My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy -

I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:

a. he'd worked for H6
b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster only a few weeks/months before
c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be tempted to reveal it

So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I don't believe Stillington was there.

He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in the Tower to cool his heals?

When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray, Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on pilgrimage.

This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though he also might have known).

There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes, Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money to Jasper Tudor. Why?

An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no longer with us.

PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington, Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?

And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: My conclusions on Stillington and the
Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> of the Holy Virgin.

That might in itself explain why so many other churchmen were
pro-Lancastrian - although if they thought Henry was going to be a champion
of Catholic orthodoxy they were probably sold a pup, since there are
indications that he was a Templar wannabe (and there *was* a Templar revival
movement in France at that time iirc).

Congratulations on all your research and on this very interesting summation
btw.

Ta. Yes indeed a lot of churchmen who were 'in' with Henry didn't last long under his father.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 16:16
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: My conclusions on Stillington and the
Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> of the Holy Virgin.

That might in itself explain why so many other churchmen were
pro-Lancastrian - although if they thought Henry was going to be a champion
of Catholic orthodoxy they were probably sold a pup, since there are
indications that he was a Templar wannabe (and there *was* a Templar revival
movement in France at that time iirc).

Congratulations on all your research and on this very interesting summation
btw.

Fascinating Hilary and all entirely plausible. Unlike the traditionalists who accept that oh yes Richard must have murdered the Princes without a scrap of evidence, you are citing evidence for your speculation but even so are saying that you can find no proof.

I think what is so encouraging about this forum is that those members who are good at research are looking at every aspect of Richard's story and trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw together. I don't know if we will ever find enough evidence to say Richard definitely didn't kill the Princes or that we know exactly why Richard executed Hastings, but at least you are all researching every avenue.

The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.

Mary

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6
> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster only a few weeks/months before
> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be tempted to reveal it
>
> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I don't believe Stillington was there.
>
> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in the Tower to cool his heals?
>
> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray, Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on pilgrimage.
>
> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though he also might have known).
>
> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes, Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money to Jasper Tudor. Why?
>
> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no longer with us.
>
> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington, Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
>
> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
>

 Mary said:


Snip>   The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.

Liz:  I really want to second this.    A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum.  Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  Mary said:
>
>
> Snip>   The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
>
> Liz:  I really want to second this.    A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum.  Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!!

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  Mary said:
>
>
> Snip>   The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
>
> Liz:  I really want to second this.    A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum.  Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Many brains are better than one! And the great thing about this forum is that we're not staking our reputation on it - dare I say we're a bit more humble than the 'academics' even if we have the occasional spats. So if someone claims to have found the Bish was EB's secret half-brother I'd rejoice (sorry, got carried away!).  As for me, I've had my career kicks in another life, so coming back to this sheer enjoyment.
(And in the confessional (probably with Eileen) I'd admit to being a secret Dening nutter - though when I started tracing the Bish he wasn't in the frame at all - frightening!!). 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 19:53
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

 Mary said:

Snip>   The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.

Liz:  I really want to second this.    A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum.  Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.




 

Agree 100%!

On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> ý Mary said:
>
>
> Snip>ý ý The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
>
> Liz:ý I really want to second this.ý ý ý A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum.ý Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Many of us are just curious, or curious scholars, with no stake as far as professional credentials. This is what I find to be so enlightening. So many really intelligent people, digging, reading, speculating, and connecting dots which had never been connected, or perhaps not even been dots.

On May 20, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Fascinating Hilary and all entirely plausible. Unlike the traditionalists who accept that oh yes Richard must have murdered the Princes without a scrap of evidence, you are citing evidence for your speculation but even so are saying that you can find no proof.

I think what is so encouraging about this forum is that those members who are good at research are looking at every aspect of Richard's story and trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw together. I don't know if we will ever find enough evidence to say Richard definitely didn't kill the Princes or that we know exactly why Richard executed Hastings, but at least you are all researching every avenue.

The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.

Mary

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6
> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster only a few weeks/months before
> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be tempted to reveal it
>
> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I don't believe Stillington was there.
>
> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in the Tower to cool his heals?
>
> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray, Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on pilgrimage.
>
> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though he also might have known).
>
> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes, Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money to Jasper Tudor. Why?
>
> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no longer with us.
>
> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington, Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
>
> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
>

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

Or in some way have their work attributed to them.

On May 20, 2013, at 4:39 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > ý Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>ý ý The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz:ý I really want to second this.ý ý ý A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum.ý Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

I feel a bit insulted by their using Real Richard, which was a forum
Geoffrey Richardson created after the much loved LMB went to the wall,
and which was disbanded when we lost Geoffrey.
I removed my Facebook page a few months ago, so fed up with it as I am.
It seems to keep popping up though. Easy to put one up, hard to get rid of!
Paul

On 20/05/2013 18:54, ricard1an wrote:
> Fascinating Hilary and all entirely plausible. Unlike the traditionalists who accept that oh yes Richard must have murdered the Princes without a scrap of evidence, you are citing evidence for your speculation but even so are saying that you can find no proof.
>
> I think what is so encouraging about this forum is that those members who are good at research are looking at every aspect of Richard's story and trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw together. I don't know if we will ever find enough evidence to say Richard definitely didn't kill the Princes or that we know exactly why Richard executed Hastings, but at least you are all researching every avenue.
>
> The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>>
>> a. he'd worked for H6
>> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster only a few weeks/months before
>> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be tempted to reveal it
>>
>> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I don't believe Stillington was there.
>>
>> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in the Tower to cool his heals?
>>
>> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray, Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on pilgrimage.
>>
>> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though he also might have known).
>>
>> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes, Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money to Jasper Tudor. Why?
>>
>> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no longer with us.
>>
>> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington, Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
>>
>> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.

 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)



Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)




I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

OK - so when would the deadline for that be?



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:32
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 

You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

July 15 but you need to negotiate with ricardian.bulletin@... first for the allowed length.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)



OK - so when would the deadline for that be?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:32
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)




You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

The press date for the September Bulletin is 15 July.  It would be great to have something about this in the Bulletin.  I have been a bit absent lately, mainly due to the fact that I was away, so I got a bit late to this, which is a great pity.

Cheers,

Dorothea




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)



 
OK - so when would the deadline for that be?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:32
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 

You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

Ta! Back to work.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 13:41
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 

July 15 but you need to negotiate with mailto:ricardian.bulletin%40gmail.com first for the allowed length.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

OK - so when would the deadline for that be?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:32
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

Thanks Dorothea - I'd better knuckle down! 



________________________________
From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 13:44
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

The press date for the September Bulletin is 15 July.  It would be great to have something about this in the Bulletin.  I have been a bit absent lately, mainly due to the fact that I was away, so I got a bit late to this, which is a great pity.

Cheers,

Dorothea

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 
OK - so when would the deadline for that be?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:32
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%!
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Â Mary said:
> >
> >
> > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.

The Real Richard? facebook page has a question mark pretty much to show that there are far more questions than there are answers. So, there's really no need for anyone to feel insulted. The name of the page, complete with question mark, should point to the idea that the page owner and members are trying to find the 'real' Richard, not a signal that they believe they have already found him.

I don't recall there being any 'patronising' of the Richard III Society - in the post that Mary refers to, it was called a 'worthy and worthwhile' organisation. The person who runs that page (yep, it's me - but a lot of people know that already) is a proud member of the Society and is getting heartily sick of the hostility aimed her way.

I don't recall saying that 'academicians' would 'discover more about Richard'. What I said was that thee's a Ricardian dialectic going on. I believe that academic historians (up until now part of the the Thesis, or more 'traditional' view) will be influenced by the Antithesis (or more 'revisionist' view) and we will soon see the formulation of a new Synthesis. It's long overdue and I, for one, am looking forward to some exciting times ahead.

Comments on the Real Richard? (note question mark) page are always welcome.

Karen Clark

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I feel a bit insulted by their using Real Richard, which was a forum
> Geoffrey Richardson created after the much loved LMB went to the wall,
> and which was disbanded when we lost Geoffrey.
> I removed my Facebook page a few months ago, so fed up with it as I am.
> It seems to keep popping up though. Easy to put one up, hard to get rid of!
> Paul
>
> On 20/05/2013 18:54, ricard1an wrote:
> > Fascinating Hilary and all entirely plausible. Unlike the traditionalists who accept that oh yes Richard must have murdered the Princes without a scrap of evidence, you are citing evidence for your speculation but even so are saying that you can find no proof.
> >
> > I think what is so encouraging about this forum is that those members who are good at research are looking at every aspect of Richard's story and trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw together. I don't know if we will ever find enough evidence to say Richard definitely didn't kill the Princes or that we know exactly why Richard executed Hastings, but at least you are all researching every avenue.
> >
> > The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
> >>
> >> a. he'd worked for H6
> >> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster only a few weeks/months before
> >> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be tempted to reveal it
> >>
> >> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I don't believe Stillington was there.
> >>
> >> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in the Tower to cool his heals?
> >>
> >> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray, Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on pilgrimage.
> >>
> >> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though he also might have known).
> >>
> >> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes, Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money to Jasper Tudor. Why?
> >>
> >> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no longer with us.
> >>
> >> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington, Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
> >>
> >> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.

Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
Margaret's?

Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of the
Holy Virgin? And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?

A J




On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6
> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
> only a few weeks/months before
> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
> tempted to reveal it
>
> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
> don't believe Stillington was there.
>
> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
> Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
> and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
> John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
> favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
> Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
> in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
> that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
> confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
> confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
> experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
> the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
> matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
> and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
> Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
> unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
> Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
> the Tower to cool his heals?
>
> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
> cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
> who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
> Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
> guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
> from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
> it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
> bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
> man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
> Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
> belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
> favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
> pilgrimage.
>
> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr
> Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I
> have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though
> he also might have known).
>
> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
> and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
> the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
> Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
> to Jasper Tudor. Why?
>
> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
> longer with us.
>
> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
> usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
> Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
> isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
>
> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
>
>
>

ricard1an wrote:


"Fascinating Hilary and all entirely plausible. Unlike the traditionalists
who accept that oh yes Richard must have murdered the Princes without a
scrap of evidence, you are citing evidence for your speculation but even so
are saying that you can find no proof.
I think what is so encouraging about this forum is that those members who
are good at research are looking at every aspect of Richard's story and
trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw together. I don't know if we will
ever find enough evidence to say Richard definitely didn't kill the Princes
or that we know exactly why Richard executed Hastings, but at least you are
all researching every avenue.
The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising
comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would
discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics
have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done
in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society
and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further
the cause."

Seconded!
Doug

I'm saying I don't know but it's worth investigating whether members of the House of York had in some way alienated the Church. It's another (big) project.
 
The Cult of the Holy Virgin was a sort of mystic old religion (we discussed it I think just before you joined when discussing the Middleham Jewel). Joan Beaufort (Cis Neville's mother) was associated with it, as was Prior Ingleby's mother and, possibly, Warwick's wife, Anne Beauchamp .
Lollards had of course been persecuted by H5 and Richard's Wycliffe bible might have thrown him open to criticism (didn't he hear the first sermon in English in York Minster as King?). Edward and Richard, although they sponsored university colleges and religious institutions, were not particularly known for being pious in the old way (like H6). I don't have Margaret down as pious but her father Rene was a great scholar and renaissance man.
So I don't know. The Church was obviously conservative and very powerful then. Anything which perceivably undermined it would not be welcomed as H8 was to find out.
PS If R is buried in Leicester, his companion commerorated in the Cathedral there will be John Wycliffe.   
 
BTW sorry to hear the bad news from your side of the pond 


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 16:43
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.

Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
Margaret's?

Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of the
Holy Virgin?  And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?

A J




On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6
> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
> only a few weeks/months before
> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
> tempted to reveal it
>
> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
> don't believe Stillington was there.
>
> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
> Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
> and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
> John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
> favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
> Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
> in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
> that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
> confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
> confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
> experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
> the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
> matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
> and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
> Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
> unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
> Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
> the Tower to cool his heals?
>
> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
> cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
> who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
> Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
> guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
> from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
> it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
> bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
> man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
> Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
> belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
> favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
> pilgrimage.
>
> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr
> Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I
> have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though
> he also might have known).
>
> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
> and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
> the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
> Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
> to Jasper Tudor. Why?
>
> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
> longer with us.
>
> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
> usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
> Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
> isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
>
> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thank you. Yes, these tornadoes are just devastating. And to have it hit
schools & hospitals is unimaginable.

Even here in the upper midwest we're not immune - a few years ago we
watched what I thought was a small & close tornado go parallel to the road
we live on. Turned out it was 1 or more away & left a path 1/2 mile wide,
that was visible from space. And even though there aren't too many people
here, it still did millions of dollars damage.

A J


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
> of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.
>
> Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
> individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
> because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
> Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
> Margaret's?
>
> Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of
> the Holy Virgin? And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
>> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
>> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
>> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
>> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>>
>> a. he'd worked for H6
>> b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
>> only a few weeks/months before
>> c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
>> tempted to reveal it
>>
>> So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
>> don't believe Stillington was there.
>>
>> He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
>> Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
>> and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
>> John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
>> favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
>> Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
>> in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
>> that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
>> confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
>> confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
>> experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
>> the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
>> matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
>> and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
>> Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
>> unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
>> Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
>> the Tower to cool his heals?
>>
>> When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
>> cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
>> who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
>> Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
>> guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
>> from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
>> it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
>> bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
>> man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
>> Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
>> belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
>> favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
>> pilgrimage.
>>
>> This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg
>> Dr Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount
>> Grace). I have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby
>> theory (though he also might have known).
>>
>> There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
>> and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
>> the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
>> Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
>> to Jasper Tudor. Why?
>>
>> An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
>> longer with us.
>>
>> PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
>> usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
>> Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
>> isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
>>
>> And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
>> mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
>> of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM. She was top saint, Queen of Heaven, Queen of the May, all subsumed into Catholicism together with all the other saints with fairly obvious divine pagan credentials such as Margaret of Antioch, Catherine, Winefride, etc. Think how many great churches had their Lady Chapel.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm saying I don't know but it's worth investigating whether members of the House of York had in some way alienated the Church. It's another (big) project.
>  
> The Cult of the Holy Virgin was a sort of mystic old religion (we discussed it I think just before you joined when discussing the Middleham Jewel). Joan Beaufort (Cis Neville's mother) was associated with it, as was Prior Ingleby's mother and, possibly, Warwick's wife, Anne Beauchamp .
> Lollards had of course been persecuted by H5 and Richard's Wycliffe bible might have thrown him open to criticism (didn't he hear the first sermon in English in York Minster as King?). Edward and Richard, although they sponsored university colleges and religious institutions, were not particularly known for being pious in the old way (like H6). I don't have Margaret down as pious but her father Rene was a great scholar and renaissance man.
> So I don't know. The Church was obviously conservative and very powerful then. Anything which perceivably undermined it would not be welcomed as H8 was to find out.
> PS If R is buried in Leicester, his companion commerorated in the Cathedral there will be John Wycliffe.   
>  
> BTW sorry to hear the bad news from your side of the pond 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 16:43
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
> of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.
>
> Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
> individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
> because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
> Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
> Margaret's?
>
> Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of the
> Holy Virgin?  And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> > pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> > relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> > have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> > oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
> >
> > a. he'd worked for H6
> > b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
> > only a few weeks/months before
> > c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
> > tempted to reveal it
> >
> > So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
> > don't believe Stillington was there.
> >
> > He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
> > Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
> > and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
> > John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
> > favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
> > Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
> > in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
> > that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
> > confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
> > confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
> > experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
> > the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
> > matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
> > and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
> > Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
> > unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
> > Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
> > the Tower to cool his heals?
> >
> > When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
> > cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
> > who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
> > Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
> > guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
> > from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
> > it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
> > bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
> > man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
> > Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
> > belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
> > favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
> > pilgrimage.
> >
> > This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr
> > Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I
> > have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though
> > he also might have known).
> >
> > There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
> > and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
> > the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
> > Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
> > to Jasper Tudor. Why?
> >
> > An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
> > longer with us.
> >
> > PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
> > usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
> > Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
> > isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
> >
> > And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> > mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> > of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Ta Marie. But followers of the cult are included in books on Lollardy and new religion. Bryan Stapleton's mother (Agnes Goddard) is one, as is Joan Beaufort. They are included in the same treatise as Dr Eborall. I suppose it depends how far you pushed it and whether indeed it was looked upon kindly by a conservative male Church. 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:17
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM. She was top saint, Queen of Heaven, Queen of the May, all subsumed into Catholicism together with all the other saints with fairly obvious divine pagan credentials such as Margaret of Antioch, Catherine, Winefride, etc. Think how many great churches had their Lady Chapel.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm saying I don't know but it's worth investigating whether members of the House of York had in some way alienated the Church. It's another (big) project.
>  
> The Cult of the Holy Virgin was a sort of mystic old religion (we discussed it I think just before you joined when discussing the Middleham Jewel). Joan Beaufort (Cis Neville's mother) was associated with it, as was Prior Ingleby's mother and, possibly, Warwick's wife, Anne Beauchamp .
> Lollards had of course been persecuted by H5 and Richard's Wycliffe bible might have thrown him open to criticism (didn't he hear the first sermon in English in York Minster as King?). Edward and Richard, although they sponsored university colleges and religious institutions, were not particularly known for being pious in the old way (like H6). I don't have Margaret down as pious but her father Rene was a great scholar and renaissance man.
> So I don't know. The Church was obviously conservative and very powerful then. Anything which perceivably undermined it would not be welcomed as H8 was to find out.
> PS If R is buried in Leicester, his companion commerorated in the Cathedral there will be John Wycliffe.   
>  
> BTW sorry to hear the bad news from your side of the pond 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 16:43
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
> of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.
>
> Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
> individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
> because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
> Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
> Margaret's?
>
> Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of the
> Holy Virgin?  And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> > pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> > relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> > have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> > oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
> >
> > a. he'd worked for H6
> > b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
> > only a few weeks/months before
> > c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
> > tempted to reveal it
> >
> > So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
> > don't believe Stillington was there.
> >
> > He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
> > Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
> > and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
> > John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
> > favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
> > Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
> > in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
> > that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
> > confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
> > confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
> > experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
> > the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
> > matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
> > and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
> > Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
> > unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
> > Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
> > the Tower to cool his heals?
> >
> > When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
> > cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
> > who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
> > Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
> > guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
> > from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
> > it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
> > bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
> > man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
> > Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
> > belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
> > favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
> > pilgrimage.
> >
> > This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr
> > Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I
> > have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though
> > he also might have known).
> >
> > There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
> > and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
> > the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
> > Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
> > to Jasper Tudor. Why?
> >
> > An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
> > longer with us.
> >
> > PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
> > usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
> > Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
> > isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
> >
> > And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> > mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> > of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.

