How did this work?
How did this work?
2013-06-21 22:29:16
F
rom the Calendar of the Patent Rolls (1461-1471), here's the appointment
of George, Duke of Clarence, as Lieutenant of Ireland.
p 142]
Membrane 16.
1462.
Feb. 28. Westminster.
Appointment of the kingýs brother George, duke of Clarence, as his
lieutenant in Ireland until 7 years from 6 March next, with power to
appoint under the great seal of England or the great seal used in Ireland a
deputy under him in his absence, to keep the kingýs peace and laws and
punish offenders, to receive rebels into the kingýs peace, to pardon for
treasons and other offences, to take into the kingýs hands all lands of
rebels and to grant the same to suitable persons, to grant licences for
alienation in mortmain, to present to benefices in the kingýs gift, to take
fealties and renunciations of archbishops and bishops and to receive
homages of tenants, to appoint and remove officers of the chancery and
treasury, justices, barons of the exchequer, the keepr of the rolls of
chancery and other officers and ministers, to make purveyances of his
household and for the soldiers, and do all else pertaining to his office. /
By K.
I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?
A J
rom the Calendar of the Patent Rolls (1461-1471), here's the appointment
of George, Duke of Clarence, as Lieutenant of Ireland.
p 142]
Membrane 16.
1462.
Feb. 28. Westminster.
Appointment of the kingýs brother George, duke of Clarence, as his
lieutenant in Ireland until 7 years from 6 March next, with power to
appoint under the great seal of England or the great seal used in Ireland a
deputy under him in his absence, to keep the kingýs peace and laws and
punish offenders, to receive rebels into the kingýs peace, to pardon for
treasons and other offences, to take into the kingýs hands all lands of
rebels and to grant the same to suitable persons, to grant licences for
alienation in mortmain, to present to benefices in the kingýs gift, to take
fealties and renunciations of archbishops and bishops and to receive
homages of tenants, to appoint and remove officers of the chancery and
treasury, justices, barons of the exchequer, the keepr of the rolls of
chancery and other officers and ministers, to make purveyances of his
household and for the soldiers, and do all else pertaining to his office. /
By K.
I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?
A J
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-21 22:48:01
Other people used to do it for them. For example, Coventry was petitioning Edward Prince of Wales in the 1470s (when he would have been under 10) but Rivers dealt with it on his behalf.
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 22:29
Subject: How did this work?
F
rom the Calendar of the Patent Rolls (1461-1471), here's the appointment
of George, Duke of Clarence, as Lieutenant of Ireland.
p 142]
Membrane 16.
1462.
Feb. 28. Westminster.
Appointment of the king's brother George, duke of Clarence, as his
lieutenant in Ireland until 7 years from 6 March next, with power to
appoint under the great seal of England or the great seal used in Ireland a
deputy under him in his absence, to keep the king's peace and laws and
punish offenders, to receive rebels into the king's peace, to pardon for
treasons and other offences, to take into the king's hands all lands of
rebels and to grant the same to suitable persons, to grant licences for
alienation in mortmain, to present to benefices in the king's gift, to take
fealties and renunciations of archbishops and bishops and to receive
homages of tenants, to appoint and remove officers of the chancery and
treasury, justices, barons of the exchequer, the keepr of the rolls of
chancery and other officers and ministers, to make purveyances of his
household and for the soldiers, and do all else pertaining to his office. /
By K.
I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?
A J
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 22:29
Subject: How did this work?
F
rom the Calendar of the Patent Rolls (1461-1471), here's the appointment
of George, Duke of Clarence, as Lieutenant of Ireland.
p 142]
Membrane 16.
1462.
Feb. 28. Westminster.
Appointment of the king's brother George, duke of Clarence, as his
lieutenant in Ireland until 7 years from 6 March next, with power to
appoint under the great seal of England or the great seal used in Ireland a
deputy under him in his absence, to keep the king's peace and laws and
punish offenders, to receive rebels into the king's peace, to pardon for
treasons and other offences, to take into the king's hands all lands of
rebels and to grant the same to suitable persons, to grant licences for
alienation in mortmain, to present to benefices in the king's gift, to take
fealties and renunciations of archbishops and bishops and to receive
homages of tenants, to appoint and remove officers of the chancery and
treasury, justices, barons of the exchequer, the keepr of the rolls of
chancery and other officers and ministers, to make purveyances of his
household and for the soldiers, and do all else pertaining to his office. /
By K.
I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?
A J
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-22 15:19:57
A J Hibbard wrote:
//snip//
"I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?"
Doug here:
It reminds me, to a degree, of what Edward did when, after the Re-Adeption,
he split the Countess of Warwick's lands between George and Richard;
ensuring that no *one* person held too much power. Except himself, of
course.
Do we have any information as to who, if anyone, *did* go to Ireland? Was,
say, Warwick trying to get the Lieutenancy for someone? Perhaps he was
already getting a bit uneasy at Warwick running things, for the King of
course, and thought this a way to take the matter of the table.
Doug
//snip//
"I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?"
Doug here:
It reminds me, to a degree, of what Edward did when, after the Re-Adeption,
he split the Countess of Warwick's lands between George and Richard;
ensuring that no *one* person held too much power. Except himself, of
course.
Do we have any information as to who, if anyone, *did* go to Ireland? Was,
say, Warwick trying to get the Lieutenancy for someone? Perhaps he was
already getting a bit uneasy at Warwick running things, for the King of
course, and thought this a way to take the matter of the table.
Doug
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-22 15:29:11
Perhaps part of the answer?
From the Calendar of the Patent Rolls (the volume that covers 1461-1471)
p 185]
2 Edward IV.ýPart I.
1462.
Membrane 16.
May 18. Westminster.
Inspeximus and confirmation of letters patent of the kingýs brother
George, duke of Clarence, the kingýs lieutenant in Ireland, dated 16 May,
appointing Roland FitzEustace, knight, lord of Portelestre, as his deputy
in Ireland during his absence. / For ý mark paid in the hanaper.
Makes me wonder, since George was, what 13 years old at the time, where
actually was he (was he like Richard later, in someone else's establishment
supposedly learning his job?) There's so much that I don't understand yet
about how things actually worked. By analogy to what I've seen regarding
the council of the north, & the organization of a household around
Richard's son Edward, presumably there were advisory councils, but who were
they, who determined who they were, and where are the records? Someone,
perhaps Rhoda Edwards, made the comment that George, as an adult, typically
traveled with a retinue of 200. That must be documented somewhere.
(Where's J A-H when we need him - doesn't he have a book on George in the
works?)
A J
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> //snip//
>
> "I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these
> duties
> without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
> some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
> council?"
>
> Doug here:
> It reminds me, to a degree, of what Edward did when, after the
> Re-Adeption,
> he split the Countess of Warwick's lands between George and Richard;
> ensuring that no *one* person held too much power. Except himself, of
> course.
> Do we have any information as to who, if anyone, *did* go to Ireland? Was,
> say, Warwick trying to get the Lieutenancy for someone? Perhaps he was
> already getting a bit uneasy at Warwick running things, for the King of
> course, and thought this a way to take the matter of the table.
