a couple of
> > occasions for conferences about strategy. Tracy indicates that one
> meeting
> > 
> > October, 1481  took place at Nottingham, and the second  June, 1482 
> > took
> > place at Fotheringhay.
> >
> > However, I find it interesting that to some extent they got around the
> > problem of the command chain being stretched from Scotland to London by
> > setting up a system of crack messengers, who were able to cover distances
> > (in relays, perhaps?) of up to 100 miles per day  an amazing distance.
> > Google Maps says it is 346 miles from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London  that
> > would then equate to about 3 ½ days travel. I think it is fair to say
> that
> > an average day's travel in them thar days would have been about 20 miles
> > per
> > day, so this system of messengers would have traveled roughly five times
> > faster than average. (Sort of a medieval Pony Express. J)
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
> >
> > or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:22 PM
> > To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: What was this all about
> >
> >
> > I've always wondered if it was then that Edward realized he could no
> longer
> > fit into his armor and didn't want to go through the embarrassment/bother
> > of
> > getting a new suit made...especially if Little Brother was the same size
> as
> > he'd ever been and had no such problem.
> >
> > It also may not have been the mounting of the horse that was the problem,
> > but Edward's staying in the saddle all day/campaigning for days. Anyone
> who
> > hasn't ridden for weeks and then ridden for an entire day will know what
> > I'm
> > talking about. The muscles forget and punish you in places you forgot you
> > had.
> >
> > He had so much to deal with as king, I really can't blame him for not
> > having
> > the energy to try turning time back ten years for Scotland.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Hilary Jones
> >
> > <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > He decided not to. He seems to have been suffering from bouts of ill
> > health since about 1475 (some have surmised he picked up malaria at
> > Picquigny; the Somme is dreadful for mosquitos). It was commented upon
> > (again I think by Commines or one of the French) that he had put on
> weight
> > by 1475, but we seem to accept the other exaggerations about his weight
> as
> > fact. I seem to recall that apart from this comment, the extent of the
> > weight gain and the gorging seem to be later embellishments, a bit like
> > Richard's hump
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> > > To: <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 12:40
> > > Subject: RE: What was this all about
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Except that Edward never departed for Scotland, right? Seems to me I
> > recall
> > > reading that at that point, he was not able to mount a horse and so
> left
> > it
> > > all up to Richard, who, of course, met with great success. I was just
> > > reading about this episode in *Loyalty* last night, and it indicates
> that
> > > not only did Richard succeed in the recovery of the town of Berwick,
> > which
> > > had been lost to the Scots by the Lancastrians, but that Richard
> marched
> > to
> > > Edinburgh and took it without the loss of a single man, an
> unprecedented
> > > accomplishment.
> > >
> > > Realizing the danger in studying history in historical novels, can
> anyone
> > > confirm that? I am pretty sure, though, that it is true that Edward was
> > not
> > > able to undertake any incursion into Scotland.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

AJ wrote:

> Does anyone know?
>
> From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
>
> 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John Wallyngton & 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of constable of England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal

Carol responds:

Edward had appointed Richard Constable of England for life at least as early as 1461 (Barnet) and never removed him from office. "Commissioners for performing the office of constable" sounds to me like a temporary arrangement, probably while Richard was in Scotland. I don't know about John Wallyngton, but the Parrs, the Harringtons, and Sir James Tyrrell were all trusted associates of Richard. The (temporary?) appointments could have been made at his request.

Sir Thomas Grey is almost certainly not the same person as Edward's stepson, Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, who would have been referred to by his title (and was, of course, not one of Richard's retainers).

Carol

Thanks - that makes sense, & perhaps we've finally found something
straightforward?

A J


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:02 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> AJ wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know?
> >
> > From the Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
> >
> > 14 Nov 1482, Westminster
> > Sir William Parre, Sir James Haryngton, Sir James Tyrell, John
> Wallyngton & 3 others, appointed commissioners for performing the office of
> constable of England & sir Thomas Grey is appointed vice-marshal
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Edward had appointed Richard Constable of England for life at least as
> early as 1461 (Barnet) and never removed him from office. "Commissioners
> for performing the office of constable" sounds to me like a temporary
> arrangement, probably while Richard was in Scotland. I don't know about
> John Wallyngton, but the Parrs, the Harringtons, and Sir James Tyrrell were
> all trusted associates of Richard. The (temporary?) appointments could have
> been made at his request.
>
> Sir Thomas Grey is almost certainly not the same person as Edward's
> stepson, Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, who would have been referred to by
> his title (and was, of course, not one of Richard's retainers).
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Looks to me as if bath time back then was fun! Tee hee.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1216&bih=599&q=medieval+bath&oq=medieval+bath&gs_l=img.12..0l6.1349.3850.0.6761.13.10.0.3.3.0.180.1001.5j5.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.14.img.opQqaPQaRDc

If this link doesn't work, just Google Images medieval bath.