What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
which Louis XI was an enthusiast?

[Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
"black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
with black virgins.]

Yes please Hilary.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Dorothea - I'd better knuckle down! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 13:44
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
> The press date for the September Bulletin is 15 July.  It would be great to have something about this in the Bulletin.  I have been a bit absent lately, mainly due to the fact that I was away, so I got a bit late to this, which is a great pity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>  
> OK - so when would the deadline for that be?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 12:32
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
> You must aim for the (September) Bulletin - where the case started.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> Mary hits the nail on the head when she says 'proof' though. Yes the genealogy and wills are provable and auditable but the rest is hypothesis. And there has been so much hypothesis (usually anti) around Richard anyway which has been published and taken as proof. We don't want to jump on the bandwagon. If, however, I can tie up Stillington's London possessions with someone - hopefully the Mowbrays - then I shall have a much better case. Rest assured I shall continue digging. But I know what you mean about it being nicked. I don't care about the people on here sharing and I'm pretty sure the others don't either (Stephen started it off with the Cheddars, Marie knew of Eborall and Johanne talked of Edward's illness in 1477) but to have it nicked by an 'outsider' - unless it was a known Ricardian, would make me sore. I once entered a short story competition and one of the judges turned my story into a book of her own. Now that hurt.
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 20 May 2013, 22:39
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree 100%!
> >
> > On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Â Mary said:
> > >
> > >
> > > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> > >
> > > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But what does that mean - "included in books on..."? Are the authors saying peole were accused of heresy for devotion to the BVM? If not, then what is their evidence that the "cult" of the Virgin was frowned on by the Church? There is a tendency for popular writers on the subject of Templar conspiracies, etc, to misrepresent as signs of secret or heretical beliefs things that were actually part of mainstream Catholicism.
Marie



What do you mean by "included in books on..." - are the a--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Ta Marie. But followers of the cult are included in books on Lollardy and new religion. Bryan Stapleton's mother (Agnes Goddard) is one, as is Joan Beaufort. They are included in the same treatise as Dr Eborall. I suppose it depends how far you pushed it and whether indeed it was looked upon kindly by a conservative male Church. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:17
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
> The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM. She was top saint, Queen of Heaven, Queen of the May, all subsumed into Catholicism together with all the other saints with fairly obvious divine pagan credentials such as Margaret of Antioch, Catherine, Winefride, etc. Think how many great churches had their Lady Chapel.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm saying I don't know but it's worth investigating whether members of the House of York had in some way alienated the Church. It's another (big) project.
> >  
> > The Cult of the Holy Virgin was a sort of mystic old religion (we discussed it I think just before you joined when discussing the Middleham Jewel). Joan Beaufort (Cis Neville's mother) was associated with it, as was Prior Ingleby's mother and, possibly, Warwick's wife, Anne Beauchamp .
> > Lollards had of course been persecuted by H5 and Richard's Wycliffe bible might have thrown him open to criticism (didn't he hear the first sermon in English in York Minster as King?). Edward and Richard, although they sponsored university colleges and religious institutions, were not particularly known for being pious in the old way (like H6). I don't have Margaret down as pious but her father Rene was a great scholar and renaissance man.
> > So I don't know. The Church was obviously conservative and very powerful then. Anything which perceivably undermined it would not be welcomed as H8 was to find out.
> > PS If R is buried in Leicester, his companion commerorated in the Cathedral there will be John Wycliffe.   
> >  
> > BTW sorry to hear the bad news from your side of the pond 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 16:43
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
> > of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
> > individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
> > because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
> > Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
> > Margaret's?
> >
> > Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of the
> > Holy Virgin?  And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> > > pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> > > relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> > > have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> > > oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
> > >
> > > a. he'd worked for H6
> > > b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
> > > only a few weeks/months before
> > > c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
> > > tempted to reveal it
> > >
> > > So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
> > > don't believe Stillington was there.
> > >
> > > He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
> > > Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
> > > and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
> > > John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
> > > favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
> > > Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
> > > in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
> > > that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
> > > confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
> > > confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
> > > experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
> > > the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
> > > matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
> > > and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
> > > Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
> > > unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
> > > Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
> > > the Tower to cool his heals?
> > >
> > > When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
> > > cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
> > > who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
> > > Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
> > > guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
> > > from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
> > > it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
> > > bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
> > > man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
> > > Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
> > > belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
> > > favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
> > > pilgrimage.
> > >
> > > This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr
> > > Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I
> > > have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though
> > > he also might have known).
> > >
> > > There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
> > > and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
> > > the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
> > > Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
> > > to Jasper Tudor. Why?
> > >
> > > An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
> > > longer with us.
> > >
> > > PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
> > > usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
> > > Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
> > > isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
> > >
> > > And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> > > mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> > > of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
>
> What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
>
> [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
> her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> with black virgins.]
>

As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I think it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
Marie

These are not new books Marie.  They are about the history of Lollards, religion etc, so certainly not mainstream. I'll send you the link tomorrow. You can read it online. And it's Cult with a capital c - not just devotion to the Virgin. 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:52
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


But what does that mean - "included in books on..."? Are the authors saying peole were accused of heresy for devotion to the BVM? If not, then what is their evidence that the "cult" of the Virgin was frowned on by the Church? There is a tendency for popular writers on the subject of Templar conspiracies, etc, to misrepresent as signs of secret or heretical beliefs things that were actually part of mainstream Catholicism.
Marie

What do you mean by "included in books on..." - are the a--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Ta Marie. But followers of the cult are included in books on Lollardy and new religion. Bryan Stapleton's mother (Agnes Goddard) is one, as is Joan Beaufort. They are included in the same treatise as Dr Eborall. I suppose it depends how far you pushed it and whether indeed it was looked upon kindly by a conservative male Church. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:17
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
> The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM. She was top saint, Queen of Heaven, Queen of the May, all subsumed into Catholicism together with all the other saints with fairly obvious divine pagan credentials such as Margaret of Antioch, Catherine, Winefride, etc. Think how many great churches had their Lady Chapel.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm saying I don't know but it's worth investigating whether members of the House of York had in some way alienated the Church. It's another (big) project.
> >  
> > The Cult of the Holy Virgin was a sort of mystic old religion (we discussed it I think just before you joined when discussing the Middleham Jewel). Joan Beaufort (Cis Neville's mother) was associated with it, as was Prior Ingleby's mother and, possibly, Warwick's wife, Anne Beauchamp .
> > Lollards had of course been persecuted by H5 and Richard's Wycliffe bible might have thrown him open to criticism (didn't he hear the first sermon in English in York Minster as King?). Edward and Richard, although they sponsored university colleges and religious institutions, were not particularly known for being pious in the old way (like H6). I don't have Margaret down as pious but her father Rene was a great scholar and renaissance man.
> > So I don't know. The Church was obviously conservative and very powerful then. Anything which perceivably undermined it would not be welcomed as H8 was to find out.
> > PS If R is buried in Leicester, his companion commerorated in the Cathedral there will be John Wycliffe.   
> >  
> > BTW sorry to hear the bad news from your side of the pond 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 16:43
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > Sorry to be so dense, but I'm not knowledgeable about the various flavours
> > of Catholicism / Christianity during this era.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that a group of churchmen (was it organized? or just
> > individuals of like mind?) aligned with the Lancastrian kings & their heirs
> > because of common beliefs in Lollardy & / or the Cult of the Holy Virgin?
> > Do we know, for instance, what Henry VI's own beliefs were? Or Queen
> > Margaret's?
> >
> > Or is it the Yorkists who were aligned with the Lollards & / or Cult of the
> > Holy Virgin?  And where does Richard's "Wycliffe" Bible fit?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:57 AM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> > > pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> > > relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> > > have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> > > oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
> > >
> > > a. he'd worked for H6
> > > b. his relatives by marriage (the Bigods) had died fighting for Lancaster
> > > only a few weeks/months before
> > > c. he was an ambitious man likely to rise to higher office - and might be
> > > tempted to reveal it
> > >
> > > So I believe in the precontract (for reasons I've said elsewhere), but I
> > > don't believe Stillington was there.
> > >
> > > He has one important near relation by marriage and that is Sir John
> > > Ingleby, (the father of his neice's husband) who gave up his worldly goods
> > > and went to live as a monk at Mount Grace Priory. From the mid 1470s Prior
> > > John becomes favourite and confessor to King Edward and EW and remains in
> > > favour until Elizabeth's death (he witnesses her will). From the mid 1470s
> > > Edward begins to have bouts of ill health (surmised to be malaria he caught
> > > in 1475) - he was, for example ill at Easter 1476 I ( think Johanne pointed
> > > that out) when issues with Clarence were at their height. Does Edward
> > > confess the precontract to Prior Ingleby? The Prior would be bound by the
> > > confessional but under Vatican law can seek advice from someone of superior
> > > experience in the confession (Bishop Stillington?). He's supposed to get
> > > the person's approval, but would one do so with the King and such a huge
> > > matter of conscience? It's Markham who's created the illusion of the pious
> > > and virtous Stillington (because of his foundation of the school at
> > > Acaster) but it would seem that Prior John was certainly that sort of
> > > unsual person. Does Stillington hint of this to Clarence in 1476/7 and
> > > Edward, fearing he's learned from somewhere (Eleanor's sister) bung him in
> > > the Tower to cool his heals?
> > >
> > > When Edward dies the Prior's conscience might have pricked again but it
> > > cannot ever be seen that he's shared this with anyone. There is one other
> > > who knows and cares that this be revealed and this is Elizabeth Mowbray,
> > > Eleanor's loving sister, who longs for justice for her. Does Elizabeth
> > > guess that Stillington knows (because of his former imprisonment and fall
> > > from grace) and that he might be persuaded to reveal it? What better that
> > > it came from a Bishop, not some obscure clerk or priest who could have been
> > > bribed? Was Stillington pushable? Well he seems to have been an ambitious
> > > man who'd inherited land in Yorkshire in 1458. Some of the lands in
> > > Middlesex his relatives fight over on his death seem to have at one time
> > > belonged to the Mowbrays. All the other Talbots seem to have been
> > > favourable to Lancaster - Sir Gilbert is knighted, Humphrey goes on
> > > pilgrimage.
> > >
> > > This is just the shadow of a hypothesis and there are other strands (eg Dr
> > > Eborall also came from round there and had connections with Mount Grace). I
> > > have to say I think it much stronger than Hannock's Catesby theory (though
> > > he also might have known).
> > >
> > > There is, I feel, a bigger, more complex story to this than Stillington
> > > and it's about the Church and the Yorkists. For some reason the majority of
> > > the Bishops/Priors/Church favour Lancaster (look at the two Blythes,
> > > Rotherham, Morton for starters) and the Abbot of Gloucester sending money
> > > to Jasper Tudor. Why?
> > >
> > > An awful lot more digging methinks. What a shame Barrie Dobson is no
> > > longer with us.
> > >
> > > PS There is one interesting thing. In the visitation of Oxford they very
> > > usefully list the memorials in the colleges to bishops. Beckington,
> > > Rotherham, Wolsey, Stockesley are there to name but a few. But Stillington
> > > isn't. As such an illustrious son of the uni wouldn't you think he would be?
> > >
> > > And yes, Mount Grace, the Stapletons/Inglebys, Joan Beaufort (Cis's
> > > mother) and Dr Eborall are all associated with either Lollardy or the Cult
> > > of the Holy Virgin. Back to Anne Beauchamp Nevill. H.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a quitclaim.  



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
>
> What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
>
> [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
> her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> with black virgins.]
>

As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I think it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
Marie

Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I quoted from Hicks.
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a quitclaim.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> >
> > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> >
> > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
> > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > with black virgins.]
> >
>
> As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I think it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the Stapletons etc.  If you google it you can read it online.
Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
(Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I quoted from Hicks.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a quitclaim.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> >
> > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> >
> > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
> > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > with black virgins.]
> >
>
> As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I think it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although
> yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the
> significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE
> they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows.

Some of them, maybe, but at least one is definitely identified with a Romany
cult of Sarah. They're not exactly heretical, but all of them represent a
sort of local peasant theology, semi-detached from the official church - a
bit like shrines to Bride/St Bridget in the UK.

The Templars weren't exactly heretical either, although there's some
evidence they may have had some Islamic influences. But what they were
mainly being secretive about was their finances.

> I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at
> one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on.

If you're referring to the holy blood thing the idea that the Merovingian
kings were descended from Jesus definitely did exist in French folklore (and
occasionally crops up in British folklore too, and is even hinted at in Mort
d'
Arthur), although we've no evidence that it's any more than a case of "My
king can lick your king".

Thanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you probably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard IIi's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his sources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how contemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but his interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every aspect of astrology.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the Stapletons etc.  If you google it you can read it online.
> Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
> (Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
> Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I quoted from Hicks.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a quitclaim.  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> > > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> > >
> > > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> > >
> > > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
> > > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > with black virgins.]
> > >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I think it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> > suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although
> > yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the
> > significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE
> > they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows.
>
> Some of them, maybe, but at least one is definitely identified with a Romany
> cult of Sarah. They're not exactly heretical, but all of them represent a
> sort of local peasant theology, semi-detached from the official church - a
> bit like shrines to Bride/St Bridget in the UK.
>
> The Templars weren't exactly heretical either, although there's some
> evidence they may have had some Islamic influences. But what they were
> mainly being secretive about was their finances.
>
> > I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at
> > one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on.
>
> If you're referring to the holy blood thing the idea that the Merovingian
> kings were descended from Jesus definitely did exist in French folklore (and
> occasionally crops up in British folklore too, and is even hinted at in Mort
> d'
> Arthur), although we've no evidence that it's any more than a case of "My
> king can lick your king".



What are the claims in French and British folklore that the Merovingian kings were descended from Jesus? It seems to be a modern spoof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline
I'm aware of the French stories of Mary Magdalene coming to France with her maid St Sarah. I'm not aware that Sarah was disapproved of by the Church.
I'm also aware of the reference in Malory - which comes from his source text - that Galahad was a descendant of Jesus (9 generations down, was it?). There's a lot of odd stuff in various texts, I grant you, and no doubt it welled up from beliefs carried over from pagandom and Catharism.
A very interesting and odd Arthurian text is the Perlesvaus - quite an unpleasant tone, and very odd things going on. And an awful lot of the Arthurian cast list and tales go back to tales of the Celtic gods (mainly Irish - the Arthurian tales in the Mabinogion are, sadly, little more than translations of Chretien de Troyes).
It's a minefield of a subject, though, and there has been a lot of nonsense written about it which has made it even harder to study. The weird Arthurian texts were written in earlier centuries when gnosticism/ catharism were the in heresies - very different from lollardy or 16th-century protestantism. I've not personally encountered any evidence from the 15th century that people had to be careful about declaring their devotion to the Virgin or use of arcane symbols. Even the alchemists were busy publicly linking their art with Jesus Christ, with impunity so far as I can gather. You were likely to get in trouble in the 15th century for denying the Trinity but not for praying to Black Virgins. But I'll see what Hughes has to say and maybe I'll have to eat my words. By the by, I can't find his book to read online. Could you possibly post a link?
Catholicism worked by simultaneously attacking heresies and paganism whilst making it easier for their devotees to become good Catholics by subsuming safe versions of these other forms of worship into itself. The Virgin Mary was put in her place and simultaneously extolled. Pagan festivals were reinvented as Christian ones. Pagan holy places became the sites of Christian churches, etc.
Marie

I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote the dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of Hicks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that 'Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the hills next.
The one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's free it could be.
I've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests I would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with Stillington's escapades?)
BTW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person Edward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well known, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not some up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 

Thanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you probably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard IIi's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his sources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how contemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but his interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every aspect of astrology.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the Stapletons etc.  If you google it you can read it online.
> Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
> (Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
> Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I quoted from Hicks.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a quitclaim.àà
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very humble
> > > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> > >
> > > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> > >
> > > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene or
> > > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > with black virgins.]
> > >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I think it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie,
Catholicism, whatever anyone says, has lasted for a long time. But it has systematically taken over sacred places, sacred dates, and even some of the rituals of other religions. In the "New World" many ancient ruins have been used to construct great churches, while also destroying ancient texts. However, Catholics are not the first to do this, and many people are devoted to the religion.