> Doug
>
>
>
From the Calendar of the Patent Rolls (the volume that covers 1461-1471)
p 185]
2 Edward IV.ýPart I.
1462.
Membrane 16.
May 18. Westminster.
Inspeximus and confirmation of letters patent of the kingýs brother
George, duke of Clarence, the kingýs lieutenant in Ireland, dated 16 May,
appointing Roland FitzEustace, knight, lord of Portelestre, as his deputy
in Ireland during his absence. / For ý mark paid in the hanaper.
Makes me wonder, since George was, what 13 years old at the time, where
actually was he (was he like Richard later, in someone else's establishment
supposedly learning his job?) There's so much that I don't understand yet
about how things actually worked. By analogy to what I've seen regarding
the council of the north, & the organization of a household around
Richard's son Edward, presumably there were advisory councils, but who were
they, who determined who they were, and where are the records? Someone,
perhaps Rhoda Edwards, made the comment that George, as an adult, typically
traveled with a retinue of 200. That must be documented somewhere.
(Where's J A-H when we need him - doesn't he have a book on George in the
works?)
A J
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> //snip//
>
> "I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these
> duties
> without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
> some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
> council?"
>
> Doug here:
> It reminds me, to a degree, of what Edward did when, after the
> Re-Adeption,
> he split the Countess of Warwick's lands between George and Richard;
> ensuring that no *one* person held too much power. Except himself, of
> course.
> Do we have any information as to who, if anyone, *did* go to Ireland? Was,
> say, Warwick trying to get the Lieutenancy for someone? Perhaps he was
> already getting a bit uneasy at Warwick running things, for the King of
> course, and thought this a way to take the matter of the table.
> Doug
>
>
>
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-22 17:19:32
Weren't the Butlers there as Earls of Ormonde, and the Desmonds? Stephen, is this up your street?
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 16:22
Subject: Re: How did this work?
A J Hibbard wrote:
//snip//
"I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?"
Doug here:
It reminds me, to a degree, of what Edward did when, after the Re-Adeption,
he split the Countess of Warwick's lands between George and Richard;
ensuring that no *one* person held too much power. Except himself, of
course.
Do we have any information as to who, if anyone, *did* go to Ireland? Was,
say, Warwick trying to get the Lieutenancy for someone? Perhaps he was
already getting a bit uneasy at Warwick running things, for the King of
course, and thought this a way to take the matter of the table.
Doug
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 16:22
Subject: Re: How did this work?
A J Hibbard wrote:
//snip//
"I just don't buy that a 13 year old would be left to carry off these duties
without advise. Do we have any idea how this was managed? A council of
some sort presumably - who would have determined the members of that
council?"
Doug here:
It reminds me, to a degree, of what Edward did when, after the Re-Adeption,
he split the Countess of Warwick's lands between George and Richard;
ensuring that no *one* person held too much power. Except himself, of
course.
Do we have any information as to who, if anyone, *did* go to Ireland? Was,
say, Warwick trying to get the Lieutenancy for someone? Perhaps he was
already getting a bit uneasy at Warwick running things, for the King of
course, and thought this a way to take the matter of the table.
Doug
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-22 20:39:25
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Weren't the Butlers there as Earls of Ormonde, and the Desmonds? Stephen, is this up your street?
>
Carol responds:
I'm not Stephen, but I think you're right that the Irish earls would have acted as George's deputies. In a similar situation, Richard appointed his little son, Edward, as lieutenant of Ireland, we have a letter, from "Edward, by the grace of God first-born son of the most serene prince, by the grace of God King of England and France and Lord of Ireland . . ." to "our beloved Gerald [Fitzgerald], Earl of Kildare," appointing him as Edward's deputy. (Obviously, the letter is really from Richard in his son's name.) At the same time, Richard sent the famous set of instructions to be shown to another deputy, James Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond, empathizing with him for the murder of his father, instructing him to wear English clothing, and requiring him to protect the King's subjects from robbery and oppression and be "a veray Justicer" for his own honor and the "Common wele."
See Hammond and Sutton, "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth," pp. 130-134.
By the way, I'm a bit confused because some of the documents refer to Kildare as Thomas Fitzgerald, but that seems to be the name of both his father and Desmond's father (two different people). At any rate, Kildare remained loyal to the House of York and sent troops to Stoke. According to Wikipedia, his younger brother, Sir Thomas, Richard's Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was killed at Stoke fighting for York. I don't know about Desmond, who was murdered in 1487 in any case.
To return to George as Lord of Ireland, I've discovered after a morning of searching that his deputies changed over time. Apparently, these were short-term appointments. In 1461 when he was first appointed, they were Sir Rowland Eustace and Viscount Baltinglass. (Who?) In 1463, Thomas [Fitzgerald], Earl of Desmond, was added (or substituted). In 1467, "Thomas Tiptoft," Earl of Worcester, was named Lord Deputy. (Presumably Thomas is an error for John since Edward's notorious constable is mentioned elsewhere as having become George's deputy in 1467.) In 1471, Thomas {Fitzgerald], Earl of Kildare, who had been deputy under Richard, Duke of York in 1460, replaced the executed Tiptoft. By this time, George was old enough to perform the duties of lieutenant of Ireland for himself, but Edward continued to appoint deputies. In 1475, those deputies were Kildare (again or still), the bishop of Meath, Sir Rowland Fitz-Eustace (same as Sir Rowland Eustace? His son?), and William Sherwood, Esq. In 1478, Gerald, Earl of Kildare replaced his father, who had died in 1477, along with Henry, Lord Grey and Sir Robert Preston. In 1479, when the executed George was belatedly replaced by Edward IV's young son, Richard Duke of York (who obviously needed deputies to perform his duties), Kildare was appointed his sole deputy. The book lists Kildare as sole deputy for Richard's son, Edward, as well, but the documents I listed show that the Earl of Desmond was also made a deputy. He remained deputy under John de la Pole, whom Richard appointed to replace his lost son. As I said earlier, Kildare remained loyal to the House of York and rebelled against the Tydder.
The Peerage of Ireland: A Genealogical and Historical Account, Vol. 2
http://books.google.com/books?id=JW8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Tiptoft+Earl+of+Worcester+deputy+lieutenant+of+Ireland&source=bl&ots=B27vlBp-zk&sig=RxusUXUV6plw2puqXdo4xC4Ynbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v_HFUdqOFqGmigLzmYCoAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Tiptoft%20Earl%20of%20Worcester%20deputy%20lieutenant%20of%20Ireland&f=false
Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kbftadu
I'm sure that this is more than you were looking for, AJ, but it's amazing what you can find when you stumble onto the right source! I first discovered that Tiptoft had been made George's lieutenant in 1467, and when I Googled "Tiptoft Earl of Worcester deputy lieutenant of Ireland" (no quotes), this is what I found.
Carol
>
> Weren't the Butlers there as Earls of Ormonde, and the Desmonds? Stephen, is this up your street?