Sandra

Carol earlier:
>
> Edward had appointed Richard Constable of England for life at least as early as 1461 (Barnet) and never removed him from office. [snip]

Carol again:

Before anyone jumps on me, of course, I meant 1471. I'm not sure of the actual date when Richard was made constable, only that it was before Barnet.

Carol

October 17 1469. (Finally found the pertinent calendar of patent rolls on
Google Books - hallelujah)

Grant for life to the king's brother Richard, duke of Gloucester, of the
office of constable of England with the accustomed fees and profits, in the
same manner as Richard, late earl Rivers, had it. By p.s.

A J


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Carol earlier:
> >
> > Edward had appointed Richard Constable of England for life at least as
> early as 1461 (Barnet) and never removed him from office. [snip]
>
> Carol again:
>
> Before anyone jumps on me, of course, I meant 1471. I'm not sure of the
> actual date when Richard was made constable, only that it was before Barnet.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes he was Sir Edmund Dudley and I've checked would have been too young (23 in 1492) to be Dudley of the Tower. He was grandson of John Sutton, Baron Dudley. Is this our Dudley of the Tower?

Carol responds:

Kendall has him as John, Lord Dudley. If you don't mind resorting to Wikipedia, there's an easy way to check. Just search for Constable of the Tower and we get, yup, John Sutton, Lord Dudley (appointed 1470 and retained in office until April 1483 when Dorset replaced him). Dudley was born in 1400(!) and died in 1487, another of those (presumably) hearty old people who belie the idea that everyone in the fifteenth century died young. He would have been seventy when he was appointed, which does not necessarily mean that he was inept at his job.

Someone might want to access his DNB article to see whether it tells us anything useful. Meanwhile, here's (shudder) the Wikipedia biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sutton,_1st_Baron_Dudley
Apparently, he was originally a Lancastrian but changed sides and fought for Edward at Towton (when he was about 61). Oddly, the article doesn't mention his service as Constable of the Tower. Presumably, he remained loyal to Edward given his very responsible position, but, of course, the Woodvilles wanted one of their own in the old man's place.

Carol

SandraMachin wrote

"Looks to me as if bath time back then was fun! Tee hee.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1216&bih=599&q=medieval+bath&oq=medieval+bath&gs_l=img.12..0l6.1349.3850.0.6761.13.10.0.3.3.0.180.1001.5j5.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.14.img.opQqaPQaRDc
If this link doesn't work, just Google Images medieval bath."

I stand (well, really squat) corrected!
Doug
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Carol said:

Kendall has him as John, Lord Dudley. If you don't mind resorting to Wikipedia, there's an easy way to check. Just search for Constable of the Tower and we get, yup, John Sutton, Lord Dudley (appointed 1470 and retained in office until April 1483 when Dorset replaced him). Dudley was born in 1400(!) and died in 1487, another of those (presumably) hearty old people who belie the idea that everyone in the fifteenth century died young. He would have been seventy when he was appointed, which does not necessarily mean that he was inept at his job.

Someone might want to access his DNB article to see whether it tells us anything useful.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Here you go:
 
Sutton, John (VI) [John Dudley], first Baron Dudley (14001487), courtier and diplomat, was born on 25 December 1400, the son of John (V) Sutton (d. 1406) and his wife, Constance Blount (d. 1432). The Suttons were the descendants of Roger Somery (d. 1291), through his elder daughter, Margaret, who, on the death of her brother, John, Lord Somery, in 1322, had brought her husband, John (I) Sutton, half the barony of Dudley. However, none of the family was to bear a baronial title until 1440. The town of Dudley was in Worcestershire, but its castle lay in Staffordshire, and it was in the south-west of the latter county that the Sutton estates were concentrated. They also had important interests in Cheshire, centred upon the manor of Malpas. Following the death of his father, on 3 September 1406, John (VI) Sutton's inheritance was seriously depleted by the dower of his mother, who lived for another twenty-six years. This may help to explain his having
taken service under the crown as a soldier by February 1418, well before he had attained his majority, when he attended Henry V to France as an esquire in the king's retinue. By 4 July 1419 he had been knighted. He served in France in 1421 with a small retinue, and in the following year he was given the honour of bearing the royal standard at the king's funeral. Sutton crossed the channel again in 1425 in the service of the duke of Exeter. On 23 March 1428 he was appointed royal lieutenant in Ireland, where he served with some success, probably because efforts were made to ensure that he was properly paid, until his resignation in 1430. In 1435 he was appointed constable of Clun Castle, Shropshire, and on 25 November 1437 lieutenant of Calais Castle; he remained in this post into the summer of 1442, despite the expiry of his indenture, at least partly to investigate the mismanagement of works on the town's defences.