On May 21, 2013, at 6:40 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> > suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although
> > yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the
> > significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE
> > they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows.
>
> Some of them, maybe, but at least one is definitely identified with a Romany
> cult of Sarah. They're not exactly heretical, but all of them represent a
> sort of local peasant theology, semi-detached from the official church - a
> bit like shrines to Bride/St Bridget in the UK.
>
> The Templars weren't exactly heretical either, although there's some
> evidence they may have had some Islamic influences. But what they were
> mainly being secretive about was their finances.
>
> > I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at
> > one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on.
>
> If you're referring to the holy blood thing the idea that the Merovingian
> kings were descended from Jesus definitely did exist in French folklore (and
> occasionally crops up in British folklore too, and is even hinted at in Mort
> d'
> Arthur), although we've no evidence that it's any more than a case of "My
> king can lick your king".

What are the claims in French and British folklore that the Merovingian kings were descended from Jesus? It seems to be a modern spoof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline
I'm aware of the French stories of Mary Magdalene coming to France with her maid St Sarah. I'm not aware that Sarah was disapproved of by the Church.
I'm also aware of the reference in Malory - which comes from his source text - that Galahad was a descendant of Jesus (9 generations down, was it?). There's a lot of odd stuff in various texts, I grant you, and no doubt it welled up from beliefs carried over from pagandom and Catharism.
A very interesting and odd Arthurian text is the Perlesvaus - quite an unpleasant tone, and very odd things going on. And an awful lot of the Arthurian cast list and tales go back to tales of the Celtic gods (mainly Irish - the Arthurian tales in the Mabinogion are, sadly, little more than translations of Chretien de Troyes).
It's a minefield of a subject, though, and there has been a lot of nonsense written about it which has made it even harder to study. The weird Arthurian texts were written in earlier centuries when gnosticism/ catharism were the in heresies - very different from lollardy or 16th-century protestantism. I've not personally encountered any evidence from the 15th century that people had to be careful about declaring their devotion to the Virgin or use of arcane symbols. Even the alchemists were busy publicly linking their art with Jesus Christ, with impunity so far as I can gather. You were likely to get in trouble in the 15th century for denying the Trinity but not for praying to Black Virgins. But I'll see what Hughes has to say and maybe I'll have to eat my words. By the by, I can't find his book to read online. Could you possibly post a link?
Catholicism worked by simultaneously attacking heresies and paganism whilst making it easier for their devotees to become good Catholics by subsuming safe versions of these other forms of worship into itself. The Virgin Mary was put in her place and simultaneously extolled. Pagan festivals were reinvented as Christian ones. Pagan holy places became the sites of Christian churches, etc.
Marie

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> What are the claims in French and British folklore that the Merovingian
> kings were descended from Jesus?

I don't know the specifics about the French folklore - one of my friends has
a Master's in Christian Theology and she made a study of it, so I'll have to
ask her for details. But there's an English traditional rhyme (though I've
never managed to find its exact origins) for divining the identity of your
true love by casting lots using yarrow sticks, which goes:

Yarrow, sweet yarrow, the first that I have found,
In the name of Jesus Christ I pluck you from the ground.
As Jesus loved sweet Mary, and took her for his dear,
So in a dream this night I pray my true love to appear.

That's not associated with the French kings, of course, but it shows that
belief that Jesus was married (as he almost certainly was) existed over
here.

[How do we know that Jesus was almost certainly married? Firstly, because
it would have been so wildly abnormal for a healthy Jew in his 30s at that
time to not be married that you'd expect it to be commented on. Secondly,
even more so, because we are told that wealthy young women attended his
meetings and contributed to his campaign fund. The Gospels faithfully
record accusations that he was a drunk or a black witch - a unisex term in
the circles I move in btw - but there's no hint that he was accused of any
sexual impropriety. Yet, if he had been unmarried it would have been seen
as scandalous that he should associate with women. If he was married and
his wife was in the vicinity, however, that would be perfectly acceptable.
Lack of recorded accusation suggests lack of scandalous behaviour which
suggests the presence of a wife. And if he had a wife, MM is the most
likely candidate - not just because one of the Gnostic Gospels says
something to the effect that "His mother, his sister and his wife are all
called Mary" but because the term which MM uses to refer to him and which is
usually translated "master" can also mean "husband", and she seems to be the
person responsible for laying out his body.]

> It seems to be a modern spoof:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline

It's a hoax, but a hoax made using bits of real folklore and other oddments
to make it more convincing. There's no Priory de Zion but there *was* a
Mediaeval Abbe de Zion, although I know of no evidence that it was anything
other than a normal abbey with a pretentious name. There really was
something very odd going on with the priest at Rennes le Chateau, who became
mysteriously rich, but I'm fairly sure he got that way by blackmailing a
bishop.

> I'm aware of the French stories of Mary Magdalene coming to France with
> her maid St Sarah. I'm not aware that Sarah was disapproved of by the
> Church.

I'm not saying she was dissaproved of as such, but I don't think there's any
Biblical evidence that she existed and certainly not that she was a gypsy or
a North African, so it's a folk cult hanging off the side of Mother Church.
Although of course the whole idea that Mary Magdalene was a reformed
prostitute is pure folk-cult.

> I'm also aware of the reference in Malory - which comes from his source
> text - that Galahad was a descendant of Jesus (9 generations down, was
> it?).

I think it was less than that. I remember working out that it was just
about feasible but only if a succession of old men impregnated young wives,
resulting in a generation time in the male line of about 70 years instead of
the usual 25. Although of course Lancelot and Galahad may not have existed
anyway. At least some of the characters in the Arthurian mythos are
identifiably real people living in South Wales and in Galloway, but Lancelot
and Galahad aren't mentioned in the surviving early Arthurian texts we still
have, so they may be a later addition.

> There's a lot of odd stuff in various texts, I grant you, and no doubt it
> welled up from beliefs carried over from pagandom and Catharism.

Now there was a weird sect if you like. They get a good press because they
were persecuted, and they seem on the whole to have been nice people and
admirably free from sexism, but their actual theology was sinister and
depressing and they were pretty close to being a suicide-cult (although I
suppose the same could be said of the Children's Crusade).

> A very interesting and odd Arthurian text is the Perlesvaus - quite an
> unpleasant tone, and very odd things going on.

I'm not sure if I know that one (or rather, I probably do but I've forgotten
the name), but there's a story (I think it's included in Mort d'Arthur)
where Arthur "does a Herod" and kills dozens of children in an attempt to
remove his son/nephew Mordred, and I remember being told at the School of
Scottish Studies that in Scottish Arthurian myths Mordred is the hero and
Arthur is a usurper.

> And an awful lot of the Arthurian cast list and tales go back to tales of
> the Celtic gods (mainly Irish - the Arthurian tales in the Mabinogion are,
> sadly, little more than translations of Chretien de Troyes).

I doubt if the one about the giant boar with a set of hairdressing equipment
between his ears comes from Chretien - it's too trippy to be anything but
Celtic! Plus it's identifiably associated with the landscape of Gwent.

> I've not personally encountered any evidence from the 15th century that
> people had to be careful about declaring their devotion to the Virgin or
> use of arcane symbols.

No, probably not - it was quite a tolerant age. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that some elements of the church didn't *disapprove* of
other elements and feel that they were Not Our Sort of People, you know.

> Even the alchemists were busy publicly linking their art with Jesus
> Christ, with impunity so far as I can gather.

And ritual magicians were often priests and devoted themselves to summoning
angels.

> You were likely to get in trouble in the 15th century for denying the
> Trinity but not for praying to Black Virgins. But I'll see what Hughes has
> to say and maybe I'll have to eat my words. By the by, I can't find his
> book to read online. Could you possibly post a link?

I don't have it - unless you mean the gazeteer of Black Virgins, the author
of which I forget but I have a copy upstairs. It makes interesting
historical reading for the sheer number of them that were boosted by
donatations from Louis XI. There were hundreds of the things.

[If I should know who Hughes is I apologize but I'm *terrible* at proper
names - I've been known to forget the names of close friends and relations,
and once forgot the name of one of my pets so completely that after several
weeks I had to admit defeat and give her a new name.]

> Catholicism worked by simultaneously attacking heresies and paganism
> whilst making it easier for their devotees to become good Catholics by
> subsuming safe versions of these other forms of worship into itself. The
> Virgin Mary was put in her place and simultaneously extolled. Pagan
> festivals were reinvented as Christian ones. Pagan holy places became the
> sites of Christian churches, etc.

Yes. Because of the association of blackness with loam soil and fertility
my best bet would be that the Black Virgins had incorporated some sort of
continental Mother Goddess figure, just as here St Bride incorporated
Bridget, but unfortunately we don't know very much about the pre-Christian
faiths of Europe except the Asatruar and the Greeks and Romans and what the
Romans bothered to rcord.

Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to refuse?

Carol

But why and where? Yes he did jobs under H6 and his in-laws were the Bigods who had died just weeks before at Towton. If he did help get George back he didn't remain in favour for long. He handed over the Great Seal to Morton in Jun 1473. And there is quite a bit more ...


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


 


Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to refuse?

Carol

Marie replies,
Yes I know.Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. I appear to have offended in some way I don't quite understand. I'm well aware of the devotion, having been brought up as a Catholic.


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
> Catholicism, whatever anyone says, has lasted for a long time. But it has systematically taken over sacred places, sacred dates, and even some of the rituals of other religions. In the "New World" many ancient ruins have been used to construct great churches, while also destroying ancient texts. However, Catholics are not the first to do this, and many people are devoted to the religion.
>
> On May 21, 2013, at 6:40 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> > > suggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although
> > > yes there are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the
> > > significance of these is, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE
> > > they might represent Our Lady of the Sorrows.
> >
> > Some of them, maybe, but at least one is definitely identified with a Romany
> > cult of Sarah. They're not exactly heretical, but all of them represent a
> > sort of local peasant theology, semi-detached from the official church - a
> > bit like shrines to Bride/St Bridget in the UK.
> >
> > The Templars weren't exactly heretical either, although there's some
> > evidence they may have had some Islamic influences. But what they were
> > mainly being secretive about was their finances.
> >
> > > I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and so on at
> > > one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on.
> >
> > If you're referring to the holy blood thing the idea that the Merovingian
> > kings were descended from Jesus definitely did exist in French folklore (and
> > occasionally crops up in British folklore too, and is even hinted at in Mort
> > d'
> > Arthur), although we've no evidence that it's any more than a case of "My
> > king can lick your king".
>
> What are the claims in French and British folklore that the Merovingian kings were descended from Jesus? It seems to be a modern spoof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline
> I'm aware of the French stories of Mary Magdalene coming to France with her maid St Sarah. I'm not aware that Sarah was disapproved of by the Church.
> I'm also aware of the reference in Malory - which comes from his source text - that Galahad was a descendant of Jesus (9 generations down, was it?). There's a lot of odd stuff in various texts, I grant you, and no doubt it welled up from beliefs carried over from pagandom and Catharism.
> A very interesting and odd Arthurian text is the Perlesvaus - quite an unpleasant tone, and very odd things going on. And an awful lot of the Arthurian cast list and tales go back to tales of the Celtic gods (mainly Irish - the Arthurian tales in the Mabinogion are, sadly, little more than translations of Chretien de Troyes).
> It's a minefield of a subject, though, and there has been a lot of nonsense written about it which has made it even harder to study. The weird Arthurian texts were written in earlier centuries when gnosticism/ catharism were the in heresies - very different from lollardy or 16th-century protestantism. I've not personally encountered any evidence from the 15th century that people had to be careful about declaring their devotion to the Virgin or use of arcane symbols. Even the alchemists were busy publicly linking their art with Jesus Christ, with impunity so far as I can gather. You were likely to get in trouble in the 15th century for denying the Trinity but not for praying to Black Virgins. But I'll see what Hughes has to say and maybe I'll have to eat my words. By the by, I can't find his book to read online. Could you possibly post a link?
> Catholicism worked by simultaneously attacking heresies and paganism whilst making it easier for their devotees to become good Catholics by subsuming safe versions of these other forms of worship into itself. The Virgin Mary was put in her place and simultaneously extolled. Pagan festivals were reinvented as Christian ones. Pagan holy places became the sites of Christian churches, etc.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
> >
> > I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations, pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
> >
> > a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance before Barnet.
>
> I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to refuse?
>
> Carol
>

I third that! All I have learned about Richard has been from this forum.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 20, 2013, at 2:53 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Mary said:
>
> Snip> The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
>
> Liz: I really want to second this. A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>
>
>
>

I agree with Weds!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 20, 2013, at 5:39 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > Agree 100%!
> >
> > On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Â Mary said:
> > >
> > >
> > > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
> > >
> > > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>
>

Hear, hear!

Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:21 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
> 
>I agree with Weds!!
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On May 20, 2013, at 5:39 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
>> I think the contributors to all the fine sleuthing should organize and publish their findings on Stillington & the Precontract in The Ricardian or as an eBook on Amazon or in some other official capacity, before someone else brazenly nicks it and takes credit for it.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Agree 100%!
>> >
>> > On May 20, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Agree Liz. My brain is zinging!
>> >
>> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Â Mary said:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Snip>Â Â The so called Real Richard site on facebook made some very patronising comments about the Society while predicting that in future academics would discover more about Richard. In my humble opinion some so called academics have not done the amount of research that members of the Society have done in the past and are indeed still doing. I am proud to belong to the Society and proud of all the work that the people on this forum are doing to further the cause.
>> > >
>> > > Liz: I really want to second this.   A huge amount of work has gone into this work on Stillington and indeed so much else on this forum. Not only am I impressed by that but I have learned and am learning so much here.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:


"But why and where? Yes he did jobs under H6 and his in-laws were the Bigods
who had died just weeks before at Towton. If he did help get George back he
didn't remain in favour for long. He handed over the Great Seal to Morton in
Jun 1473. And there is quite a bit more ..."

Doug here:
Could Stillington's not remaining "in favor" have been *Stillington's*
choice? Higher clergy were expected to assume a large role in governing;
perhaps Stillington just didn't want to do that? Could it be that what
Stillington really wanted was the status(?) that being a Bishop would bring?
He then undertook just enough government jobs/assignments in order to
maintain that status, but not to interfere with what *he* wanted to do.
Which was kick back, take his ease and enjoy the perks that being a bishop
entailed. I could easily be mis-remembering earlier posts, but Stillington
didn't seem to be very active in carrying out his duties as Bishop; could
that support the idea that he sonsidered being bishop a sinecure?
Conversely, Stillington might not have wanted to participate in governing
the kingdom, because he was, well, a hypochondriac? Or possibly because he'd
actually been very ill when younger and felt he should "take it easy"?
Or he may just have been lazy...
Doug


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)





Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was
appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give
him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the
Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of
people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance
before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the
king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to
refuse?

Carol








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his
> qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally
> witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by
> a priest at all.
Marie

That leaves us with the big question, if Stillington didn't marry them, how
did he know about it? Would there have to have been witnesses, as there are
at priest-free marriages in Scotland? If so do we have any input on who the
witnesses were?

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> But what does that mean - "included in books on..."? Are the authors saying peole were accused of heresy for devotion to the BVM? If not, then what is their evidence that the "cult" of the Virgin was frowned on by the Church? There is a tendency for popular writers on the subject of Templar conspiracies, etc, to misrepresent as signs of secret or heretical beliefs things that were actually part of mainstream Catholicism.

Carol responds:

I'm no expert on this topic, but I agree with Marie here that vereration of the Virgin Mary (and other saints) was very much a part of mainstream Catholicism. (Just look at Richard's own list of saints to whom he had "special devotion." The concept of excessive devotion to the Virgin Mary being somehow heretical is, as I understand it, part of the overall opposition to Catholicism in late Tudor times. The word "Mariolatry," for example, was coined in 1612, during the reign of Elizabeth I, to describe this phenomenon. In contrast, the disparaging term "papist" for a Roman Catholic actually dates to 1534, the very year of Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy. (Both dates are from Merriam-Webster Online.)

Carol

Or because he liked being well off and the connections which being well off and a Bishop brought him? He was 53 when he handed over the Seal, not 83. You'll have to wait for my article:)



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"But why and where? Yes he did jobs under H6 and his in-laws were the Bigods
who had died just weeks before at Towton. If he did help get George back he
didn't remain in favour for long. He handed over the Great Seal to Morton in
Jun 1473. And there is quite a bit more ..."