>
Carol responds:
I'm not Stephen, but I think you're right that the Irish earls would have acted as George's deputies. In a similar situation, Richard appointed his little son, Edward, as lieutenant of Ireland, we have a letter, from "Edward, by the grace of God first-born son of the most serene prince, by the grace of God King of England and France and Lord of Ireland . . ." to "our beloved Gerald [Fitzgerald], Earl of Kildare," appointing him as Edward's deputy. (Obviously, the letter is really from Richard in his son's name.) At the same time, Richard sent the famous set of instructions to be shown to another deputy, James Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond, empathizing with him for the murder of his father, instructing him to wear English clothing, and requiring him to protect the King's subjects from robbery and oppression and be "a veray Justicer" for his own honor and the "Common wele."
See Hammond and Sutton, "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth," pp. 130-134.
By the way, I'm a bit confused because some of the documents refer to Kildare as Thomas Fitzgerald, but that seems to be the name of both his father and Desmond's father (two different people). At any rate, Kildare remained loyal to the House of York and sent troops to Stoke. According to Wikipedia, his younger brother, Sir Thomas, Richard's Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was killed at Stoke fighting for York. I don't know about Desmond, who was murdered in 1487 in any case.
To return to George as Lord of Ireland, I've discovered after a morning of searching that his deputies changed over time. Apparently, these were short-term appointments. In 1461 when he was first appointed, they were Sir Rowland Eustace and Viscount Baltinglass. (Who?) In 1463, Thomas [Fitzgerald], Earl of Desmond, was added (or substituted). In 1467, "Thomas Tiptoft," Earl of Worcester, was named Lord Deputy. (Presumably Thomas is an error for John since Edward's notorious constable is mentioned elsewhere as having become George's deputy in 1467.) In 1471, Thomas {Fitzgerald], Earl of Kildare, who had been deputy under Richard, Duke of York in 1460, replaced the executed Tiptoft. By this time, George was old enough to perform the duties of lieutenant of Ireland for himself, but Edward continued to appoint deputies. In 1475, those deputies were Kildare (again or still), the bishop of Meath, Sir Rowland Fitz-Eustace (same as Sir Rowland Eustace? His son?), and William Sherwood, Esq. In 1478, Gerald, Earl of Kildare replaced his father, who had died in 1477, along with Henry, Lord Grey and Sir Robert Preston. In 1479, when the executed George was belatedly replaced by Edward IV's young son, Richard Duke of York (who obviously needed deputies to perform his duties), Kildare was appointed his sole deputy. The book lists Kildare as sole deputy for Richard's son, Edward, as well, but the documents I listed show that the Earl of Desmond was also made a deputy. He remained deputy under John de la Pole, whom Richard appointed to replace his lost son. As I said earlier, Kildare remained loyal to the House of York and rebelled against the Tydder.
The Peerage of Ireland: A Genealogical and Historical Account, Vol. 2
http://books.google.com/books?id=JW8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Tiptoft+Earl+of+Worcester+deputy+lieutenant+of+Ireland&source=bl&ots=B27vlBp-zk&sig=RxusUXUV6plw2puqXdo4xC4Ynbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v_HFUdqOFqGmigLzmYCoAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Tiptoft%20Earl%20of%20Worcester%20deputy%20lieutenant%20of%20Ireland&f=false
Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kbftadu
I'm sure that this is more than you were looking for, AJ, but it's amazing what you can find when you stumble onto the right source! I first discovered that Tiptoft had been made George's lieutenant in 1467, and when I Googled "Tiptoft Earl of Worcester deputy lieutenant of Ireland" (no quotes), this is what I found.
Carol
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-22 21:39:24
No, this is great - thanks so much for doing the digging. It all helps to
understand the society in which Richard lived.
I guess at the back of my mind is some of the stuff from the Hicks school
(although I can't actually remember if it was Hicks himself) laying at
Richard's feet, as Constable of England, the responsibility for some of the
executions of Yorkist enemies early in Edward's reign; sorry, again don't
remember exactly who or when, but do remember that Richard was about 18 at
the time. By modern standards that seems an incredible amount of
responsibility for a young man to be allowed to be taking on
single-handedly. Especially since we know Edward, king at 19 or so, know
did have advisors, and I believe I've read that most (all?) great lords
with extensive responsibilities had some sort of advisory councils. The
examples of Royal princes with their grand titles further muddy the waters,
since when they were still literally children, they could not possibly have
fulfilled the offices given them.
I suppose it depended a lot on the character of the person involved,
whether or not he listened to more seasoned heads.
A J
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Weren't the Butlers there as Earls of Ormonde, and the Desmonds?
> Stephen, is this up your street?
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not Stephen, but I think you're right that the Irish earls would have
> acted as George's deputies. In a similar situation, Richard appointed his
> little son, Edward, as lieutenant of Ireland, we have a letter, from
> "Edward, by the grace of God first-born son of the most serene prince, by
> the grace of God King of England and France and Lord of Ireland . . ." to
> "our beloved Gerald [Fitzgerald], Earl of Kildare," appointing him as
> Edward's deputy. (Obviously, the letter is really from Richard in his son's
> name.) At the same time, Richard sent the famous set of instructions to be
> shown to another deputy, James Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond, empathizing
> with him for the murder of his father, instructing him to wear English
> clothing, and requiring him to protect the King's subjects from robbery and
> oppression and be "a veray Justicer" for his own honor and the "Common
> wele."
>
> See Hammond and Sutton, "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth," pp. 130-134.
>
> By the way, I'm a bit confused because some of the documents refer to
> Kildare as Thomas Fitzgerald, but that seems to be the name of both his
> father and Desmond's father (two different people). At any rate, Kildare
> remained loyal to the House of York and sent troops to Stoke. According to
> Wikipedia, his younger brother, Sir Thomas, Richard's Lord Chancellor of
> Ireland, was killed at Stoke fighting for York. I don't know about Desmond,
> who was murdered in 1487 in any case.
>
> To return to George as Lord of Ireland, I've discovered after a morning of
> searching that his deputies changed over time. Apparently, these were
> short-term appointments. In 1461 when he was first appointed, they were Sir
> Rowland Eustace and Viscount Baltinglass. (Who?) In 1463, Thomas
> [Fitzgerald], Earl of Desmond, was added (or substituted). In 1467, "Thomas
> Tiptoft," Earl of Worcester, was named Lord Deputy. (Presumably Thomas is
> an error for John since Edward's notorious constable is mentioned elsewhere
> as having become George's deputy in 1467.) In 1471, Thomas {Fitzgerald],
> Earl of Kildare, who had been deputy under Richard, Duke of York in 1460,
> replaced the executed Tiptoft. By this time, George was old enough to
> perform the duties of lieutenant of Ireland for himself, but Edward
> continued to appoint deputies. In 1475, those deputies were Kildare (again
> or still), the bishop of Meath, Sir Rowland Fitz-Eustace (same as Sir
> Rowland Eustace? His son?), and William Sherwood, Esq. In 1478, Gerald,
> Earl of Kildare replaced his father, who had died in 1477, along with
> Henry, Lord Grey and Sir Robert Preston. In 1479, when the executed George
> was belatedly replaced by Edward IV's young son, Richard Duke of York (who
> obviously needed deputies to perform his duties), Kildare was appointed his
> sole deputy. The book lists Kildare as sole deputy for Richard's son,
> Edward, as well, but the documents I listed show that the Earl of Desmond
> was also made a deputy. He remained deputy under John de la Pole, whom
> Richard appointed to replace his lost son. As I said earlier, Kildare
> remained loyal to the House of York and rebelled against the Tydder.