In February 1440 Sutton was summoned to parliament as Lord Dudley; his was one of six peerages awarded to members of the royal household during the early 1440s. On his return to England, Dudley continued to enjoy the king's patronage: in October 1443 he was granted an annuity of £100, and in the following month he was appointed a royal councillor. His connections with Staffordshire and Cheshire led to his employment on the marches of Wales during 1443 and 1444. Increasingly, however, he was employed as a diplomat, a field in which he developed an expertise that doubtless proved highly serviceable once he became involved in national politics, enhancing the skills that enabled him to win acceptance from one regime after another, in a manner that made him one of fifteenth-century England's great political survivors. Having gained experience in negotiations with the Hanse in 1436, he served on embassies to France in 1439, 1441, and 1446; in 1447 he was
involved in negotiations with a visiting French embassy, as well as diplomatic service in Aquitaine, Castile, and Brittany; while in 1449 he served on embassies to Burgundy and Prussia. His absences abroad may well have weakened his position at home; hence, perhaps, the apparent outbreak of poaching on his Staffordshire estates which led to Dudley's bringing a number of actions in the central courts in 144041. Nevertheless he played at least some part in the governance of the west midlands. In 1444, for instance, he acted as arbitrator in the bitter dispute between Sir Sampson Meverell of Throwley and Sir Ralph Basset of Blore.

In the 1440s Dudley had been involved in the unpopular diplomacy that led to the surrender of Maine to the French king. This, and his association with the duke of Suffolk's hated regime, led to the sacking of his London house by Jack Cade and his Kentish rebels during the revolt of 1450. Following the removal of Cade's forces from London, Dudley played an active part in harassing the rebels retreating into Kent; this led to his being indicted on seven counts in August by local jurors, during the commission of oyer and terminer sent to redress grievances. With the arrival in September of Duke Richard of York (whose councillor he had become) in north Wales, Dudley fled to Ludlow to seek his protection; while in the duke's custody he was tried for treason but was acquitted. He was similarly exempted by Henry VI from the list of twenty-nine individuals whose removal from the king's presence was demanded by parliament in November.

In November 1452 Dudley was reappointed to the royal council, and was appointed treasurer of the royal household on 27 March 1453. Although he retained this office during York's first protectorate, Dudley resigned on 3 December 1454, possibly in protest at the proposed reductions in the size of the royal household. On 23 May 1455 he fought on the king's side at the battle of St Albans, where he was captured, having been wounded in the face. York's subsequent attempts as protector to ease the political tension led him to incarcerate Dudley to prevent him making any further embarrassing accusations against the Yorkists; nevertheless he received a parliamentary summons on 26 June 1455, while still imprisoned in the Tower of London. Henry VI's resumption of power in February 1456 witnessed Dudley's return to prominence as one of the king's more regular councillors. On 28 January 1459 he was appointed steward of the lordship of Montgomery, and in the
following month he succeeded Lord Stanley as chamberlain of north Wales, while on 23 April of that year he was admitted to the Order of the Garter. His military usefulness may in fact have been waning by this time (he was now in his late fifties), for on 25 July he was appointed one of the English delegates to the congress of Mantua, summoned by the pope to organize resistance to the Turks. But the renewal of civil strife prevented Dudley's departure, and on 23 September, in his last appearance in defence of the Lancastrian crown, he was captured at the battle of Bloreheath, a conflict in which men from Cheshire were heavily engaged. Following the capture of Henry VI at the battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460, Dudley moved into the Yorkist camp. Despite his strong connections with the king's household, Duke Richard was willing to include Dudley in the new royal council, and in November 1460 was even prepared to use him on an embassy to France.