Doug here:
Could Stillington's not remaining "in favor" have been *Stillington's*
choice? Higher clergy were expected to assume a large role in governing;
perhaps Stillington just didn't want to do that? Could it be that what
Stillington really wanted was the status(?) that being a Bishop would bring?
He then undertook just enough government jobs/assignments in order to
maintain that status, but not to interfere with what *he* wanted to do.
Which was kick back, take his ease and enjoy the perks that being a bishop
entailed. I could easily be mis-remembering earlier posts, but Stillington
didn't seem to be very active in carrying out his duties as Bishop; could
that support the idea that he sonsidered being bishop a sinecure?
Conversely, Stillington might not have wanted to participate in governing
the kingdom, because he was, well, a hypochondriac? Or possibly because he'd
actually been very ill when younger and felt he should "take it easy"?
Or he may just have been lazy...
Doug

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was
appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give
him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the
Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of
people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance
before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the
king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to
refuse?

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

There was (allegedly) a very specific heretical cult associated with Mary, but what it was called, and exactly when and where it originated, etc., I've no clue. 

Representing this supposed cult, there are innocent looking statues of Mary, usually carved from ivory, and they open like triptychs. Inside is the Holy Trinity. Seems like no big whoop, but the symbolism - the All-inclusive Mother, containing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - wouldn't be acceptable theology. I've seen photos of these, but can't remember anything else.

For all I know, such statues might even be fakes....

Judy 


 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)



 

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> But what does that mean - "included in books on..."? Are the authors saying peole were accused of heresy for devotion to the BVM? If not, then what is their evidence that the "cult" of the Virgin was frowned on by the Church? There is a tendency for popular writers on the subject of Templar conspiracies, etc, to misrepresent as signs of secret or heretical beliefs things that were actually part of mainstream Catholicism.

Carol responds:

I'm no expert on this topic, but I agree with Marie here that vereration of the Virgin Mary (and other saints) was very much a part of mainstream Catholicism. (Just look at Richard's own list of saints to whom he had "special devotion." The concept of excessive devotion to the Virgin Mary being somehow heretical is, as I understand it, part of the overall opposition to Catholicism in late Tudor times. The word "Mariolatry," for example, was coined in 1612, during the reign of Elizabeth I, to describe this phenomenon. In contrast, the disparaging term "papist" for a Roman Catholic actually dates to 1534, the very year of Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy. (Both dates are from Merriam-Webster Online.)

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:


"Or because he liked being well off and the connections which being well off
and a Bishop brought him? He was 53 when he handed over the Seal, not 83.
You'll have to wait for my article:)"

Doug here:
That was the "perks" part, but yes, I find it hard to believe that a goodly
number of clerics entered the Chruch, not because of burning religious
devotion, but because it was a job that, above the lowest level or two, paid
very well (for the times) and often the only way for them to move up the
ladder.
And as the idea of family wasn't as contracted as it is today, moving up in
the Church opened all sorts of possibilities for male, and female,
relatives. If not lay positions attached to Abbeys and Cathedrals, there
certainly would have been managment positions attached to bequests and
properties that needed filling, secretaryships, probably a lot more.
Doug
(looking forward to your article, my membership application goes in this
weekend)



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)




Hilary Jones wrote:

"But why and where? Yes he did jobs under H6 and his in-laws were the Bigods
who had died just weeks before at Towton. If he did help get George back he
didn't remain in favour for long. He handed over the Great Seal to Morton in
Jun 1473. And there is quite a bit more ..."

Doug here:
Could Stillington's not remaining "in favor" have been *Stillington's*
choice? Higher clergy were expected to assume a large role in governing;
perhaps Stillington just didn't want to do that? Could it be that what
Stillington really wanted was the status(?) that being a Bishop would bring?
He then undertook just enough government jobs/assignments in order to
maintain that status, but not to interfere with what *he* wanted to do.
Which was kick back, take his ease and enjoy the perks that being a bishop
entailed. I could easily be mis-remembering earlier posts, but Stillington
didn't seem to be very active in carrying out his duties as Bishop; could
that support the idea that he sonsidered being bishop a sinecure?
Conversely, Stillington might not have wanted to participate in governing
the kingdom, because he was, well, a hypochondriac? Or possibly because he'd
actually been very ill when younger and felt he should "take it easy"?
Or he may just have been lazy...
Doug

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was
appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give
him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the
Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of
people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance
before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the
king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to
refuse?

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Now you've made me even more nervous!! I'd agree very much with you that it was a way for an intelligent man to move up the ladder. It wasn't always the profession for the younger son - only for the people of the upper nobility, like the Nevilles, where the Earldoms had started to run out. And of course it usually involved studying both secular and canon law, which was a profession on its own. So I think we agree:) 



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013, 17:24
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Or because he liked being well off and the connections which being well off
and a Bishop brought him? He was 53 when he handed over the Seal, not 83.
You'll have to wait for my article:)"

Doug here:
That was the "perks" part, but yes, I find it hard to believe that a goodly
number of clerics entered the Chruch, not because of burning religious
devotion, but because it was a job that, above the lowest level or two, paid
very well (for the times) and often the only way for them to move up the
ladder.
And as the idea of family wasn't as contracted as it is today, moving up in
the Church opened all sorts of possibilities for male, and female,
relatives. If not lay positions attached to Abbeys and Cathedrals, there
certainly would have been managment positions attached to bequests and
properties that needed filling, secretaryships, probably a lot more.
Doug
(looking forward to your article, my membership application goes in this
weekend)

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Hilary Jones wrote:

"But why and where? Yes he did jobs under H6 and his in-laws were the Bigods
who had died just weeks before at Towton. If he did help get George back he
didn't remain in favour for long. He handed over the Great Seal to Morton in
Jun 1473. And there is quite a bit more ..."

Doug here:
Could Stillington's not remaining "in favor" have been *Stillington's*
choice? Higher clergy were expected to assume a large role in governing;
perhaps Stillington just didn't want to do that? Could it be that what
Stillington really wanted was the status(?) that being a Bishop would bring?
He then undertook just enough government jobs/assignments in order to
maintain that status, but not to interfere with what *he* wanted to do.
Which was kick back, take his ease and enjoy the perks that being a bishop
entailed. I could easily be mis-remembering earlier posts, but Stillington
didn't seem to be very active in carrying out his duties as Bishop; could
that support the idea that he sonsidered being bishop a sinecure?
Conversely, Stillington might not have wanted to participate in governing
the kingdom, because he was, well, a hypochondriac? Or possibly because he'd
actually been very ill when younger and felt he should "take it easy"?
Or he may just have been lazy...
Doug

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was
appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give
him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the
Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of
people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance
before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the
king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to
refuse?

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From my readings, I would say you are exactly right, rarely was it a zeal for religion, it was a lust for power!

On May 24, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:



Hilary Jones wrote:

"Or because he liked being well off and the connections which being well off
and a Bishop brought him? He was 53 when he handed over the Seal, not 83.
You'll have to wait for my article:)"

Doug here:
That was the "perks" part, but yes, I find it hard to believe that a goodly
number of clerics entered the Chruch, not because of burning religious
devotion, but because it was a job that, above the lowest level or two, paid
very well (for the times) and often the only way for them to move up the
ladder.
And as the idea of family wasn't as contracted as it is today, moving up in
the Church opened all sorts of possibilities for male, and female,
relatives. If not lay positions attached to Abbeys and Cathedrals, there
certainly would have been managment positions attached to bequests and
properties that needed filling, secretaryships, probably a lot more.
Doug
(looking forward to your article, my membership application goes in this
weekend)

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Hilary Jones wrote:

"But why and where? Yes he did jobs under H6 and his in-laws were the Bigods
who had died just weeks before at Towton. If he did help get George back he
didn't remain in favour for long. He handed over the Great Seal to Morton in
Jun 1473. And there is quite a bit more ..."

Doug here:
Could Stillington's not remaining "in favor" have been *Stillington's*
choice? Higher clergy were expected to assume a large role in governing;
perhaps Stillington just didn't want to do that? Could it be that what
Stillington really wanted was the status(?) that being a Bishop would bring?
He then undertook just enough government jobs/assignments in order to
maintain that status, but not to interfere with what *he* wanted to do.
Which was kick back, take his ease and enjoy the perks that being a bishop
entailed. I could easily be mis-remembering earlier posts, but Stillington
didn't seem to be very active in carrying out his duties as Bishop; could
that support the idea that he sonsidered being bishop a sinecure?
Conversely, Stillington might not have wanted to participate in governing
the kingdom, because he was, well, a hypochondriac? Or possibly because he'd
actually been very ill when younger and felt he should "take it easy"?
Or he may just have been lazy...
Doug

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Hilary wrote:
>
> I've now spent weeks, days, hours pouring through archives, vistiations,
> pedigrees, wills, but can find no proof of Stillington having a close
> relationship with the Talbots/Butler/Cheddars before the 1470s which would
> have prompted him to want Edward to marry Eleanor. One also has to ask
> oneself why Edward would have chosen him when:
>
> a. he'd worked for H6 [snip]

Carol responds:

I read somewhere (might have been Wikipedia--sorry!) that Stillington was
appointed by Henry VI's Yorkist-dominated council. If so, that doesn't give
him any Lancastrian loyalties. Certainly, he had no connection with the
Lancastrians once Edward became king. As we know, he was one of the group of
people, including Cecily, who persuaded George to return to his allegiance
before Barnet.

I suspect that he was simply on hand as part of Edward's entourage. If the
king asks (orders) you to marry him to Dame Eleanor Butler, are you going to
refuse?

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you probably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard IIi's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his sources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how contemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but his interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every aspect of astrology.

Carol responds:

In any case, those horoscopes wouldn't have been available to Edward's and Richard's contemporaries, would they? Rous gets Richard's birthdate wrong (Feast of the Holy Virgins) and More and Vergil (admittedly not quite contemporary) can't even get Edward's age right.

Carol

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.

I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.

We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)

At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.

No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.

Carol

I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.

I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.

We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)

At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.

No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.

Carol

It sounds so callous, as if other people were mere pawns, which if you were king, I guess they were.

On May 24, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)



mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.

I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.

We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)

At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.

No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.

Carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like
> Edborall).

That's presupposing that the marriage was insincere from the first and that
Edward was a cynical cold-hearted serial love-'em-and-leave-'em seducer,
rather than a soppily romantic serial
falling-madly-in-and-then-out-of-lover. Do we know?

You have to wonder, how immature was Edward at... how old was he? He had so much power, he knew he could have any woman he wanted, until he met one he couldn't have? And so, he became a bigamist, thinking no one would ever find out. But as they say, what you bury, you bury alive.

Maybe the youth and immaturity is why the Wars of the Roses went on for so long? Perhaps, ultimately, E4's youth and immaturity is also why the House of York fell?

~Weds

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> It sounds so callous, as if other people were mere pawns, which if you were king, I guess they were.
>
> On May 24, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.

Very good thoughts......Weds, you are on top of everything! And, young, handsome, wealthy, and powerful. Don't you know he had to have the one woman who said NO! Isn't that the game Anne Boleyn played? Unfortunately Fat Henry already had a wife, and well we know the rest.

On May 24, 2013, at 3:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



You have to wonder, how immature was Edward at... how old was he? He had so much power, he knew he could have any woman he wanted, until he met one he couldn't have? And so, he became a bigamist, thinking no one would ever find out. But as they say, what you bury, you bury alive.

Maybe the youth and immaturity is why the Wars of the Roses went on for so long? Perhaps, ultimately, E4's youth and immaturity is also why the House of York fell?

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> It sounds so callous, as if other people were mere pawns, which if you were king, I guess they were.
>
> On May 24, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.
>
> I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.
>
> We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)


Hi Carol,
yes, but I'm unsure about Eborall. As I understand it, the document in question states that Eborall himself claimed to a third party that he had married Edward and Elizabeth, and the Nat. Archives date the document to Henry VII's reign although the conversation reported in it apparently took place much earlier. I would have expected the priest who married the King to EW to have been richly rewarded, but he seems rather obscure so it feels a bit fishy, particularly since Titulus Regius claims that the marriage took place in a profane place.
I requested an estimate for the cost of ordering a copy of the document, but the answer came back today, £70, so I'll just have to wait for Carol Rawcliffe's transcription when it comes out.
Any priest involved in a clandestine marriage would have known he was complicit in something the Church had declared as sinful (though not invalid), bur I guess if you're the King you can get your own way.
Marie

>
> At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.
>
> No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> You have to wonder, how immature was Edward at... how old was he? He had so much power, he knew he could have any woman he wanted, until he met one he couldn't have? And so, he became a bigamist, thinking no one would ever find out. But as they say, what you bury, you bury alive.
>
> Maybe the youth and immaturity is why the Wars of the Roses went on for so long? Perhaps, ultimately, E4's youth and immaturity is also why the House of York fell?

Carol responds:

One thing I think we can be sure of. If his father had survived (and become King Richard III!), Edward would never have gotten away with clandestine marriages. He would probably have been married off to a European princess--with very different results for history. I like to think that even if Edmund had survived and their father didn't, Edward would have behaved more maturely and responsibly. But, of course, it didn't work out that way.

Carol

I didn't say that Stillington was wicked or that he didn't know. Just that someone might have told him and used him? As for Eborall, why should he be greatly rewarded for marrying and how do we know if it was clandestine, or whether that was just info to re-inforce Titulus Regius? Eborall had been long dead to confirm or deny it. Strangely though, his friend Peter Empson's son, was very close to Reggie Bray and H7.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2013, 0:22
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.
>
> I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.
>
> We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)

Hi Carol,
yes, but I'm unsure about Eborall. As I understand it, the document in question states that Eborall himself claimed to a third party that he had married Edward and Elizabeth, and the Nat. Archives date the document to Henry VII's reign although the conversation reported in it apparently took place much earlier. I would have expected the priest who married the King to EW to have been richly rewarded, but he seems rather obscure so it feels a bit fishy, particularly since Titulus Regius claims that the marriage took place in a profane place.
I requested an estimate for the cost of ordering a copy of the document, but the answer came back today, £70, so I'll just have to wait for Carol Rawcliffe's transcription when it comes out.
Any priest involved in a clandestine marriage would have known he was complicit in something the Church had declared as sinful (though not invalid), bur I guess if you're the King you can get your own way.
Marie

>
> At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.
>
> No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,
Just a few points. Having a priest marry you clandestinely didn't make it any more legal. It was legal anyway provided you could prove it, and I'd suggest that you'd stand a greater chance of having lay witnesses back you up than a priest who shouldn't have been involved and could well be in trouble with the Bishop as well as the King as a result (you'd only need the witnesses in the event that Edward tried to deny the marriage).
Secondly, Eborall's name isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius. According to a third party, he self-reported himself to have married Elizabeth to the King.
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't say that Stillington was wicked or that he didn't know. Just that someone might have told him and used him? As for Eborall, why should he be greatly rewarded for marrying and how do we know if it was clandestine, or whether that was just info to re-inforce Titulus Regius? Eborall had been long dead to confirm or deny it. Strangely though, his friend Peter Empson's son, was very close to Reggie Bray and H7.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2013, 0:22
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >  
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.
> >
> > I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.
> >
> > We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)
>
> Hi Carol,
> yes, but I'm unsure about Eborall. As I understand it, the document in question states that Eborall himself claimed to a third party that he had married Edward and Elizabeth, and the Nat. Archives date the document to Henry VII's reign although the conversation reported in it apparently took place much earlier. I would have expected the priest who married the King to EW to have been richly rewarded, but he seems rather obscure so it feels a bit fishy, particularly since Titulus Regius claims that the marriage took place in a profane place.
> I requested an estimate for the cost of ordering a copy of the document, but the answer came back today, £70, so I'll just have to wait for Carol Rawcliffe's transcription when it comes out.
> Any priest involved in a clandestine marriage would have known he was complicit in something the Church had declared as sinful (though not invalid), bur I guess if you're the King you can get your own way.
> Marie
>
> >
> > At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.
> >
> > No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your last point is particularly interesting (not that the others aren't). Do we know who he self-reported to and when? I know he isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius.
 