>
> The Peerage of Ireland: A Genealogical and Historical Account, Vol. 2
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JW8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Tiptoft+Earl+of+Worcester+deputy+lieutenant+of+Ireland&source=bl&ots=B27vlBp-zk&sig=RxusUXUV6plw2puqXdo4xC4Ynbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v_HFUdqOFqGmigLzmYCoAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Tiptoft%20Earl%20of%20Worcester%20deputy%20lieutenant%20of%20Ireland&f=false
>
> Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kbftadu
>
> I'm sure that this is more than you were looking for, AJ, but it's amazing
> what you can find when you stumble onto the right source! I first
> discovered that Tiptoft had been made George's lieutenant in 1467, and when
> I Googled "Tiptoft Earl of Worcester deputy lieutenant of Ireland" (no
> quotes), this is what I found.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
understand the society in which Richard lived.
I guess at the back of my mind is some of the stuff from the Hicks school
(although I can't actually remember if it was Hicks himself) laying at
Richard's feet, as Constable of England, the responsibility for some of the
executions of Yorkist enemies early in Edward's reign; sorry, again don't
remember exactly who or when, but do remember that Richard was about 18 at
the time. By modern standards that seems an incredible amount of
responsibility for a young man to be allowed to be taking on
single-handedly. Especially since we know Edward, king at 19 or so, know
did have advisors, and I believe I've read that most (all?) great lords
with extensive responsibilities had some sort of advisory councils. The
examples of Royal princes with their grand titles further muddy the waters,
since when they were still literally children, they could not possibly have
fulfilled the offices given them.
I suppose it depended a lot on the character of the person involved,
whether or not he listened to more seasoned heads.
A J
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Weren't the Butlers there as Earls of Ormonde, and the Desmonds?
> Stephen, is this up your street?
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not Stephen, but I think you're right that the Irish earls would have
> acted as George's deputies. In a similar situation, Richard appointed his
> little son, Edward, as lieutenant of Ireland, we have a letter, from
> "Edward, by the grace of God first-born son of the most serene prince, by
> the grace of God King of England and France and Lord of Ireland . . ." to
> "our beloved Gerald [Fitzgerald], Earl of Kildare," appointing him as
> Edward's deputy. (Obviously, the letter is really from Richard in his son's
> name.) At the same time, Richard sent the famous set of instructions to be
> shown to another deputy, James Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond, empathizing
> with him for the murder of his father, instructing him to wear English
> clothing, and requiring him to protect the King's subjects from robbery and
> oppression and be "a veray Justicer" for his own honor and the "Common
> wele."
>
> See Hammond and Sutton, "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth," pp. 130-134.
>
> By the way, I'm a bit confused because some of the documents refer to
> Kildare as Thomas Fitzgerald, but that seems to be the name of both his
> father and Desmond's father (two different people). At any rate, Kildare
> remained loyal to the House of York and sent troops to Stoke. According to
> Wikipedia, his younger brother, Sir Thomas, Richard's Lord Chancellor of
> Ireland, was killed at Stoke fighting for York. I don't know about Desmond,
> who was murdered in 1487 in any case.
>
> To return to George as Lord of Ireland, I've discovered after a morning of
> searching that his deputies changed over time. Apparently, these were
> short-term appointments. In 1461 when he was first appointed, they were Sir
> Rowland Eustace and Viscount Baltinglass. (Who?) In 1463, Thomas
> [Fitzgerald], Earl of Desmond, was added (or substituted). In 1467, "Thomas
> Tiptoft," Earl of Worcester, was named Lord Deputy. (Presumably Thomas is
> an error for John since Edward's notorious constable is mentioned elsewhere
> as having become George's deputy in 1467.) In 1471, Thomas {Fitzgerald],
> Earl of Kildare, who had been deputy under Richard, Duke of York in 1460,
> replaced the executed Tiptoft. By this time, George was old enough to
> perform the duties of lieutenant of Ireland for himself, but Edward
> continued to appoint deputies. In 1475, those deputies were Kildare (again
> or still), the bishop of Meath, Sir Rowland Fitz-Eustace (same as Sir
> Rowland Eustace? His son?), and William Sherwood, Esq. In 1478, Gerald,
> Earl of Kildare replaced his father, who had died in 1477, along with
> Henry, Lord Grey and Sir Robert Preston. In 1479, when the executed George
> was belatedly replaced by Edward IV's young son, Richard Duke of York (who
> obviously needed deputies to perform his duties), Kildare was appointed his
> sole deputy. The book lists Kildare as sole deputy for Richard's son,
> Edward, as well, but the documents I listed show that the Earl of Desmond
> was also made a deputy. He remained deputy under John de la Pole, whom
> Richard appointed to replace his lost son. As I said earlier, Kildare
> remained loyal to the House of York and rebelled against the Tydder.
>
> The Peerage of Ireland: A Genealogical and Historical Account, Vol. 2
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JW8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Tiptoft+Earl+of+Worcester+deputy+lieutenant+of+Ireland&source=bl&ots=B27vlBp-zk&sig=RxusUXUV6plw2puqXdo4xC4Ynbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v_HFUdqOFqGmigLzmYCoAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Tiptoft%20Earl%20of%20Worcester%20deputy%20lieutenant%20of%20Ireland&f=false
>
> Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kbftadu
>
> I'm sure that this is more than you were looking for, AJ, but it's amazing
> what you can find when you stumble onto the right source! I first
> discovered that Tiptoft had been made George's lieutenant in 1467, and when
> I Googled "Tiptoft Earl of Worcester deputy lieutenant of Ireland" (no
> quotes), this is what I found.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 03:27:33
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> No, this is great - thanks so much for doing the digging. It all helps to understand the society in which Richard lived.
>
> I guess at the back of my mind is some of the stuff from the Hicks school (although I can't actually remember if it was Hicks himself) laying at Richard's feet, as Constable of England, the responsibility for some of the executions of Yorkist enemies early in Edward's reign; sorry, again don't remember exactly who or when, but do remember that Richard was about 18 at the time. By modern standards that seems an incredible amount of responsibility for a young man to be allowed to be taking on single-handedly. Especially since we know Edward, king at 19 or so, know did have advisors, and I believe I've read that most (all?) great lords with extensive responsibilities had some sort of advisory councils. The examples of Royal princes with their grand titles further muddy the waters, since when they were still literally children, they could not possibly have fulfilled the offices given them.
>
> I suppose it depended a lot on the character of the person involved,
> whether or not he listened to more seasoned heads.