Dudley's astute change of loyalties to the house of York ensured him great personal gain and high favour under Edward IV: on 26 February 1462 he was pardoned all debts owed to the king; on 4 July 1465 he was granted an annuity of £100 from the customs of the port of Southampton; and on 18 February 1467 he was appointed joint constable of the Tower. His political realignment led to Dudley's exclusion during Henry VI's readeption not only from the parliamentary summons of 26 November 1470, but also from nomination to commissions of the peace. Following Edward IV's recovery of the throne, Dudley, in his capacity as constable of the Tower, defended London against the assault led by Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, on 14 May 1471, and later superintended the imprisonment of Margaret of Anjou. Now a trusted servant of the Yorkist crown, Dudley was chamberlain to the queen, and also steward of the duke of Clarence's Staffordshire estates. He was
summoned to parliament in 14725, and was appointed to serve on commissions throughout the 1470s. During Edward IV's absence in France in 1475, he was appointed to the great council of England, having earlier been one of the commissioners chosen by parliament to receive the issues of the tax levied to finance the king's expedition; in 14778 he went on an embassy to France to negotiate the continuation of the peace treaty.

In 1483 Dudley appears to have been close to the events of Richard III's usurpation without being directly involved. Certainly he transferred his loyalties with what had become his accustomed ease, receiving by way of a reward the confirmation of his existing annuities, and on 30 March 1484 a further grant of £100 for his services against the rebellion of the duke of Buckingham. In the same month Dudley was also appointed steward of the Forest of Kinver, Staffordshire, and in December he was included in the commission of the peace for Staffordshire and in March 1485 that of oyer and terminer for Essex. Yet despite the favour he enjoyed with Richard III, Dudley did not attempt to bar Henry Tudor's march from Milford Haven: perhaps as a reward for his neutrality, Henry VII on 9 March 1486 gave him an annuity of £100, and three days later also granted him in tail male (albeit for a payment of 1000 marks) the Worcestershire manor of Northfield and Weoley,
forfeited by Sir William Berkeley.

Lord Dudley died on 30 September 1487, and was buried in St James's Priory, Dudley, of which he was hereditary patron. In his will of 17 August (which he made under the name of John Dudley, knight, Lord Dudley), he directed that he should be buried beside his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Berkeley and widow of Edward, Lord Charlton, whom he had married some time between 1421, when her first husband died, and 1431, and who died in 1478. He founded no chantry, but ordered that 1000 masses be said for his soul, and bequeathed 20 marks for distribution in alms. His eldest son, Edmund, having died on 6 July 1483, he was succeeded as Lord Dudley by Edmund's son Edward. His second son, another John, was probably the father of Henry VII's notorious councillor Edmund Dudley. His third son, William Dudley, became bishop of Durham. Oliver, the fourth son, was killed at the battle of Edgcote, on 25 July 1469. The first Lord Dudley also had three daughters,
Margaret, Jane, and Eleanor.

Hugh Collins
Sources  
B. Williams, Richard III and the house of Dudley', The Ricardian, 8 (198890), 34650 · I. D. Rowney, The Staffordshire political community, 14401500', PhD diss., University of Keele, 1981 · C. Carpenter, Locality and polity: a study of Warwickshire landed society, 14011499 (1992) · H. E. L. Collins, The Order of the Garter, 13481461: chivalry and politics in later medieval England', DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1996 · J. Ferguson, English diplomacy, 14221461 (1972) · R. A. Griffiths, The reign of King Henry VI: the exercise of royal authority, 14221461 (1981) · C. Ross, Edward IV, new edn (1983) · J. Watts, Henry VI and the politics of kingship (1996) · P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 14111460 (1988) · C. L. Scofield, The life and reign of Edward the Fourth, 2 vols. (1923) · I. M. W. Harvey, Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450 (1991) · J. D. Milner, The order of the Garter in the reign of Henry VI,
14221461', MA diss., University of Manchester, 1972 · Chancery records · CIPM, 19, nos. 208, 351 · CIPM, Henry VII, 1, nos. 285, 288, 296 · H. S. Grazerbook, The barons of Dudley', Collections for a history of Staffordshire, William Salt Archaeological Society, 9/2 (1888), 1152, esp. 6471 · G. Wrottesley, ed., Extracts from the plea rolls of the reign of Henry VI', Collections for a history of Staffordshire, William Salt Archaeological Society, new ser., 3 (1900), 121229, esp. 153, 158 · GEC, Peerage, new edn, 4.47980 · R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, eds., British Library Harleian manuscript 433, 4 vols. (197983) · E. Matthew, The financing of the lordship of Ireland under Henry V and Henry VI', Property and politics: essays in later medieval English history, ed. T. Pollard (1984), 97115 · M. A. Hicks, False, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence': George, duke of Clarence, 144978 (1980), 153 · M. Harvey,
England, Rome, and the papacy, 14171464 (1993) · Reports & touching the dignity of a peer of the realm, House of Lords, 5 vols. (182029) · Rymer, Foedera, 3rd edn · N. H. Nicolas, ed., Proceedings and ordinances of the privy council of England, 7 vols., RC, 26 (18347) · The Paston letters, AD 14221509, ed. J. Gairdner, new edn, 6 vols. (1904); repr. in 1 vol. (1983); repr. (1987) · CPR · CClR · Calendar of the fine rolls, 22 vols., PRO (191162) · W. Johnson, ed., Corrections to Dictionary of National Biography', www.freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjohnson/DNB/JohnSutton.html, accessed on 9 Aug 2006
 