 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 19:14
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


Hi,
Just a few points. Having a priest marry you clandestinely didn't make it any more legal. It was legal anyway provided you could prove it, and I'd suggest that you'd stand a greater chance of having lay witnesses back you up than a priest who shouldn't have been involved and could well be in trouble with the Bishop as well as the King as a result (you'd only need the witnesses in the event that Edward tried to deny the marriage).
Secondly, Eborall's name isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius. According to a third party, he self-reported himself to have married Elizabeth to the King.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't say that Stillington was wicked or that he didn't know. Just that someone might have told him and used him? As for Eborall, why should he be greatly rewarded for marrying and how do we know if it was clandestine, or whether that was just info to re-inforce Titulus Regius? Eborall had been long dead to confirm or deny it. Strangely though, his friend Peter Empson's son, was very close to Reggie Bray and H7.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2013, 0:22
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosenàsome obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > à
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.
> >
> > I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.
> >
> > We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)
>
> Hi Carol,
> yes, but I'm unsure about Eborall. As I understand it, the document in question states that Eborall himself claimed to a third party that he had married Edward and Elizabeth, and the Nat. Archives date the document to Henry VII's reign although the conversation reported in it apparently took place much earlier. I would have expected the priest who married the King to EW to have been richly rewarded, but he seems rather obscure so it feels a bit fishy, particularly since Titulus Regius claims that the marriage took place in a profane place.
> I requested an estimate for the cost of ordering a copy of the document, but the answer came back today, £70, so I'll just have to wait for Carol Rawcliffe's transcription when it comes out.
> Any priest involved in a clandestine marriage would have known he was complicit in something the Church had declared as sinful (though not invalid), bur I guess if you're the King you can get your own way.
> Marie
>
> >
> > At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.
> >
> > No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

See my earlier posts.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your last point is particularly interesting (not that the others aren't). Do we know who he self-reported to and when? I know he isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius.
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 19:14
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
> Hi,
> Just a few points. Having a priest marry you clandestinely didn't make it any more legal. It was legal anyway provided you could prove it, and I'd suggest that you'd stand a greater chance of having lay witnesses back you up than a priest who shouldn't have been involved and could well be in trouble with the Bishop as well as the King as a result (you'd only need the witnesses in the event that Edward tried to deny the marriage).
> Secondly, Eborall's name isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius. According to a third party, he self-reported himself to have married Elizabeth to the King.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't say that Stillington was wicked or that he didn't know. Just that someone might have told him and used him? As for Eborall, why should he be greatly rewarded for marrying and how do we know if it was clandestine, or whether that was just info to re-inforce Titulus Regius? Eborall had been long dead to confirm or deny it. Strangely though, his friend Peter Empson's son, was very close to Reggie Bray and H7.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2013, 0:22
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosen some obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.
> > >
> > > I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.
> > >
> > > We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)
> >
> > Hi Carol,
> > yes, but I'm unsure about Eborall. As I understand it, the document in question states that Eborall himself claimed to a third party that he had married Edward and Elizabeth, and the Nat. Archives date the document to Henry VII's reign although the conversation reported in it apparently took place much earlier. I would have expected the priest who married the King to EW to have been richly rewarded, but he seems rather obscure so it feels a bit fishy, particularly since Titulus Regius claims that the marriage took place in a profane place.
> > I requested an estimate for the cost of ordering a copy of the document, but the answer came back today, £70, so I'll just have to wait for Carol Rawcliffe's transcription when it comes out.
> > Any priest involved in a clandestine marriage would have known he was complicit in something the Church had declared as sinful (though not invalid), bur I guess if you're the King you can get your own way.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.
> > >
> > > No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry Marie, had bug, got 130 emails, got behind. Have to be tough to survive this forum!



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 22:47
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

See my earlier posts.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your last point is particularly interesting (not that the others aren't). Do we know who he self-reported to and when? I know he isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius.
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 19:14
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
> Hi,
> Just a few points. Having a priest marry you clandestinely didn't make it any more legal. It was legal anyway provided you could prove it, and I'd suggest that you'd stand a greater chance of having lay witnesses back you up than a priest who shouldn't have been involved and could well be in trouble with the Bishop as well as the King as a result (you'd only need the witnesses in the event that Edward tried to deny the marriage).
> Secondly, Eborall's name isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius. According to a third party, he self-reported himself to have married Elizabeth to the King.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't say that Stillington was wicked or that he didn't know. Just that someone might have told him and used him? As for Eborall, why should he be greatly rewarded for marrying and how do we know if it was clandestine, or whether that was just info to re-inforce Titulus Regius? Eborall had been long dead to confirm or deny it. Strangely though, his friend Peter Empson's son, was very close to Reggie Bray and H7.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2013, 0:22
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with the insisting on priest bit as well. If Edward was a 'serial marrier' then he'd probably repeated the pattern with EW he'd used with EB. Why would he have chosenÃ’â¬aàsome obscure but ambitious priest from St Martins (and Wells and probably a few more) when he could have nipped down the road, wherever that was (and we don't know) and asked the local parson to do the job, slipped him a few bob and hoped he'd obligingly die in a year or so (like Edborall). Stillington would only have been 40 at the time so not much prospect of that; and he already probably had inroads into the legal fraternity. A real risk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 18:56
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a word of caution. Let's not forget that only Commines says that Stillington actually married the pair, or witnessed the wedding. The only really solid evidence we have for Stillington's role in the Precontract affair comes from the Year Book for the 1st year of Henry VII's reign, which names him as the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been chosen to draft Titulus Regius because of his qualifications in canon law, irrespective of whether he had personally witnessed the marriage. Most clandestine marriages were not solemnised by a priest at all.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Hi, Marie. You've been away and missed most of our discussion, so I'll just point out that we're only discussing the *possibility* that Stillington performed the ceremony, along with the alternatives. All I was saying is that, as Master of the Rolls, he might have been with Edward at the time and, if so, would have been handy to do the job (and unlikely to refuse). I'm not presenting that as a fact, only as a possibility.
> > >
> > > I do find it interesting, however, that despite having immediately arrested Stillington after Bosworth, which certainly suggests that S. was the author of Titulus Regius (not necessarily the priest who married E4 to EB, which would not have been a "horrible and hainous offense" against Henry), Henry apparently didn't want him to testify before Parliament about it. On the one hand, that refusal could be viewed as an act of kindness to a sickly old man, but, on the other, it could be because he feared that Stillington might present the evidence that had persuaded the previous Parliament to enact the bill in the first place.
> > >
> > > We also know, or seem to know, that Edward's "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville was solemnized by a priest (evidently John Eborall), which suggests (only suggests) that he would also have had a priest at his first marriage. (Had I been Eleanor Butler, I would have insisted on it!)
> >
> > Hi Carol,
> > yes, but I'm unsure about Eborall. As I understand it, the document in question states that Eborall himself claimed to a third party that he had married Edward and Elizabeth, and the Nat. Archives date the document to Henry VII's reign although the conversation reported in it apparently took place much earlier. I would have expected the priest who married the King to EW to have been richly rewarded, but he seems rather obscure so it feels a bit fishy, particularly since Titulus Regius claims that the marriage took place in a profane place.
> > I requested an estimate for the cost of ordering a copy of the document, but the answer came back today, ã70, so I'll just have to wait for Carol Rawcliffe's transcription when it comes out.
> > Any priest involved in a clandestine marriage would have known he was complicit in something the Church had declared as sinful (though not invalid), bur I guess if you're the King you can get your own way.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > At any rate, Stillington *seems* to have had evidence of the precontract. Perhaps Catesby did as well, which would explain why he was executed rather than imprisoned.
> > >
> > > No need to caution us. We are being skeptical about everything we "know," including the supposedly reliable Croyland chronicler and Mancini, and especially people like Commines, who weren't present in England and had an animus against the House of York. He called Stillington a "wicked priest" and even stated that he had an illegitimate son whom Richard III was planning to marry to Elizabeth of York. Where he got that story, I don't know, but the last part, at least, is clearly false.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:



"Hi,
Just a few points. Having a priest marry you clandestinely didn't make it
any more legal. It was legal anyway provided you could prove it, and I'd
suggest that you'd stand a greater chance of having lay witnesses back you
up than a priest who shouldn't have been involved and could well be in
trouble with the Bishop as well as the King as a result (you'd only need the
witnesses in the event that Edward tried to deny the marriage).
Secondly, Eborall's name isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius. According to a
third party, he self-reported himself to have married Elizabeth to the
King."


Doug here:
Could it be that Edward originally never intended to acknowledge his
marriage to EW and only did so only to stymy Warwick's marriage plans for
him? Or just to reduce Warwick's overall influence?
Because all that would matter then is that Edward have the information about
his earlier marriage to Eleanor Butler available. Whether the proof was
documents or a live witness(es) didn't matter, what mattered was the proof
being available.
So, Eborall's having married Edward to EW wasn't anything to worry about,
but anyone involved in Edward's marriage to EB *was*.
Does that make sense?
Doug

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
>
>
> "Hi,
> Just a few points. Having a priest marry you clandestinely didn't make it
> any more legal. It was legal anyway provided you could prove it, and I'd
> suggest that you'd stand a greater chance of having lay witnesses back you
> up than a priest who shouldn't have been involved and could well be in
> trouble with the Bishop as well as the King as a result (you'd only need the
> witnesses in the event that Edward tried to deny the marriage).
> Secondly, Eborall's name isn't mentioned in Titulus Regius. According to a
> third party, he self-reported himself to have married Elizabeth to the
> King."
>
>
> Doug here:
> Could it be that Edward originally never intended to acknowledge his
> marriage to EW and only did so only to stymy Warwick's marriage plans for
> him? Or just to reduce Warwick's overall influence?
> Because all that would matter then is that Edward have the information about
> his earlier marriage to Eleanor Butler available. Whether the proof was
> documents or a live witness(es) didn't matter, what mattered was the proof
> being available.
> So, Eborall's having married Edward to EW wasn't anything to worry about,
> but anyone involved in Edward's marriage to EB *was*.
> Does that make sense?
> Doug
>


Hi Doug,
We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage, that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.

But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened, Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have been the Woodville family chaplain?
Marie

Marie wrote:


"We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
been the Woodville family chaplain?"

Doug here:
To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
"first", so to speak?
And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
reasons.
Doug

Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


Marie wrote:

"We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
been the Woodville family chaplain?"

Doug here:
To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
"first", so to speak?
And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
reasons.
Doug

Yes, with the palace intrigue, unhappy land owners, or those who wanted more, not to mention factions of "wanna be" royals, and spies from every corner and camp, I am surprised that anyone had much time to do anything. All this while they were protecting their backsides from warring competitors!
And good lord, can you imagine the burdens of guilt, anger and sadness at losing so many family members and so many friends? I would have been in a corner mewling and not worried about anything but staying alive.

On May 28, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)




Marie wrote:

"We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
been the Woodville family chaplain?"

Doug here:
To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
"first", so to speak?
And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
reasons.
Doug

I would have been with you...that is if I had the strength to get out of bed......Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
I would have been in a corner mewling and not worried about anything but staying alive.
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
> little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
> surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
> do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
> and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
> temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
> relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
> and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
> suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
> that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
> Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
> his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
> But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
> just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
> marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
> a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
> Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
> To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
> been the Woodville family chaplain?"
>
> Doug here:
> To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
> Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
> would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
> An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
> say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
> "first", so to speak?
> And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
> could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
> reasons.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

We could have shared a corner, or a trickle bed, and mewl together. I marvel at the strength of our foremothers. Those of us who "think" we are liberated women, have no clue about the perils and privations of being a woman in the past ages. They managed to do amazing things.
This is not a slap at our forefathers, who also managed complex and dangerous lives.
I just cannot imagine Eleanor of Aquitane, or Cicely, having that many children, dealing with such immense problems, and managing.

On May 28, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



I would have been with you...that is if I had the strength to get out of bed......Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
I would have been in a corner mewling and not worried about anything but staying alive.
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com<http://40kconline.com>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
> little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
> surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
> do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
> and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
> temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
> relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
> and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
> suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
> that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
> Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
> his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
> But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
> just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
> marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
> a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
> Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
> To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
> been the Woodville family chaplain?"
>
> Doug here:
> To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
> Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
> would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
> An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
> say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
> "first", so to speak?
> And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
> could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
> reasons.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its amazing how they just got on with it...but I think, seriously, we are probably a lot stronger than we think....especially if there are children to think about. I have always thought of my mum as rather timid...and yet she stayed in South London throughout the Blitz as my father would not let her leave or my older siblings either. The bomb shelter at the bottom of the garden had to suffice. In fact she was in the bomb shelter that was in Kennington Park the night before it received a direct hit from a bomb...an awful tragedy with many, many lives lost and if I recall correctly a lot of the remains were never retrieved. But they just got on with it...

As for us...yeah...move over.....and quick about it...mewl mewl mewl...:0)
Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> We could have shared a corner, or a trickle bed, and mewl together. I marvel at the strength of our foremothers. Those of us who "think" we are liberated women, have no clue about the perils and privations of being a woman in the past ages. They managed to do amazing things.
> This is not a slap at our forefathers, who also managed complex and dangerous lives.
> I just cannot imagine Eleanor of Aquitane, or Cicely, having that many children, dealing with such immense problems, and managing.
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I would have been with you...that is if I had the strength to get out of bed......Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> I would have been in a corner mewling and not worried about anything but staying alive.
> >
> > On May 28, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@<mailto:hjnatdat@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@<mailto:destama%40kconline.com<http://40kconline.com>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
> > Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
> > little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
> > surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
> > do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
> > and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
> > temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
> > relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
> > and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
> > suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
> > that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
> > Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
> > his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
> > But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
> > just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
> > marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
> > a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
> > Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
> > To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
> > been the Woodville family chaplain?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
> > Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
> > would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
> > An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
> > say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
> > "first", so to speak?
> > And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
> > could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
> > reasons.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gladly.....you can have the softest pillow!

On May 28, 2013, at 1:34 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Its amazing how they just got on with it...but I think, seriously, we are probably a lot stronger than we think....especially if there are children to think about. I have always thought of my mum as rather timid...and yet she stayed in South London throughout the Blitz as my father would not let her leave or my older siblings either. The bomb shelter at the bottom of the garden had to suffice. In fact she was in the bomb shelter that was in Kennington Park the night before it received a direct hit from a bomb...an awful tragedy with many, many lives lost and if I recall correctly a lot of the remains were never retrieved. But they just got on with it...

As for us...yeah...move over.....and quick about it...mewl mewl mewl...:0)
Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> We could have shared a corner, or a trickle bed, and mewl together. I marvel at the strength of our foremothers. Those of us who "think" we are liberated women, have no clue about the perils and privations of being a woman in the past ages. They managed to do amazing things.
> This is not a slap at our forefathers, who also managed complex and dangerous lives.
> I just cannot imagine Eleanor of Aquitane, or Cicely, having that many children, dealing with such immense problems, and managing.
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I would have been with you...that is if I had the strength to get out of bed......Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> I would have been in a corner mewling and not worried about anything but staying alive.
> >
> > On May 28, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@<mailto:hjnatdat@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@<mailto:destama%40kconline.com<http://40kconline.com><http://40kconline.com>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
> > Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
> > little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
> > surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
> > do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
> > and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
> > temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
> > relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
> > and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
> > suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
> > that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
> > Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
> > his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
> > But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
> > just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
> > marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
> > a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
> > Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
> > To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
> > been the Woodville family chaplain?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
> > Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
> > would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
> > An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
> > say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
> > "first", so to speak?
> > And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
> > could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
> > reasons.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:


"Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed
Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One
tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the
government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years
afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere."

Doug here:
Just a thought with absolutely nothing to back it up, but if Edward *was*
spending all his time and effort in trying to govern the country, could
that, at least partially, help explain his actions in regards to EB and EW?
They were, well, a "safety valve"?
Still doesn't explain why Edward, king or no, thought he could get away with
it...
Doug

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)




Marie wrote:

"We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
been the Woodville family chaplain?"

Doug here:
To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
"first", so to speak?
And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
reasons.
Doug








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think you have a point. We tend to forget that he was only nineteen and had never been trained for the job. Slightly off this topic, but historians make so much of the turmoil after Richard's succession. Apart from Buckingham and the odd rebel (and of course HT threatening from abroad) it was almost halcyon compared with what Edward had to cope with - Henry and Margaret, France & Ireland, nipping at his borders, internal rebels, monks (yes loads of monks) being arrested and then oops escaping, ships being purloined, more rebels, Scotland, people needing pardoning, people needing arresting and a whole new government to set up.
 
We forget this because Edward lived on and Richard died so soon. That was his 'failure' as Starkey said (sorry to agree with him on that) and his reputation has never recovered. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 17:55
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed
Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One
tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the
government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years
afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere."

Doug here:
Just a thought with absolutely nothing to back it up, but if Edward *was*
spending all his time and effort in trying to govern the country, could
that, at least partially, help explain his actions in regards to EB and EW?
They were, well, a "safety valve"?
Still doesn't explain why Edward, king or no, thought he could get away with
it...
Doug

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

Marie wrote:

"We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
been the Woodville family chaplain?"