Carol responds:
Hicks may have in mind Tewkesbury, when Richard as the eighteen-year-old Lord Constable was responsible for trying and sentencing the high-ranking traitors who fought for Lancaster. The verdict was, of course, a foregone conclusion, and so was the sentence, so it was only a formality, but nevertheless, it fell to him to do it (obviously with Edward's authorization or under his orders). Or he may be thinking of Richard's cousin, Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, who had attempted to rescue Henry VI from the Tower after Tewkesbury. At first, Richard pardoned him or at least let him remain with him on trust, but Fauconberg tried to escape, was caught, and forfeited not only his freedom but his life. Again, Richard's actions had Edward's approval. Whether he acted on his own or under orders in executing Fauconberg, the execution was within his authority as constable. Fauconberg would presumably have taken ship to France to hatch more plots with the Spider King. (Marie may know more details and will correct me if I'm wrong on any points as I'm working from memory here.)
Regarding councils for children, Edward IV's son certainly had one as Prince of Wales. According to Rosemary Horrox, Richard was a member though he must have expressed his views through correspondence since he was seldom or never in Wales during those years. I think that his own son Edward had a similar council. Whether lords had them or not, I don't know. The Council of the North (I forget what it was called during Edward's reign) was a special arrangement for governing the North and not a ducal council per se. But certainly lords had lots of advisers. I think Richard as Duke of Gloucester had about half a dozen lawyers, including his attorney, Morgan Kidwelly (but not Catesby or, IIRC, Thomas Lynom, his solicitor when he was king), but whether they constituted a ducal council, along with lords like Northumberland and Lovell, I don't know.
Carol
>
> No, this is great - thanks so much for doing the digging. It all helps to understand the society in which Richard lived.
>
> I guess at the back of my mind is some of the stuff from the Hicks school (although I can't actually remember if it was Hicks himself) laying at Richard's feet, as Constable of England, the responsibility for some of the executions of Yorkist enemies early in Edward's reign; sorry, again don't remember exactly who or when, but do remember that Richard was about 18 at the time. By modern standards that seems an incredible amount of responsibility for a young man to be allowed to be taking on single-handedly. Especially since we know Edward, king at 19 or so, know did have advisors, and I believe I've read that most (all?) great lords with extensive responsibilities had some sort of advisory councils. The examples of Royal princes with their grand titles further muddy the waters, since when they were still literally children, they could not possibly have fulfilled the offices given them.
>
> I suppose it depended a lot on the character of the person involved,
> whether or not he listened to more seasoned heads.
Carol responds:
Hicks may have in mind Tewkesbury, when Richard as the eighteen-year-old Lord Constable was responsible for trying and sentencing the high-ranking traitors who fought for Lancaster. The verdict was, of course, a foregone conclusion, and so was the sentence, so it was only a formality, but nevertheless, it fell to him to do it (obviously with Edward's authorization or under his orders). Or he may be thinking of Richard's cousin, Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, who had attempted to rescue Henry VI from the Tower after Tewkesbury. At first, Richard pardoned him or at least let him remain with him on trust, but Fauconberg tried to escape, was caught, and forfeited not only his freedom but his life. Again, Richard's actions had Edward's approval. Whether he acted on his own or under orders in executing Fauconberg, the execution was within his authority as constable. Fauconberg would presumably have taken ship to France to hatch more plots with the Spider King. (Marie may know more details and will correct me if I'm wrong on any points as I'm working from memory here.)
Regarding councils for children, Edward IV's son certainly had one as Prince of Wales. According to Rosemary Horrox, Richard was a member though he must have expressed his views through correspondence since he was seldom or never in Wales during those years. I think that his own son Edward had a similar council. Whether lords had them or not, I don't know. The Council of the North (I forget what it was called during Edward's reign) was a special arrangement for governing the North and not a ducal council per se. But certainly lords had lots of advisers. I think Richard as Duke of Gloucester had about half a dozen lawyers, including his attorney, Morgan Kidwelly (but not Catesby or, IIRC, Thomas Lynom, his solicitor when he was king), but whether they constituted a ducal council, along with lords like Northumberland and Lovell, I don't know.
Carol
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 05:19:08
Yes, I think it was Tewkesbury. Here's a bit from Reid's *The King's
Council in the North* (1921) which must be where I got the idea that great
lords with great responsibilities had their own councils. See the bit I've
put in bold below (and I put my notes from this book in the files area a
while ago).
[p 43
Nevertheless, ten years more were to elapse before even the first step
could be taken towards replacing the two Justices of the Peace [Gloucester
& Northumberland] by a single Kingýs Lieutenant in the North. The relation
between Gloucester and Northumberland was in fact clearly determined by an
agreement entered into by them before the King and his Council at
Nottingham on 12 May 1478, that the Duke would neither accept nor retain
into his service any servant or servants that had at any time been in the
service of the Earl. [11] Next year, it is true, the Earl indentured (28
July 1474) to be the Dukeýs servant to do him all lawful service, saving
only his duty to the King, the Queen and the Prince of Wales, the Duke
undertaking to be the Earlýs good and faithful lord at all times and to
sustain his right against all persons; but even then the Duke had to renew
the earlier agreement and also to undertake that he would not ask or claim
any office of fee that the Earl had of the King or anyone else, nor
interrupt him or his servants in the exercise of any such office. [12]
The agreement thus made was faithfully observed throughout Edward IVýs
reign; and down to 1482 all commissions, even of the peace, shew clearly
that Gloucesterýs authority was limited to Yorkshire, Cumberland and
Westmorland,
_____
[9] *Rot. Parl*. vi. pp. 124-5, *Cal. of Pat. Rolls*, 1476-1485, p. 90;
Davies, *York Records*, p. 47.
[10] *Rot. Parl*. vi. p. 204
[11] Indenture between Gloucester and Northumberland in 1474, preserved in
the muniment room at Syon House (V. ii. 28), and printed by de
Fonblanque, *Annals
of the House of Percy*, i. p. 549. [vol. 1 (1887) at www.archive.org ends
in 1461 & vol. 2 starts in 1528 ý what gives?]
[12] Ib.
[p 44
Northumberlandýs to Northumberland and Yorkshire; moreover, in Yorkshire,
in commissions other than those for the peace, only Gloucesterýs name
appears in commissions for the West Riding and only Northumberlandýs in
those for the East Riding. [13] Only in 1482, when war with Scotland broke
out was Gloucester made sole Kingýs Lieutenant in the North and so given
precedence of Northumberland everywhere beyond the Trent. [14]
This change was accompanied by another of great moment. *Both Justices
had of course always been assisted by their councils in the discharge of
the their [sic] duties; indeed, while Gloucester and Northumberland were
with Edward IV in France in 1475 their councils had exercised nearly the
whole of their authority*. [15] But they had not yet been brought together
in one commission, even for the whole of Yorkshire. In 1482, however, on
the eve of the departure of Gloucester and Northumberland for Scotland,
there was issued for Yorkshire a commission of oyer and terminer for all
criminal offences committed in that county, which was directed to the Duke
of Gloucester, the Earl of Northumberland, the Baron of Greystoek, Sir
Francis Lovell, Sir John Scrope of Bolton, Sir Thomas Brian, Sir Guy
Fairfax, Sir Richard Choke, Sir Richard Nele, John Catesby, Richard Pigott,
Sir William Parre, Sir James Harrington, and Miles Metcalf. [16] Of these,
the Baron of Greystoke and Lord Scrope were not only Gloucesterýs own
cousins [17] but also members of his council; [18]
_____
[13] *Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485*, pp. 50, 112, 183.