 

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
> post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding a primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by internet sources as having established the military post system, and the figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention to what this person has to say). [snip]

Carol responds:

Sorry about the delayed response. I just found this passage in Croyland:

"He [Richard] also followed the practice which had been recently introduced by king Edward in the time of the last war with Scotland, of appointing a single horseman for every twenty miles, by means of whom, travelling with the utmost speed and not passing their restrictive limits, news was always able to be carried by letter from hand to hand two hundred miles within two days."

Naturally, he credits Edward with establishing the original system. As far as he's concerned, all Richard did (aside from later "usurping" the kingdom) was spend the money that Edward had saved, first on the Scottish wars (somehow, no blame goes to Edward for sending him there) and later on ending Buckingham's rebellion without waging war or shedding much blood except Buckingham's and that "noble knight," Thomas St. Leger.

I don't have a source other than this passage for the original message system, but this one seems to describe how it worked. We needn't accept the prejudiced Croyland's assertion that Edward originated it. Since it served Richard's immediate needs and since he was good at practical solutions, it seems likely that it was his idea.

Carol

Thanks Carol.

A J


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Did she happen to provide any sources for the establishment of this
> > post(ing) system. I'm curious, having done some looking without finding
> a primary source, although Edward &/or Richard are widely credited by
> internet sources as having established the military post system, and the
> figure of covering 100 miles per day is also widely quoted, along with the
> idea that relay stations were positioned every 20 miles (for at least fresh
> horses, don't know about the riders, since so many communications were
> meant to be verbal & the accompanying "letters" basically say pay attention
> to what this person has to say). [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry about the delayed response. I just found this passage in Croyland:
>
> "He [Richard] also followed the practice which had been recently
> introduced by king Edward in the time of the last war with Scotland, of
> appointing a single horseman for every twenty miles, by means of whom,
> travelling with the utmost speed and not passing their restrictive limits,
> news was always able to be carried by letter from hand to hand two hundred
> miles within two days."
>
> Naturally, he credits Edward with establishing the original system. As far
> as he's concerned, all Richard did (aside from later "usurping" the
> kingdom) was spend the money that Edward had saved, first on the Scottish
> wars (somehow, no blame goes to Edward for sending him there) and later on
> ending Buckingham's rebellion without waging war or shedding much blood
> except Buckingham's and that "noble knight," Thomas St. Leger.
>
> I don't have a source other than this passage for the original message
> system, but this one seems to describe how it worked. We needn't accept the
> prejudiced Croyland's assertion that Edward originated it. Since it served
> Richard's immediate needs and since he was good at practical solutions, it
> seems likely that it was his idea.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:31 PM
Subject: Richard's "post" (Was: What was this
all about)


> "He [Richard] also followed the practice which had been recently
> introduced by king Edward in the time of the last war with Scotland, of
> appointing a single horseman for every twenty miles, by means of whom,
> travelling with the utmost speed and not passing their restrictive limits,
> news was always able to be carried by letter from hand to hand two hundred
> miles within two days."

This gives us some idea of how bad the roads were. If the relays continued
during the hours of darkness then 100 miles a day means an average speed a
little over four miles an hour, or a not terribly brisk trot, and yet this
was considered to be a high speed which a horse couldn't maintain for more
than 20 miles (or five hours).

That in turn suggests that the journey from London to Windsor might have
taken as much as five hours, althopugh in that case the roads would probably
have been well maintained, comparatively speaking. Maybe 3½ hours?