Doug here:
To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
"first", so to speak?
And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
reasons.
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

If you want busy, try looking through the C 81 files for Richard III's reign - puts Edward to shame.
Of course the government was on high alert in the early 1460s, but Warwick took most of the strain of that - ie he and his brother did all the campaigning.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
> little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
> surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
> do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
> and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
> temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
> relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
> and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
> suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
> that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
> Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
> his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
> But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
> just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
> marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
> a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
> Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
> To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
> been the Woodville family chaplain?"
>
> Doug here:
> To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
> Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
> would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
> An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
> say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
> "first", so to speak?
> And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
> could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
> reasons.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would agree with that but he still had to manage Warwick (I mean to tell him to do things). And Hastings took a fair bit too whilst William Herbert seems to have been given more and more. One could argue that Edward's tendency to 'over-give' began long before the Woodvilles.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 22:03
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 

If you want busy, try looking through the C 81 files for Richard III's reign - puts Edward to shame.
Of course the government was on high alert in the early 1460s, but Warwick took most of the strain of that - ie he and his brother did all the campaigning.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Having just been ploughing through the CPRs for the early 1460s I'm amazed Edward had time to do anything. One marvels at his dilligence (honest!). One tends to think that things settled down about after Towton, but the government seemed to be on what we'd now call high alert for years afterwards. He actually seems to have had little chance to dally anywhere. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:51
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>  
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "We'll probably never know what exactly was going on in Edward's spoilt
> little head. If he'd originally intended to acknowledge Elizabeth he would
> surely have done so immediately, so something seemingly changed his mind. I
> do detect a tendency for him to do things just because they annoyed Warwick
> and I think that could have been a big part of his motivation here - the
> temptation, after so long being subjected to lobbying and nagging about the
> relative merits of varous possibly rather plain-looking foreign princesses
> and their diplomatic baggage, possibly just became too great to resist. I
> suspect it wasn't the Burgundian alliance, or even the Woodville marriage,
> that caused the falling out with Warwick, but that Edward didn't like
> Warwick anyway, had always found him overbearing and was bursting to assert
> his independence. So it was a vicious cycle.
> But also it may be that Jacquetta silkily remarked to Edward that she was
> just longing to tell her family back home all about her daughter's new
> marriage - or something of the sort. She was certainly in a position to put
> a fatal spanner in the diplomatic marriage works. But, whatever happened,
> Edward doesn't ever seem to have resented Elizabeth or her family at all.
> To be honest, if any priest married Elizabeth and Edward, wouldn't it have
> been the Woodville family chaplain?"
>
> Doug here:
> To answer your last first: If the marriage wasn't to be taken seriously (by
> Edward, anyway), would it matter *who* performed it? Who the priest was
> would only matter *after* Edward acknowledged EW as his wife.
> An afterthought: Perhaps Eleanor Butler, or members of her family, didn't
> say anything because they weren't certain that Eleanor *was* Edward's
> "first", so to speak?
> And I quite agree that much of what Edward did prior to the Re-Adeption
> could easily be put down to Edward simply not liking Warwick, for whatever
> reasons.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:


"If you want busy, try looking through the C 81 files for Richard III's
reign - puts Edward to shame.
Of course the government was on high alert in the early 1460s, but Warwick
took most of the strain of that - ie he and his brother did all the
campaigning."

Doug here:
Well then, perhaps it's the other way 'round in regards to Edward? Edward
was *always* the sort of person who'd do such things (secretly marry someone
just to bed them), because all that mattered was what *he* wanted? But
because Edward so looked the part, and he *was* the king, he got away with
it.
I quite realize I'm skipping all over the place, but I'm finding it
difficult to pin Edward down. Perhaps it's because I don't want to think
Richard so misplaced his loyalty?
Doug

Richard's loyalty was understandable, even if misplaced, yes?

A J


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "If you want busy, try looking through the C 81 files for Richard III's
> reign - puts Edward to shame.
> Of course the government was on high alert in the early 1460s, but Warwick
> took most of the strain of that - ie he and his brother did all the
> campaigning."
>
> Doug here:
> Well then, perhaps it's the other way 'round in regards to Edward? Edward
> was *always* the sort of person who'd do such things (secretly marry
> someone
> just to bed them), because all that mattered was what *he* wanted? But
> because Edward so looked the part, and he *was* the king, he got away with
> it.
> I quite realize I'm skipping all over the place, but I'm finding it
> difficult to pin Edward down. Perhaps it's because I don't want to think
> Richard so misplaced his loyalty?
> Doug
>
>
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)



> I quite realize I'm skipping all over the place, but I'm finding it
difficult to pin Edward down. Perhaps it's because I don't want to think
Richard so misplaced his loyalty?
Doug

Well, if Tey's quote from the Paston letters was accurate, about Edward
coming every day to see his little brothers even when he was madly busy,
then he was a good brother and and it sounds like he loved Richard as
Richard loved him. Which makes it all the sadder that he ended up killing
George.

Doug wrote:

> Well then, perhaps it's the other way 'round in regards to Edward? Edward was *always* the sort of person who'd do such things (secretly marry someone just to bed them), because all that mattered was what *he* wanted? But because Edward so looked the part, and he *was* the king, he got away with it.

> I quite realize I'm skipping all over the place, but I'm finding it difficult to pin Edward down. Perhaps it's because I don't want to think Richard so misplaced his loyalty?


Weds writes:

I don't think Richard misplaced his loyalty, but he may have looked at his brother through the rose-tinted glasses of childhood hero-worship until time (and the Woodvilles and Stillington) taught him his brother had faults, just like anyone else. But he wasn't a tyrant. He just liked...women a little too much for the safety of his dynasty.

I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants -- including donating hundreds of pounds to his cause.

To be given absolute power at 19 is an extraordinary thing. To have the charisma and wisdom to wield it is another thing(s). Perhaps the miracle is that Edward seems to have become more sybarite than despot. He pleased himself in the beginning when he married Eleanor Butler, he pleased himself with the Treaty of Picquigny and the French gold it brought him, and perhaps he pleasing himself into an early grave with wine, women, and rich nummies.

More and more, I see in Henry VIII as an amazing combination of his father and grandfather. He could be as ruthless as H7, but his appetites were as huge as E4's. I suppose the difference is that H7 publicized and married his lusts ("I needs me an heir!" "I wants me some money, let me take the church's!), while E4 took sekrit wives and not-so-sekrit mistresses, and loved benevolences.

But Edward wasn't raised in a royal household. His...um...earthy habits...when it came to sekrit marriages... might reflect his lack of proper kingly attitude/behavior? He and Richard also seem to have empathized with and cared more about the "lesser" people he ruled over than the Tudors ever did. Perhaps that's because they were both at home with those people and never locked away from them while they were growing up. Both Edward and Richard moved among, worked beside, fought beside, and listened to the unwashed, as it were. I can't see any Tudor doing that -- not willingly, not even during their royal 'at homes' when they were supposed to listen.

Edward might have served his own appetites with, "More. Now. Again," but I don't think he set out to do the damage he did to his family, brother, realm. On the other hand, Henry VIII's, "More. Now. Again," deliberately and systematically hurt a great many people. He knew it, but didn't care. "I got what I wanted." (I also think his head injury taken while jousting didn't help matters.)

Both men took what they wanted on a grand, gluttonous scale, but I think the grandson was much more of a tyrant than the grandfather ever wanted to be. At least Edward tried to be a good king and in the main succeeded. Henry, on the other hand, just seems to have been...excessive and gluttonous on many levels, and a lot more of the freakin' time.

~Weds

Doug wrote:
> [snip] I quite realize I'm skipping all over the place, but I'm finding it difficult to pin Edward down. Perhaps it's because I don't want to think Richard so misplaced his loyalty?

Carol responds:

Richard was very young when he found out about the Woodville "marriage." He would, I think, have heard Warwick's and perhaps George of Clarence's opinions on the matter, but he may have found it difficult to accept those criticisms of the golden brother who had become king so young, salvaging what the entire York family considered his father's rightful claim to the throne, and had visited his younger brothers and sisters every day while they stayed at the Pastons'. In addition, Edward quickly recognized Richard's talents and his eagerness to serve, making good use of them but also rewarding him richly. It may have taken Picquigny to open Richard's eyes to his brother's failings, and even then, he remained loyal to Edward as their father's heir and the legitimate representative of the House of York. (I don't think he ever believed the stories that George and Warwick spread about Edward's illegitimacy.) But it's clear that, when he became king, he tried to undo injustices imposed by Edward in his later years, notably by outlawing benevolences, but I'm sure that Marie can cite other examples.

I wonder if, by the time Richard used the motto "loyaultie me lie" as king, he meant loyalty to the House of York rather than specifically to the dead Edward (or his illegitimate sons). That might be why his banner included the sun in splendour and at least two of his proclamations begin with sun imagery, which he applies to himself as a king who wants to reform the clergy and the laws in keeping with his coronation vows and his views on "the perfect prince." (See the "Perfect Prince" segment,

http://www.richardiii.net/2_1_0_richardiii.php

Anyway, I think that Richard's hero worship of Edward dimmed as he (Richard) matured (and Edward became lazier and more obviously self-indulgent), but his loyalty was based on principle, not an inability to see Edward's flaws. When he became king himself, I think that very loyalty to Edward as he had been at the beginning of his kingship (setting aside his marital exploits) demanded that Richard try to become the king he thought that his brother could and should have been. Kendall, if I remember correctly, does a good job of analyzing Richard's loyalty to Edward and its evolution over the years.

Carol

The execution of Clarence, along with the observation that Richard only
came to court twice more (was it?) after that, hints to me, that not only
Edward found it hard to live with what had happened. It can hardly have
made it any easier to go on hero-worshipping Big Brother, if indeed,
Richard hadn't already begun to view his brother through more adult eyes.

A J


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:32 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Doug wrote:
> > [snip] I quite realize I'm skipping all over the place, but I'm finding
> it difficult to pin Edward down. Perhaps it's because I don't want to think
> Richard so misplaced his loyalty?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Richard was very young when he found out about the Woodville "marriage."
> He would, I think, have heard Warwick's and perhaps George of Clarence's
> opinions on the matter, but he may have found it difficult to accept those
> criticisms of the golden brother who had become king so young, salvaging
> what the entire York family considered his father's rightful claim to the
> throne, and had visited his younger brothers and sisters every day while
> they stayed at the Pastons'. In addition, Edward quickly recognized
> Richard's talents and his eagerness to serve, making good use of them but
> also rewarding him richly. It may have taken Picquigny to open Richard's
> eyes to his brother's failings, and even then, he remained loyal to Edward
> as their father's heir and the legitimate representative of the House of
> York. (I don't think he ever believed the stories that George and Warwick
> spread about Edward's illegitimacy.) But it's clear that, when he became
> king, he tried to undo injustices imposed by Edward in his later years,
> notably by outlawing benevolences, but I'm sure that Marie can cite other
> examples.
>
> I wonder if, by the time Richard used the motto "loyaultie me lie" as
> king, he meant loyalty to the House of York rather than specifically to the
> dead Edward (or his illegitimate sons). That might be why his banner
> included the sun in splendour and at least two of his proclamations begin
> with sun imagery, which he applies to himself as a king who wants to reform
> the clergy and the laws in keeping with his coronation vows and his views
> on "the perfect prince." (See the "Perfect Prince" segment,
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_1_0_richardiii.php
>
> Anyway, I think that Richard's hero worship of Edward dimmed as he
> (Richard) matured (and Edward became lazier and more obviously
> self-indulgent), but his loyalty was based on principle, not an inability
> to see Edward's flaws. When he became king himself, I think that very
> loyalty to Edward as he had been at the beginning of his kingship (setting
> aside his marital exploits) demanded that Richard try to become the king he
> thought that his brother could and should have been. Kendall, if I remember
> correctly, does a good job of analyzing Richard's loyalty to Edward and its
> evolution over the years.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Weds wrote:

> [snip] Edward might have served his own appetites with, "More. Now. Again," but I don't think he set out to do the damage he did to his family, brother, realm. [snip] At least Edward tried to be a good king and in the main succeeded.[snip]

Carol responds:

The Croyland chronicler, who is much more fair to Edward than to Richard, would probably agree with your assessment. He says that Edward, though he repented the deed, became much more "high-handed" (euphemism for harsh?} after he executed his brother George "that he appeared to be dreaded by all his subjects," and despite having just gone into ecstacies about Edward's handsomeness and elegance at his last Christmas (the one where he wore a gown of a style not seen before, presumably to hide his girth), describes him in his last years as "a man of such corpulence, and so fond of boon companionship, vanities, debauchery, extravagance, and sensual enjoyments" that people were surprised by his retentive memory.

If the chronicler, who admired Edward as much as he hated Richard, describes him in these terms, they are probably accurate. I thinkit's fair to say that praise of an enemy and criticism of an idol is usually true, at least as far as the chronicles are concerned.

I agree that Edward wasn't the tyrant his grandson became, but he did institute some harsh measures that Richard later repealed, IIRC, and he certainly did not hesitate to use his personal charm to his own benefit.

Carol

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The execution of Clarence, along with the observation that Richard only came to court twice more (was it?) after that, hints to me, that not only Edward found it hard to live with what had happened. It can hardly have made it any easier to go on hero-worshipping Big Brother, if indeed, Richard hadn't already begun to view his brother through more adult eyes.

Carol responds:

Yes, just twice that I recall, once to see his sister Margaret (who had come to England to ask Edward for aid that he didn't give) and once, IIRC, after his victory over the Scots (when he was cheered as a hero).

Since Richard was twenty-five when George was executed and had already witnessed Picquigny (as well as Edward's increasing debauchery), he had probably already lost most of his youthful illusions. If not, I'm sure you're right--one brother executing another would have destroyed any vestiges of hero worship. Since Richard's loyalty didn't die along with his illusions, nor did he himself become any less trustworthy and dependable, I think he may have shifted his loyalty to the House of York (as I suggested in another post).

Carol

Which must, I have to think, have included even illegitimate children!

A J


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:45 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The execution of Clarence, along with the observation that Richard only
> came to court twice more (was it?) after that, hints to me, that not only
> Edward found it hard to live with what had happened. It can hardly have
> made it any easier to go on hero-worshipping Big Brother, if indeed,
> Richard hadn't already begun to view his brother through more adult eyes.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, just twice that I recall, once to see his sister Margaret (who had
> come to England to ask Edward for aid that he didn't give) and once, IIRC,
> after his victory over the Scots (when he was cheered as a hero).
>
> Since Richard was twenty-five when George was executed and had already
> witnessed Picquigny (as well as Edward's increasing debauchery), he had
> probably already lost most of his youthful illusions. If not, I'm sure
> you're right--one brother executing another would have destroyed any
> vestiges of hero worship. Since Richard's loyalty didn't die along with his
> illusions, nor did he himself become any less trustworthy and dependable, I
> think he may have shifted his loyalty to the House of York (as I suggested
> in another post).
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Can I ask what I know is a provocative question? If Richard still hero-worshipped Edward why did he put out such criticisms of him and his lifestyle after his death? And why put Elizabeth Lambert through that particularly humiliating penance? (And I'm not meaning about the Hastings association thing). If I'm honest it's a part of Richard I find hard to reconcile. Was he put up to it? If so, he didn't have to agree to it. It feeds right into the hands of his critics who point to his own bastards and the lack of proof that he fathered them before his marriage.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 0:45
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

 



--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The execution of Clarence, along with the observation that Richard only came to court twice more (was it?) after that, hints to me, that not only Edward found it hard to live with what had happened. It can hardly have made it any easier to go on hero-worshipping Big Brother, if indeed, Richard hadn't already begun to view his brother through more adult eyes.

Carol responds:

Yes, just twice that I recall, once to see his sister Margaret (who had come to England to ask Edward for aid that he didn't give) and once, IIRC, after his victory over the Scots (when he was cheered as a hero).

Since Richard was twenty-five when George was executed and had already witnessed Picquigny (as well as Edward's increasing debauchery), he had probably already lost most of his youthful illusions. If not, I'm sure you're right--one brother executing another would have destroyed any vestiges of hero worship. Since Richard's loyalty didn't die along with his illusions, nor did he himself become any less trustworthy and dependable, I think he may have shifted his loyalty to the House of York (as I suggested in another post).

Carol

On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
he had on people.
We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
That's charisma.
Paul


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Absolutely. There's the oft-quoted story of the widow (?) doubling her contribution for the French wars after Edward gave her a kiss.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 10:55
Subject: Re: Royal Charisma


 

On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
he had on people.
We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
That's charisma.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

There was a long discussion recently about Eleanor Butler's believed family connections, but I can't remember the thread or find a whisker of it now. Can anyone point me in its direction please??? Pretty please?

Sandra

Ooh, I used to have a bit of a pash for Nicholas Clay many years ago.  So sad he died young.
 
 

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 10:55
Subject: Re: Royal Charisma

 
On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
he had on people.
We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
That's charisma.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!


Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (94)
Recent Activity: * New Members 4 * New Photos 3
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
. a

Two amazing actors, and such lovely stories! Thank you Paul

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Royal Charisma



On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
he had on people.
We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
That's charisma.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Still miss him terribly.
His youngest daughter has his height and colouring and doesn't realise
how beautiful she is. Men walk into lamposts turning to look at her as
she walks down the street. Women, and some men, used to do the same with
Nicky!
Paul

On 31/05/2013 13:37, liz williams wrote:
> Ooh, I used to have a bit of a pash for Nicholas Clay many years ago. So sad he died young.
>
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 10:55
> Subject: Re: Royal Charisma
>
>
> On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
>> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
> One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
> of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
> hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
> talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
> vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
> autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
> he had on people.
> We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
> friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
> dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
> Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
> screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
> London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
> hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
> moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
> That's charisma.
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

A J Hibbard wrote:


"Richard's loyalty was understandable, even if misplaced, yes?"