[14] *Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485*, p. 205
[15] Davies, pp. 41, 50.
[16] *Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485*, p. 343.
[17] Their mothers were sisters, daughter of the first Earl of Westmorland,
and half-sisters of Cicely, Duchess of York, Richardýs mother; Lord Dacre
of Gilsland was the son of another sister (Dugdale, *Bar. Angl*. i. p.
282). In 1483 Richard made Scrope Chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster
(Harl. 433, f. 24), Greystoke got an annuity of ý 100 (ib. No. 377), and
Dacre, who was his cousinýs deputy in the West March, (*Cal. of Pat. Rolls,
1476-1485*, p. 213-4) and Lieutenant of Carlisle (Harl. 433. f. 175b), one
of 100 marks (ib. No. 522).
[18] Davies, pp. 41, 73.
[p 45
Lovell was his closest friend and Chamberlain of his Household; [19] Parre
was the Steward of his barony of Kendal and a member of his council, [20]
as was Harrington. [21] All the others were lawyers, Brian being Chief
Justice, and Fairfax and the Justices of Assize in the northern circuit;
and Brian Nele was probably a legal member of Gloucesterýs council [22] as
Fairfax certainly was of Northumberlandýs. [23] The relations of Choke,
Nele and Catesby to the Duke and the Earl are not clear; but Metcalf, who
succeeded Fairfax as Recorder of York [24] on the latterýs elevation to the
Bench in 1477, [25] was probably a member of Gloucesterýs council as he
certainly was of Northumberlandýs. [26]. Pigott too seems to have been in
Gloucesterýs service; for in 1476 he was employed in some of the affairs of
the city of York
_____
[19] *G. E. C.*
[20] *L. & P*. v. No. 951; Davies, p. 73.
[21] He had been made Seneschal of Pontefract in 1478 and he was attainted
after Bosworth (*Plumpton Corres*. p. 48; Hunter, *South Yorkshire*, ii. p.
402-3).
[22] Experience gained as a member of Gloucesterýs Council would best
explain the opinion on the rights of copyholders to which he gave utterance
in this very year; see p. 57.
[23] Northumberland, in his will made 27 July, 1485, willed ýthat Sir
Robert Constable, Sir Thomas Metham, Sir William Eure and Sir Guy Fairvax
be paid their fees during their livers [sic], they doing service to his
heirs as they have done to himý (*Test. Ebor*. iii. p. 310).
[24] Davies, p. 61.
[25] Ib. p. 53; Foss, v. p. 48. In 1483 Guy Fairfax was made Chief Justice
of Lancaster; at the same time, Miles Metcalf was made a Justice of
Lancaster, Thomas Metcalf was made Chancellor and Keeper of the Seal of the
Duchy and the County Palatine, and their father, James Metcalf, was made
Coroner of the Marshalsea of the Kingýs Household and Master Forester of
Wensleydale, Rydale and Bishopsdale, as a reward for the help he gave
Richard in gaining the crown (Harl. 433. ff. 22b, 28b). Both Thomas and
Miles lent Richard money, apparently for his dash on London in 1483 (ib.
Nos. 1535, 2105). A pardon was granted to Thomas and Miles Metcalf, 29 Nov.
1485 (*Materials* etc. i. p. 187). Thomas afterwards bought Nappa in Craven
(Whitaker, *Richmondshire*, i. pp. 406-8).
[26] York House Books, v. f. 4b; he was buried 29 Feb. 1485/6.
Northumberland was very anxious that the Mayor and Corporation should
choose his Councillor, Richard Greene in his place (ib. f. 7),
A J
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:27 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > No, this is great - thanks so much for doing the digging. It all helps
> to understand the society in which Richard lived.
> >
> > I guess at the back of my mind is some of the stuff from the Hicks
> school (although I can't actually remember if it was Hicks himself) laying
> at Richard's feet, as Constable of England, the responsibility for some of
> the executions of Yorkist enemies early in Edward's reign; sorry, again
> don't remember exactly who or when, but do remember that Richard was about
> 18 at the time. By modern standards that seems an incredible amount of
> responsibility for a young man to be allowed to be taking on
> single-handedly. Especially since we know Edward, king at 19 or so, know
> did have advisors, and I believe I've read that most (all?) great lords
> with extensive responsibilities had some sort of advisory councils. The
> examples of Royal princes with their grand titles further muddy the waters,
> since when they were still literally children, they could not possibly have
> fulfilled the offices given them.
> >
> > I suppose it depended a lot on the character of the person involved,
> > whether or not he listened to more seasoned heads.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hicks may have in mind Tewkesbury, when Richard as the eighteen-year-old
> Lord Constable was responsible for trying and sentencing the high-ranking
> traitors who fought for Lancaster. The verdict was, of course, a foregone
> conclusion, and so was the sentence, so it was only a formality, but
> nevertheless, it fell to him to do it (obviously with Edward's
> authorization or under his orders). Or he may be thinking of Richard's
> cousin, Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, who had attempted to
> rescue Henry VI from the Tower after Tewkesbury. At first, Richard pardoned
> him or at least let him remain with him on trust, but Fauconberg tried to
> escape, was caught, and forfeited not only his freedom but his life. Again,
> Richard's actions had Edward's approval. Whether he acted on his own or
> under orders in executing Fauconberg, the execution was within his
> authority as constable. Fauconberg would presumably have taken ship to
> France to hatch more plots with the Spider King. (Marie may know more
> details and will correct me if I'm wrong on any points as I'm working from
> memory here.)
>
> Regarding councils for children, Edward IV's son certainly had one as
> Prince of Wales. According to Rosemary Horrox, Richard was a member though
> he must have expressed his views through correspondence since he was seldom
> or never in Wales during those years. I think that his own son Edward had a
> similar council. Whether lords had them or not, I don't know. The Council
> of the North (I forget what it was called during Edward's reign) was a
> special arrangement for governing the North and not a ducal council per se.
> But certainly lords had lots of advisers. I think Richard as Duke of
> Gloucester had about half a dozen lawyers, including his attorney, Morgan
> Kidwelly (but not Catesby or, IIRC, Thomas Lynom, his solicitor when he was
> king), but whether they constituted a ducal council, along with lords like
> Northumberland and Lovell, I don't know.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Council in the North* (1921) which must be where I got the idea that great
lords with great responsibilities had their own councils. See the bit I've
put in bold below (and I put my notes from this book in the files area a
while ago).