What I meant by "misplaced" was that it was *Edward* who didn't necessarily
deserve the loyalty Richard gave, not that Richard should have been loyal.
As Edward was King, head of the House of York *and* his brother, certainly
Richard owed him loyalty. Once again it's the major problem of direct
monarchial governance - where the monarch, because he/she was so central to
the overall poltical well-being of the realm, often had to be supported even
when you weren't in agreement with them. Unless the views/policies of the
monarch could be changed, there were *only* two options: acquiesence or
rebellion.
If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't until the Hanoverians that the concept of
"loyal opposition" developed and *that* occurred because the monarch was no
longer directly ruling.
Perhaps had Richard spent more time at Court, he *might* have been able to
influence some of Edward's decisions/actions, but it's just as likely that,
even had Richard been at Court, Edward would have acted the same and made
the same decisions. He was, after all, an adult.
Doug

I looked at his images and was shocked to see that he died, and still so young and with such great things ahead.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 7:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Royal Charisma



Ooh, I used to have a bit of a pash for Nicholas Clay many years ago. So sad he died young.



From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 10:55
Subject: Re: Royal Charisma


On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
he had on people.
We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
That's charisma.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (94)
Recent Activity: * New Members 4 * New Photos 3
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest * Unsubscribe * Terms of Use * Send us Feedback
. a

I saw that it was liver cancer. That silent and cruel killer.....along with pancreatic and ovarian cancer, is 99% fatal. If there is a heaven, and if I get there, I will have plenty of questions. However, one will be, why do good and talented people get this, when there are lines of perfectly healthy SOB's walking around, blissfully healthy?


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Royal Charisma



Still miss him terribly.
His youngest daughter has his height and colouring and doesn't realise
how beautiful she is. Men walk into lamposts turning to look at her as
she walks down the street. Women, and some men, used to do the same with
Nicky!
Paul

On 31/05/2013 13:37, liz williams wrote:
> Ooh, I used to have a bit of a pash for Nicholas Clay many years ago. So sad he died young.
>
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 31 May 2013, 10:55
> Subject: Re: Royal Charisma
>
>
> On 30/05/2013 18:24, wednesday_mc wrote:
>> I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make one want to do what he wants
> One of my oldest and dearest friends, Nicolas Clay, who played Lancelot
> of Excalibur, was just like this. He came to visit me once when I was in
> hospital and the whole ward froze, watching him as he came in, sat
> talking to me, and as he was leaving. Once he had gone nurses and
> vistors rushed over asking me how I knew him and could I get his
> autograph for them! A lot of the time he never had a clue of the effect
> he had on people.
> We once went backstage after a performance at the RSC to see an old
> friend of his, and the entire cast of King Lear came out of their
> dressing rooms wanting to talk to him, many having never met him before.
> Same thing happened when I met Brendan Fraser, a superb actor whose on
> screen roles rarely reflect his talent. He was playing in Streetcar in
> London, wonderful performance. Later I met him. There must have been a
> hundred people in the room, not all there just to meet him, but the
> moment he walked in he dominated it. One couldn't take your eyes off him.
> That's charisma.
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Claire M Jordan wrote:


"Well, if Tey's quote from the Paston letters was accurate, about Edward
coming every day to see his little brothers even when he was madly busy,
then he was a good brother and and it sounds like he loved Richard as
Richard loved him. Which makes it all the sadder that he ended up killing
George."

But it's always easier to do things one likes, isn't it? Edward liked his
brothers, so he visited them as often as he could and saw they were provided
for.
Edward didn't like the necessary day-to-day work involved in being a 15th
century monarch so, whenever possible, he shifted it off onto others. Before
the Pre-Adeption Warwick seems to have been the prime "mover and shaker",
I'm uncertain as to how much of that was due to Warwick believeing it was
his due and how much to Edward's not wanting to do something that just
didn't interest him. Perhaps a bit of a mix?
After reclaiming the throne, Hastings, his Woodville relations and Richard
seem to have taken Warwick's place; leaving Edward free to do what he was
interested in: eating, drinking, wenching and generally just having a fine
old time. Of course, any tendencies towards self-indulgence on Edward's part
just *might* have been accentuated by having already once been chased of the
throne; sort of an "enjoy it while it lasts" attitude?
I've checked my masterlist of required reading and see that there's nothing
about EIV on it. Are there any good biographies out there?
Doug

wednesday_mc wrote:

"I don't think Richard misplaced his loyalty, but he may have looked at his
brother through the rose-tinted glasses of childhood hero-worship until time
(and the Woodvilles and Stillington) taught him his brother had faults, just
like anyone else. But he wasn't a tyrant. He just liked...women a little too
much for the safety of his dynasty.
I think Edward must have had a lot of charisma to spare -- the sort of man
who can enter the room and dominate it, make people smile and feel he's
focused exclusively on them. Within half an hour's conversation, he'd make
one want to do what he wants -- including donating hundreds of pounds to his
cause.
To be given absolute power at 19 is an extraordinary thing. To have the
charisma and wisdom to wield it is another thing(s). Perhaps the miracle is
that Edward seems to have become more sybarite than despot. He pleased
himself in the beginning when he married Eleanor Butler, he pleased himself
with the Treaty of Picquigny and the French gold it brought him, and perhaps
he pleasing himself into an early grave with wine, women, and rich nummies.
More and more, I see in Henry VIII as an amazing combination of his father
and grandfather. He could be as ruthless as H7, but his appetites were as
huge as E4's. I suppose the difference is that H7 publicized and married his
lusts ("I needs me an heir!" "I wants me some money, let me take the
church's!), while E4 took sekrit wives and not-so-sekrit mistresses, and
loved benevolences.
But Edward wasn't raised in a royal household. His...um...earthy
habits...when it came to sekrit marriages... might reflect his lack of
proper kingly attitude/behavior? He and Richard also seem to have empathized
with and cared more about the "lesser" people he ruled over than the Tudors
ever did. Perhaps that's because they were both at home with those people
and never locked away from them while they were growing up. Both Edward and
Richard moved among, worked beside, fought beside, and listened to the
unwashed, as it were. I can't see any Tudor doing that -- not willingly, not
even during their royal 'at homes' when they were supposed to listen.
Edward might have served his own appetites with, "More. Now. Again," but I
don't think he set out to do the damage he did to his family, brother,
realm. On the other hand, Henry VIII's, "More. Now. Again," deliberately and
systematically hurt a great many people. He knew it, but didn't care. "I got
what I wanted." (I also think his head injury taken while jousting didn't
help matters.)
Both men took what they wanted on a grand, gluttonous scale, but I think the
grandson was much more of a tyrant than the grandfather ever wanted to be.
At least Edward tried to be a good king and in the main succeeded. Henry, on
the other hand, just seems to have been...excessive and gluttonous on many
levels, and a lot more of the freakin' time."

Doug here:
That's it!
I think looking at EIV as self-indulgent, but *not* mean-spirited fits best
what we know about him (and his "activities"), which was where I was trying
to get to. An egoist (the center of his world), rather than an egotist (the
world *has* to revolve around him).
Again, thank you very much!
Doug

The only book on Edw IV I have read is Charles Ross's biography which is incredibly dense but very good on detail. From what I recall of it, you do get a very strong sense of the amount of admin-style work that Edward had to do in the 70's, and foreign negotiations for trade, rather than the trekking-about kind of work Warwick and his brother were busy doing in the 60's. I would recommend this biog anyway.

Col

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
>
> "Well, if Tey's quote from the Paston letters was accurate, about Edward
> coming every day to see his little brothers even when he was madly busy,
> then he was a good brother and and it sounds like he loved Richard as
> Richard loved him. Which makes it all the sadder that he ended up killing
> George."
>
> But it's always easier to do things one likes, isn't it? Edward liked his
> brothers, so he visited them as often as he could and saw they were provided
> for.
> Edward didn't like the necessary day-to-day work involved in being a 15th
> century monarch so, whenever possible, he shifted it off onto others. Before
> the Pre-Adeption Warwick seems to have been the prime "mover and shaker",
> I'm uncertain as to how much of that was due to Warwick believeing it was
> his due and how much to Edward's not wanting to do something that just
> didn't interest him. Perhaps a bit of a mix?
> After reclaiming the throne, Hastings, his Woodville relations and Richard
> seem to have taken Warwick's place; leaving Edward free to do what he was
> interested in: eating, drinking, wenching and generally just having a fine
> old time. Of course, any tendencies towards self-indulgence on Edward's part
> just *might* have been accentuated by having already once been chased of the
> throne; sort of an "enjoy it while it lasts" attitude?
> I've checked my masterlist of required reading and see that there's nothing
> about EIV on it. Are there any good biographies out there?
> Doug
>

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington
and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't until the Hanoverians that the concept of
"loyal opposition" developed and *that* occurred because the monarch was no
longer directly ruling.

Depending on exactly how you want to define it, you might call the attitude
of Thomas Fairfax during the English Civil War "loyal opposition". He
fought Charles I's regime and wanted to limit the king's power but he didn't
really want to depose him, and certainly not to kill him - and he refused to
take part in the tribunal or the government which executed Charles.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Can I ask what I know is a provocative question? If Richard still hero-worshipped Edward why did he put out such criticisms of him and his lifestyle after his death? And why put Elizabeth Lambert through that particularly humiliating penance? (And I'm not meaning about the Hastings association thing). If I'm honest it's a part of Richard I find hard to reconcile. Was he put up to it? If so, he didn't have to agree to it. It feeds right into the hands of his critics who point to his own bastards and the lack of proof that he fathered them before his marriage.

Carol responds:

I don't have time to answer this post as fully as I'd like to, but, as I said, I think the hero worship stopped well before George's execution and probably before Picquigny. Richard's moral code was based on chivalry and medieval Catholicism--fornication before marriage was a venial sin, adultery (after marriage) a mortal one. There is no question that Richard was trying to reform the morals of the whole kingdom, including the clergy (I don't have time to cite documents now, but I can find them later), and that he was trying to set a moral example. (I think that Caxton was implicitly acknowledging this goal of Richard's when he dedicated his book on chivalry to him.) Richard clearly did not approve of adultery (or of illegitimate monarchs). Some people, Kendall, for example, consider him a bit of a prude or even an incipient Puritan, but I think that's a mistake since he also believed in pageantry and pleasure at Christmas and other occasions.

If you haven't yet read the "Perfect Prince" article that I cited the other day, I think it would help you to understand this aspect of him: http://www.richardiii.net/2_1_0_richardiii.php (scroll down to the SoA portrait). Maybe it also fits with the "control freak" idea suggested by the psychologists in their analysis of him (which I don't fully agree with, BTW, especially the part about his "deformity").

At any rate, we have the choice of seeing him as a colossal hypocrite, which I don't think was the case, or as someone who firmly believed that clean living was not only right and godly (after a few "inevitable" wild oats sown by teenage boys with willing girls) but that debauchery brought with it the seeds of physical and moral destruction (amply demonstrated by Edward, Dorset, and perhaps Hastings).

Richard's requirement that Mistress Shore do penance for her unclean living was quite merciful if he also thought that she was a go-between in the plot against him, but it may also illustrate his belief that she helped to corrupt and destroy Edward. There's no way to know, but all indications are that he believed much more strongly than many of the people around him in being faithful to your wife and in refraining from sinful indulgence in any kind. I'm not sure, but I believe that his proclamations against traitors are unique in referring to "bawds and adulterers," among other charges, as opposed to the standard ones of trying to kill him and usurp the throne.

It seems that he saw himself (much as Henry Tudor claimed to do later) as God's chosen agent, but Henry's mission was simply to destroy Richard and take over the kingdom. Richard's was to reform it in every way, from the safety of its citizens and the justice of its laws to the morality of everyone from the clergy down.

That may seem high-handed of him, but he clearly saw himself as the rightful king and not a usurper. He almost certainly was not an adulterer himself or his enemies would have commented on his hypocrisy in that matter. And, in a way, Richard's sincere and almost fanatical devotion to improving everyone else's morals is a strong testament in his innocence of the greatest charge against him. If he criticized adultery in others but had himself committed child murder, he was the greatest hypocrite of all time. But, needless to say, I don't think he was a hypocrite at all, just obstinately devoted to righting every wrong he could get his hands on, including, unfortunately, sins that other people were perfectly happy to commit.

Carol

I have often wondered if the quote about Richard being '...the rightful (or was it 'true'?) son of his father...' referred not to Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy but to Richard having a similar character to his father, the Duke of York.  As far as I know, there is no mention of the Duke having bastards.  He certainly took his wife with him everywhere judging by the birthplaces of his children.  Does anyone know if Richard of York was interested in the same principles of justice and honesty and moral behaviour as his youngest son?



________________________________
  justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote;


(SNIP)
 

That may seem high-handed of him, but he clearly saw himself as the rightful king and not a usurper. He almost certainly was not an adulterer himself or his enemies would have commented on his hypocrisy in that matter. And, in a way, Richard's sincere and almost fanatical devotion to improving everyone else's morals is a strong testament in his innocence of the greatest charge against him. If he criticized adultery in others but had himself committed child murder, he was the greatest hypocrite of all time. But, needless to say, I don't think he was a hypocrite at all, just obstinately devoted to righting every wrong he could get his hands on, including, unfortunately, sins that other people were perfectly happy to commit.

Carol

Pamela Furmidge wrote:


"I have often wondered if the quote about Richard being '...the rightful (or
was it 'true'?) son of his father...' referred not to Edward IV's supposed
illegitimacy but to Richard having a similar character to his father, the
Duke of York. As far as I know, there is no mention of the Duke having
bastards. He certainly took his wife with him everywhere judging by the
birthplaces of his children. Does anyone know if Richard of York was
interested in the same principles of justice and honesty and moral behaviour
as his youngest son?"

Doug here:
For what it's worth, *I* think that's a reference to Richard's *legitimate"
descent as opposed to his nephews' *illegitimate* descent. I don't believe
there ever was an attempt to promote EIV as being illegitimate by Richard,
or any of his supporters. The rumors floated during the Re-Adeption were an
obvious tit-for-tat for those about Edward of Lancaster *not* being HVI's
true son.
I've said before that references to EIV's "illegitimacy" may originally have
been due to the hearer's confusion between about whether EIV and E(V) was
being referred to, someone recognized the propaganda value and ran with it.
Of course, *after* Bosworth, anything could be safely imputed to any of
Richard's actions...
Doug

colyngbourne wrote:


"The only book on Edw IV I have read is Charles Ross's biography which is
incredibly dense but very good on detail. From what I recall of it, you do
get a very strong sense of the amount of admin-style work that Edward had to
do in the 70's, and foreign negotiations for trade, rather than the
trekking-about kind of work Warwick and his brother were busy doing in the
60's. I would recommend this biog anyway."

Thank you. I can handle "dense", it just may take me a bit longer!
Doug

There is also an interesting one by David Santiuste 'Edward IV and the
WOTR' who looks at Edward through a warriors eyes, and reassesses his
relationship with Warwick.
It covers the years up to 1471 plus a short post script.
Worth the diversion, as they say in the Michelin!
Paul


On 31/05/2013 17:09, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> colyngbourne wrote:
>
>
> "The only book on Edw IV I have read is Charles Ross's biography which is
> incredibly dense but very good on detail. From what I recall of it, you do
> get a very strong sense of the amount of admin-style work that Edward had to
> do in the 70's, and foreign negotiations for trade, rather than the
> trekking-about kind of work Warwick and his brother were busy doing in the
> 60's. I would recommend this biog anyway."
>
> Thank you. I can handle "dense", it just may take me a bit longer!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> I have often wondered if the quote about Richard being '...the rightful (or was it 'true'?) son of his father...' referred not to Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy but to Richard having a similar character to his father, the Duke of York.  As far as I know, there is no mention of the Duke having bastards.  He certainly took his wife with him everywhere judging by the birthplaces of his children.  Does anyone know if Richard of York was interested in the same principles of justice and honesty and moral behaviour as his youngest son?

Carol responds:

I don't know a great deal about Richard of York, but I do know that when he served as Protector (while Henry VI was incapacitated by insanity), he was committed to reform and had Somerset, one of Henry's corrupt advisors--a special favorite of Margaret of Anjou--committed to the Tower (he was released after Henry recovered). Richard's lifelong veneration of his father seems to indicate that he believed him to represent those same principles.

However, the "true son of his father" probably implies that Richard, unlike Edward IV (about whom rumors of illegitimacy had circulated, true or not), was undoubtedly illegitimate rather than indicating any resemblance in character or appearance.

The chroniclers differ on the content of Shaw's sermon, in which this remark ostensibly occurred (Mancini says it was about Edward's illegitimacy and stated that Richard "altogether resembled his father," but Croyland, more reliable in this instance, says it was about the illegitimacy of Edward's sons), but Titulus Regius itself (without directly impugning Edward's legitimacy) takes pains to establish Richard's legitimacy (and his father's right to the throne):

"Over this we consider, how that you be the undoubted son and heir of Richard late Duke of York, very inheritor to the said crown and dignity royal and as in right King of England . . . ."

Can anyone find what Fabyan says about Shaw's (Shaa's) sermon in the Great Chronicle? If I recall correctly, he was present at the sermon (and, unlike Mancini, spoke English). There's no online version, and the biographers are very careless about quoting their sources in this instance, tending to generalize about "sermons" which may or may not have contained both versions. (I consulted both Kendall and Ross but didn't go back to Halsted or Gairdner.)

It wouldn't be the duke having bastard children that we're concerned with here. The question is whether the sermon implied that Edward wasn't the duke's son but Richard was, as shown by his resemblance to his father. (The person having the bastard would be Cecily.) But the evidence is very contradictory, and even More admits that Richard was unlikely to allow his mother's chastity to be impugned in a public sermon. Her implied support for him (he visited her before Bosworth and used her house to hold meetings, among other things) strongly indicates that the sermon was about the bastardy of Edward's sons, in which case no remark about Richard's resemblance to his father would have been made--except possibly in support of his qualities for kingship with no implication that Edward was not also a true son.

Carol

Do any of us actually have a copy of the Great Chronicle of London? At
over $700 it's too expensive for my taste, & the only way I could put my
hands on it would be through ILL.

A J


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > I have often wondered if the quote about Richard being '...the rightful
> (or was it 'true'?) son of his father...' referred not to Edward IV's
> supposed illegitimacy but to Richard having a similar character to his
> father, the Duke of York.ý As far as I know, there is no mention of the
> Duke having bastards.ý He certainly took his wife with him everywhere
> judging by the birthplaces of his children.ý Does anyone know if Richard
> of York was interested in the same principles of justice and honesty and
> moral behaviour as his youngest son?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know a great deal about Richard of York, but I do know that when
> he served as Protector (while Henry VI was incapacitated by insanity), he
> was committed to reform and had Somerset, one of Henry's corrupt
> advisors--a special favorite of Margaret of Anjou--committed to the Tower
> (he was released after Henry recovered). Richard's lifelong veneration of
> his father seems to indicate that he believed him to represent those same
> principles.
>
> However, the "true son of his father" probably implies that Richard,
> unlike Edward IV (about whom rumors of illegitimacy had circulated, true or
> not), was undoubtedly illegitimate rather than indicating any resemblance
> in character or appearance.
>
> The chroniclers differ on the content of Shaw's sermon, in which this
> remark ostensibly occurred (Mancini says it was about Edward's illegitimacy
> and stated that Richard "altogether resembled his father," but Croyland,
> more reliable in this instance, says it was about the illegitimacy of
> Edward's sons), but Titulus Regius itself (without directly impugning
> Edward's legitimacy) takes pains to establish Richard's legitimacy (and his
> father's right to the throne):
>
> "Over this we consider, how that you be the undoubted son and heir of
> Richard late Duke of York, very inheritor to the said crown and dignity
> royal and as in right King of England . . . ."
>
> Can anyone find what Fabyan says about Shaw's (Shaa's) sermon in the Great
> Chronicle? If I recall correctly, he was present at the sermon (and, unlike
> Mancini, spoke English). There's no online version, and the biographers are
> very careless about quoting their sources in this instance, tending to
> generalize about "sermons" which may or may not have contained both
> versions. (I consulted both Kendall and Ross but didn't go back to Halsted
> or Gairdner.)
>
> It wouldn't be the duke having bastard children that we're concerned with
> here. The question is whether the sermon implied that Edward wasn't the
> duke's son but Richard was, as shown by his resemblance to his father. (The
> person having the bastard would be Cecily.) But the evidence is very
> contradictory, and even More admits that Richard was unlikely to allow his
> mother's chastity to be impugned in a public sermon. Her implied support
> for him (he visited her before Bosworth and used her house to hold
> meetings, among other things) strongly indicates that the sermon was about
> the bastardy of Edward's sons, in which case no remark about Richard's
> resemblance to his father would have been made--except possibly in support
> of his qualities for kingship with no implication that Edward was not also
> a true son.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

we ILL people like sharing for free :-) btw, I have access to some of my databases from home if anyone needs help locating libraries that have an item.
Nicole

~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy

> To:
> From: ajhibbard@...
> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 13:06:21 -0500
> Subject: Re: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> Do any of us actually have a copy of the Great Chronicle of London? At
> over $700 it's too expensive for my taste, & the only way I could put my
> hands on it would be through ILL.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >
> > > I have often wondered if the quote about Richard being '...the rightful
> > (or was it 'true'?) son of his father...' referred not to Edward IV's
> > supposed illegitimacy but to Richard having a similar character to his
> > father, the Duke of York. As far as I know, there is no mention of the
> > Duke having bastards. He certainly took his wife with him everywhere
> > judging by the birthplaces of his children. Does anyone know if Richard
> > of York was interested in the same principles of justice and honesty and
> > moral behaviour as his youngest son?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I don't know a great deal about Richard of York, but I do know that when
> > he served as Protector (while Henry VI was incapacitated by insanity), he
> > was committed to reform and had Somerset, one of Henry's corrupt
> > advisors--a special favorite of Margaret of Anjou--committed to the Tower
> > (he was released after Henry recovered). Richard's lifelong veneration of
> > his father seems to indicate that he believed him to represent those same
> > principles.
> >
> > However, the "true son of his father" probably implies that Richard,
> > unlike Edward IV (about whom rumors of illegitimacy had circulated, true or
> > not), was undoubtedly illegitimate rather than indicating any resemblance
> > in character or appearance.
> >
> > The chroniclers differ on the content of Shaw's sermon, in which this
> > remark ostensibly occurred (Mancini says it was about Edward's illegitimacy
> > and stated that Richard "altogether resembled his father," but Croyland,
> > more reliable in this instance, says it was about the illegitimacy of
> > Edward's sons), but Titulus Regius itself (without directly impugning
> > Edward's legitimacy) takes pains to establish Richard's legitimacy (and his
> > father's right to the throne):
> >
> > "Over this we consider, how that you be the undoubted son and heir of
> > Richard late Duke of York, very inheritor to the said crown and dignity
> > royal and as in right King of England . . . ."
> >
> > Can anyone find what Fabyan says about Shaw's (Shaa's) sermon in the Great
> > Chronicle? If I recall correctly, he was present at the sermon (and, unlike
> > Mancini, spoke English). There's no online version, and the biographers are
> > very careless about quoting their sources in this instance, tending to
> > generalize about "sermons" which may or may not have contained both
> > versions. (I consulted both Kendall and Ross but didn't go back to Halsted
> > or Gairdner.)
> >
> > It wouldn't be the duke having bastard children that we're concerned with
> > here. The question is whether the sermon implied that Edward wasn't the
> > duke's son but Richard was, as shown by his resemblance to his father. (The
> > person having the bastard would be Cecily.) But the evidence is very
> > contradictory, and even More admits that Richard was unlikely to allow his
> > mother's chastity to be impugned in a public sermon. Her implied support
> > for him (he visited her before Bosworth and used her house to hold
> > meetings, among other things) strongly indicates that the sermon was about
> > the bastardy of Edward's sons, in which case no remark about Richard's
> > resemblance to his father would have been made--except possibly in support
> > of his qualities for kingship with no implication that Edward was not also
> > a true son.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

NICOLE MASIKA wrote:
>
> we ILL people like sharing for free :-) btw, I have access to some of my databases from home if anyone needs help locating libraries that have an item.

Carol responds:

Hi, Nicole. Is there any way you can copy the pages of the Great Chronicle that relate directly to Richard and add them to our Files? I would be eternally grateful if you could manage that. (Not that I think Fabyan is an accurate chronicler, but he's intermediate between Mancini/Croyland and More/Vergil, so his take on matters (though pro-Tudor and reliant on rumor) could be informative.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)


> However, the "true son of his father" probably implies that Richard,
> unlike Edward IV (about whom rumors of illegitimacy had circulated, true
> or not), was undoubtedly illegitimate rather than indicating any
> resemblance in character or appearance.

You mean, undoubtedly legitimate!

I tend to agree, but otoh there is that idiomatic expression when people say
"Oh, he's his father's son all right" and they don't mean to imply that the
person's brothers *aren't* their father's sons, but rather that the person
being referred to is so obviously like their father, in appearance or
manner, that one can see it at once without needing to be told. A bit like
saying someone is "a chip off the old block".

Carol earlier:
>
> > However, the "true son of his father" probably implies that Richard, unlike Edward IV (about whom rumors of illegitimacy had circulated, true or not), was undoubtedly illegitimate rather than indicating any resemblance in character or appearance.

Claire responded:
> You mean, undoubtedly legitimate!

Carol again:

Oi! Yes, I do! BTW, I'm trying to find out if any contemporary or near-contemporary suggests that Richard's likeness to his father was mentioned (and also whether anyone besides More mentions the "bastard slips" theme).

Apparently, Mancini mentions unnamed preachers as claiming that Edward IV was unlike his father (which has the same implication), but Mancini's vagueness, with neither names nor dates, suggests that he is reporting (or misreporting) from hearsay. He is so utterly offbase with regard to the Duke of Buckingham's speech, evidently confusing the precontract with Eleanor Butler with the negotiations for marriage with Bona of Savoy, that nothing he says here can be credited.

I can't find (so far) any other early reference to Richard's resemblance to his father by either Dr. Shaw or Buckingham. Based on Annette's Carson's paraphrase, Vitellius (an early Tudor chronicle) and Fabyan's New Chronicle mention only that Dr. Shaw mentioned the illegitimacy of Edward's children and their unfitness to wear the crown "without elaboration . . . or mention of Edward IV's illegitimacy"--in other words, these sources are unlikely to be the source or the idea that Dr. Shaw mentioned Richard's likeness to his father.

The question becomes, did he say any such thing? If all we have is Mancini's mangled account (Croyland doesn't mention any sermons, only the much more important parchment roll) and More and Vergil's contradictory and fictionalized accounts, maybe neither Shaw nor Buckingham ever made any such remark.

All these constantly repeated statements, all these things we think we know . . . .

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)

> The question becomes, did he say any such thing? If all we have is
> Mancini's mangled account (Croyland doesn't mention any sermons, only the
> much more important parchment roll) and More and Vergil's contradictory
> and fictionalized accounts, maybe neither Shaw nor Buckingham ever made
> any such remark.

In which case, all we can say is that they probably weren't wildly
*un*alike. If RDoY had been 6'4" and blond, or 4'6", built like a barrel
and sprouting allover black hair like a rug, that would probably have been
remembered, and anybody inventing a speech about RIII looking like his
father would invite ridicule. For the inventor to expect their invention to
be credible I would expect RDoY to have been either at least vaguely like
his son or so nondescript that nobody now remembered what he had looked
like.

Claire wrote:
>
> In which case, all we can say is that they probably weren't wildly
> *un*alike. [snip] For the inventor to expect their invention to
> be credible I would expect RDoY to have been either at least vaguely like his son or so nondescript that nobody now remembered what he had looked like.

Carol reponds:

By the time Vergil and More were writing (ca. 1513), only very old men and women would remember Richard, Duke of York, who had died at the end of 1460. Almost everyone who had fought with him or against him or had worked with him in council was dead, as were his wife, Cecily (d. 1495), Stillington (d. 1491), and Morton (d. 1500).

Carol

Didn't someone post a picture recently of an illustrated manuscript with Richard, Duke of York bottom right? I've just looked at the forum pics and so on but can't find it. I haven't time right now to trawl through it again, but it must be there somewhere. I copied the picture to my files, so if it cannot be found, I can post it again. The figure appears to have (unless it's soft hat of some sort) warm golden hair, shaved well back from his face, and a prominent nose and chin. And calf pads! No doubt I'll be on my own in this description!
Claire wrote:
>
> In which case, all we can say is that they probably weren't wildly
> *un*alike. [snip] For the inventor to expect their invention to
> be credible I would expect RDoY to have been either at least vaguely like his son or so nondescript that nobody now remembered what he had looked like.

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:


"There is also an interesting one by David Santiuste 'Edward IV and the
WOTR' who looks at Edward through a warriors eyes, and reassesses his
relationship with Warwick.
It covers the years up to 1471 plus a short post script.
Worth the diversion, as they say in the Michelin!"

Thank you! I've added it to my (ever-growing) list.
Doug

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Didn’t someone post a picture recently of an illustrated manuscript with Richard, Duke of York bottom right? I’ve just looked at the forum pics and so on but can’t find it. I haven’t time right now to trawl through it again, but it must be there somewhere. I copied the picture to my files, so if it cannot be found, I can post it again. The figure appears to have (unless it’s soft hat of some sort) warm golden hair, shaved well back from his face, and a prominent nose and chin. And calf pads! No doubt I’ll be on my own in this description!
>


Not sure if your question has been answered yet, as I'm catching up on posts in a very haphazard fashion, but I was the one who posted the link to that picture, and it's here:
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef017743768c5a970d-800wi

It's either calf pads, or artistic license ;) Either way, the chin is definitely there!

I've never been able to post anything in the forum gallery, so it would be great if someone more capable could do that... I think it's an interesting picture - and the hair colour doesn't seem to be generic, either.

Thank you Pansy. I have now uploaded it (Maybe again? Didn't see.) for you and anyone else who has not seen it before. It is in Photo Albums, Portraits, the last picture, titled Richard, Duke of York, bottom right. http://groups.yahoo.com/group//photos/album/1745914889/pic/91564987/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=21&count=20&dir=asc

Sandra

From: pansydobersby
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 6:51 PM
To:
Subject: Duke of York's likeness (Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Didn’t someone post a picture recently of an illustrated manuscript with Richard, Duke of York bottom right? I’ve just looked at the forum pics and so on but can’t find it. I haven’t time right now to trawl through it again, but it must be there somewhere. I copied the picture to my files, so if it cannot be found, I can post it again. The figure appears to have (unless it’s soft hat of some sort) warm golden hair, shaved well back from his face, and a prominent nose and chin. And calf pads! No doubt I’ll be on my own in this description!
>

Not sure if your question has been answered yet, as I'm catching up on posts in a very haphazard fashion, but I was the one who posted the link to that picture, and it's here:
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/.a/6a00d8341c464853ef017743768c5a970d-800wi

It's either calf pads, or artistic license ;) Either way, the chin is definitely there!

I've never been able to post anything in the forum gallery, so it would be great if someone more capable could do that... I think it's an interesting picture - and the hair colour doesn't seem to be generic, either.

.

Hi
David Santiuste is very complementary regarding Edward's abilities as a military leader and administrator. He thinks that if he had lived longer he could even have eclipsed kings such as Edward I and Edward III. Not sure I agree with the assessment on his military career though as Edward's best days as a military leader and soldier were well behind him and the fact he died relatively young has probably led to an enhanced reputation in that area as far as his military exploits go. I enjoyed the book.
Elaine

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
>
> "There is also an interesting one by David Santiuste 'Edward IV and the
> WOTR' who looks at Edward through a warriors eyes, and reassesses his
> relationship with Warwick.
> It covers the years up to 1471 plus a short post script.
> Worth the diversion, as they say in the Michelin!"
>
> Thank you! I've added it to my (ever-growing) list.
> Doug
>

And we don't (well, I don't, anyway) know how much Edward depended on
Warwick; while we do know he did receive assistance from the "furious human
pretzel." (joke)

A J


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi
> David Santiuste is very complementary regarding Edward's abilities as a
> military leader and administrator. He thinks that if he had lived longer he
> could even have eclipsed kings such as Edward I and Edward III. Not sure I
> agree with the assessment on his military career though as Edward's best
> days as a military leader and soldier were well behind him and the fact he
> died relatively young has probably led to an enhanced reputation in that
> area as far as his military exploits go. I enjoyed the book.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> >
> > "There is also an interesting one by David Santiuste 'Edward IV and the
> > WOTR' who looks at Edward through a warriors eyes, and reassesses his
> > relationship with Warwick.
> > It covers the years up to 1471 plus a short post script.
> > Worth the diversion, as they say in the Michelin!"
> >
> > Thank you! I've added it to my (ever-growing) list.
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Pansy. I have now uploaded it (Maybe again? Didn’t see.) for you and anyone else who has not seen it before. It is in Photo Albums, Portraits, the last picture, titled Richard, Duke of York, bottom right. http://groups.yahoo.com/group//photos/album/1745914889/pic/91564987/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=21&count=20&dir=asc
>
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Thanks Sandra (and Pansy). Oddly, if you click "Original," it shows up larger than if you click "Large."

Pansy, can you provide the information about that picture again? What is it, who made it, when was it made, and how do you know that the blond man with the bulging calves (Charley horses? Ouch!) is the Duke of York?

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pansy, can you provide the information about that picture again? What is it, who made it, when was it made, and how do you know that the blond man with the bulging calves (Charley horses? Ouch!) is the Duke of York?
>
> Carol
>

It's Henry VI's family tree. At the bottom, Henry's in the middle; Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester on the left; and Richard, Duke of York on the right. You can recognise him by his coat of arms.

Here's more information about the manuscript:
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2012/07/the-talbot-shrewsbury-book-goes-online.html

(And an even larger version pops up if you click on the image - or at least it looks slightly larger on my screen!)

I think I mentioned this before, but I first saw a black-and-white version of the image in 'The Wars of the Roses' by Charles Ross. Was delighted to find the full version in colour online. I'm surprised I haven't come across this picture in more books - or I have no recollection of having seen it, anyway, whereas that picture of Henry and Margaret of Anjou is practically everywhere.