[p 43
Nevertheless, ten years more were to elapse before even the first step
could be taken towards replacing the two Justices of the Peace [Gloucester
& Northumberland] by a single Kingýs Lieutenant in the North. The relation
between Gloucester and Northumberland was in fact clearly determined by an
agreement entered into by them before the King and his Council at
Nottingham on 12 May 1478, that the Duke would neither accept nor retain
into his service any servant or servants that had at any time been in the
service of the Earl. [11] Next year, it is true, the Earl indentured (28
July 1474) to be the Dukeýs servant to do him all lawful service, saving
only his duty to the King, the Queen and the Prince of Wales, the Duke
undertaking to be the Earlýs good and faithful lord at all times and to
sustain his right against all persons; but even then the Duke had to renew
the earlier agreement and also to undertake that he would not ask or claim
any office of fee that the Earl had of the King or anyone else, nor
interrupt him or his servants in the exercise of any such office. [12]
The agreement thus made was faithfully observed throughout Edward IVýs
reign; and down to 1482 all commissions, even of the peace, shew clearly
that Gloucesterýs authority was limited to Yorkshire, Cumberland and
Westmorland,
_____
[9] *Rot. Parl*. vi. pp. 124-5, *Cal. of Pat. Rolls*, 1476-1485, p. 90;
Davies, *York Records*, p. 47.
[10] *Rot. Parl*. vi. p. 204
[11] Indenture between Gloucester and Northumberland in 1474, preserved in
the muniment room at Syon House (V. ii. 28), and printed by de
Fonblanque, *Annals
of the House of Percy*, i. p. 549. [vol. 1 (1887) at www.archive.org ends
in 1461 & vol. 2 starts in 1528 ý what gives?]
[12] Ib.
[p 44
Northumberlandýs to Northumberland and Yorkshire; moreover, in Yorkshire,
in commissions other than those for the peace, only Gloucesterýs name
appears in commissions for the West Riding and only Northumberlandýs in
those for the East Riding. [13] Only in 1482, when war with Scotland broke
out was Gloucester made sole Kingýs Lieutenant in the North and so given
precedence of Northumberland everywhere beyond the Trent. [14]
This change was accompanied by another of great moment. *Both Justices
had of course always been assisted by their councils in the discharge of
the their [sic] duties; indeed, while Gloucester and Northumberland were
with Edward IV in France in 1475 their councils had exercised nearly the
whole of their authority*. [15] But they had not yet been brought together
in one commission, even for the whole of Yorkshire. In 1482, however, on
the eve of the departure of Gloucester and Northumberland for Scotland,
there was issued for Yorkshire a commission of oyer and terminer for all
criminal offences committed in that county, which was directed to the Duke
of Gloucester, the Earl of Northumberland, the Baron of Greystoek, Sir
Francis Lovell, Sir John Scrope of Bolton, Sir Thomas Brian, Sir Guy
Fairfax, Sir Richard Choke, Sir Richard Nele, John Catesby, Richard Pigott,
Sir William Parre, Sir James Harrington, and Miles Metcalf. [16] Of these,
the Baron of Greystoke and Lord Scrope were not only Gloucesterýs own
cousins [17] but also members of his council; [18]
_____
[13] *Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485*, pp. 50, 112, 183.
[14] *Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485*, p. 205
[15] Davies, pp. 41, 50.
[16] *Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485*, p. 343.
[17] Their mothers were sisters, daughter of the first Earl of Westmorland,
and half-sisters of Cicely, Duchess of York, Richardýs mother; Lord Dacre
of Gilsland was the son of another sister (Dugdale, *Bar. Angl*. i. p.
282). In 1483 Richard made Scrope Chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster
(Harl. 433, f. 24), Greystoke got an annuity of ý 100 (ib. No. 377), and
Dacre, who was his cousinýs deputy in the West March, (*Cal. of Pat. Rolls,
1476-1485*, p. 213-4) and Lieutenant of Carlisle (Harl. 433. f. 175b), one
of 100 marks (ib. No. 522).
[18] Davies, pp. 41, 73.
[p 45
Lovell was his closest friend and Chamberlain of his Household; [19] Parre
was the Steward of his barony of Kendal and a member of his council, [20]
as was Harrington. [21] All the others were lawyers, Brian being Chief
Justice, and Fairfax and the Justices of Assize in the northern circuit;
and Brian Nele was probably a legal member of Gloucesterýs council [22] as
Fairfax certainly was of Northumberlandýs. [23] The relations of Choke,
Nele and Catesby to the Duke and the Earl are not clear; but Metcalf, who
succeeded Fairfax as Recorder of York [24] on the latterýs elevation to the
Bench in 1477, [25] was probably a member of Gloucesterýs council as he
certainly was of Northumberlandýs. [26]. Pigott too seems to have been in
Gloucesterýs service; for in 1476 he was employed in some of the affairs of
the city of York
_____
[19] *G. E. C.*
[20] *L. & P*. v. No. 951; Davies, p. 73.
[21] He had been made Seneschal of Pontefract in 1478 and he was attainted
after Bosworth (*Plumpton Corres*. p. 48; Hunter, *South Yorkshire*, ii. p.
402-3).
[22] Experience gained as a member of Gloucesterýs Council would best
explain the opinion on the rights of copyholders to which he gave utterance
in this very year; see p. 57.
[23] Northumberland, in his will made 27 July, 1485, willed ýthat Sir
Robert Constable, Sir Thomas Metham, Sir William Eure and Sir Guy Fairvax
be paid their fees during their livers [sic], they doing service to his
heirs as they have done to himý (*Test. Ebor*. iii. p. 310).
[24] Davies, p. 61.
[25] Ib. p. 53; Foss, v. p. 48. In 1483 Guy Fairfax was made Chief Justice
of Lancaster; at the same time, Miles Metcalf was made a Justice of
Lancaster, Thomas Metcalf was made Chancellor and Keeper of the Seal of the
Duchy and the County Palatine, and their father, James Metcalf, was made
Coroner of the Marshalsea of the Kingýs Household and Master Forester of
Wensleydale, Rydale and Bishopsdale, as a reward for the help he gave
Richard in gaining the crown (Harl. 433. ff. 22b, 28b). Both Thomas and
Miles lent Richard money, apparently for his dash on London in 1483 (ib.
Nos. 1535, 2105). A pardon was granted to Thomas and Miles Metcalf, 29 Nov.
1485 (*Materials* etc. i. p. 187). Thomas afterwards bought Nappa in Craven
(Whitaker, *Richmondshire*, i. pp. 406-8).
[26] York House Books, v. f. 4b; he was buried 29 Feb. 1485/6.
Northumberland was very anxious that the Mayor and Corporation should
choose his Councillor, Richard Greene in his place (ib. f. 7),
A J
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:27 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > No, this is great - thanks so much for doing the digging. It all helps
> to understand the society in which Richard lived.
> >
> > I guess at the back of my mind is some of the stuff from the Hicks
> school (although I can't actually remember if it was Hicks himself) laying
> at Richard's feet, as Constable of England, the responsibility for some of
> the executions of Yorkist enemies early in Edward's reign; sorry, again
> don't remember exactly who or when, but do remember that Richard was about
> 18 at the time. By modern standards that seems an incredible amount of
> responsibility for a young man to be allowed to be taking on
> single-handedly. Especially since we know Edward, king at 19 or so, know
> did have advisors, and I believe I've read that most (all?) great lords
> with extensive responsibilities had some sort of advisory councils. The
> examples of Royal princes with their grand titles further muddy the waters,
> since when they were still literally children, they could not possibly have
> fulfilled the offices given them.
> >
> > I suppose it depended a lot on the character of the person involved,
> > whether or not he listened to more seasoned heads.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hicks may have in mind Tewkesbury, when Richard as the eighteen-year-old
> Lord Constable was responsible for trying and sentencing the high-ranking
> traitors who fought for Lancaster. The verdict was, of course, a foregone
> conclusion, and so was the sentence, so it was only a formality, but
> nevertheless, it fell to him to do it (obviously with Edward's
> authorization or under his orders). Or he may be thinking of Richard's
> cousin, Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, who had attempted to
> rescue Henry VI from the Tower after Tewkesbury. At first, Richard pardoned
> him or at least let him remain with him on trust, but Fauconberg tried to
> escape, was caught, and forfeited not only his freedom but his life. Again,
> Richard's actions had Edward's approval. Whether he acted on his own or
> under orders in executing Fauconberg, the execution was within his
> authority as constable. Fauconberg would presumably have taken ship to
> France to hatch more plots with the Spider King. (Marie may know more
> details and will correct me if I'm wrong on any points as I'm working from
> memory here.)
>
> Regarding councils for children, Edward IV's son certainly had one as
> Prince of Wales. According to Rosemary Horrox, Richard was a member though
> he must have expressed his views through correspondence since he was seldom
> or never in Wales during those years. I think that his own son Edward had a
> similar council. Whether lords had them or not, I don't know. The Council
> of the North (I forget what it was called during Edward's reign) was a
> special arrangement for governing the North and not a ducal council per se.
> But certainly lords had lots of advisers. I think Richard as Duke of
> Gloucester had about half a dozen lawyers, including his attorney, Morgan
> Kidwelly (but not Catesby or, IIRC, Thomas Lynom, his solicitor when he was
> king), but whether they constituted a ducal council, along with lords like
> Northumberland and Lovell, I don't know.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 18:16:37
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Yes, I think it was Tewkesbury. Here's a bit from Reid's *The King's Council in the North* (1921) which must be where I got the idea that great lords with great responsibilities had their own councils. See the bit I've put in bold below (and I put my notes from this book in the files area a while ago). [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks very much. Very useful and interesting; I've bookmarked it for future reference. I've never even heard of Reid's "The King's Council in the North," which sounds worth reading despite being ninety-two years old, much more readable than Horrox who, despite or perhaps because of her formidable scholarship, puts me to sleep. (I also dislike her use of "usurpation" for Richard's assumption of the crown, but many other books and authors share that failing.)
Loved the "livers" for "lives" typo.
I thought that the agreement between Richard (Gloucester} and Northumberland was in our Files. Evidently not, or at least I couldn't find it there. However, it's in Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth," p. 62 and, in abbreviated form, in Keith Dockray' "Richard III: A Source Book," pp. 34-35.
Carol
Carol
>
> Yes, I think it was Tewkesbury. Here's a bit from Reid's *The King's Council in the North* (1921) which must be where I got the idea that great lords with great responsibilities had their own councils. See the bit I've put in bold below (and I put my notes from this book in the files area a while ago). [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks very much. Very useful and interesting; I've bookmarked it for future reference. I've never even heard of Reid's "The King's Council in the North," which sounds worth reading despite being ninety-two years old, much more readable than Horrox who, despite or perhaps because of her formidable scholarship, puts me to sleep. (I also dislike her use of "usurpation" for Richard's assumption of the crown, but many other books and authors share that failing.)
Loved the "livers" for "lives" typo.
I thought that the agreement between Richard (Gloucester} and Northumberland was in our Files. Evidently not, or at least I couldn't find it there. However, it's in Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth," p. 62 and, in abbreviated form, in Keith Dockray' "Richard III: A Source Book," pp. 34-35.
Carol
Carol
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 18:25:05
The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking for
it.
A J
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think it was Tewkesbury. Here's a bit from Reid's *The King's
> Council in the North* (1921) which must be where I got the idea that great
> lords with great responsibilities had their own councils. See the bit I've
> put in bold below (and I put my notes from this book in the files area a
> while ago). [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much. Very useful and interesting; I've bookmarked it for
> future reference. I've never even heard of Reid's "The King's Council in
> the North," which sounds worth reading despite being ninety-two years old,
> much more readable than Horrox who, despite or perhaps because of her
> formidable scholarship, puts me to sleep. (I also dislike her use of
> "usurpation" for Richard's assumption of the crown, but many other books
> and authors share that failing.)
>
> Loved the "livers" for "lives" typo.
>
> I thought that the agreement between Richard (Gloucester} and
> Northumberland was in our Files. Evidently not, or at least I couldn't find
> it there. However, it's in Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth," p. 62
> and, in abbreviated form, in Keith Dockray' "Richard III: A Source Book,"
> pp. 34-35.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>
>
>
it.
A J
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think it was Tewkesbury. Here's a bit from Reid's *The King's
> Council in the North* (1921) which must be where I got the idea that great
> lords with great responsibilities had their own councils. See the bit I've
> put in bold below (and I put my notes from this book in the files area a
> while ago). [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much. Very useful and interesting; I've bookmarked it for
> future reference. I've never even heard of Reid's "The King's Council in
> the North," which sounds worth reading despite being ninety-two years old,
> much more readable than Horrox who, despite or perhaps because of her
> formidable scholarship, puts me to sleep. (I also dislike her use of
> "usurpation" for Richard's assumption of the crown, but many other books
> and authors share that failing.)
>
> Loved the "livers" for "lives" typo.
>
> I thought that the agreement between Richard (Gloucester} and
> Northumberland was in our Files. Evidently not, or at least I couldn't find
> it there. However, it's in Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth," p. 62
> and, in abbreviated form, in Keith Dockray' "Richard III: A Source Book,"
> pp. 34-35.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 19:20:10
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking for it.
Carol responds:
Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere; I just didn't know which file to look in. Now to see if I can find an affordable copy of Reid's book, assuming that it's still in print!
Carol
>
> The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking for it.
Carol responds:
Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere; I just didn't know which file to look in. Now to see if I can find an affordable copy of Reid's book, assuming that it's still in print!
Carol
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 19:49:22
Can you get to this?
http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
Or this?
http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny
url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright
issue. But that's where I got my "copy."
A J
I searched on Reid & King's Council
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking
> for it.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere; I just didn't know which file to
> look in. Now to see if I can find an affordable copy of Reid's book,
> assuming that it's still in print!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
Or this?
http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny
url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright
issue. But that's where I got my "copy."
A J
I searched on Reid & King's Council
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking
> for it.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere; I just didn't know which file to
> look in. Now to see if I can find an affordable copy of Reid's book,
> assuming that it's still in print!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-23 22:01:16
This book is in a lot of UK and US libraries, I may be able to check availability for check out at a specific location if you like.
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: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:49:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: Re: How did this work?
>
> Can you get to this?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
>
> Or this?
>
> http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
>
> Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny
> url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright
> issue. But that's where I got my "copy."
>
> A J
>
> I searched on Reid & King's Council
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking
> > for it.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere; I just didn't know which file to
> > look in. Now to see if I can find an affordable copy of Reid's book,
> > assuming that it's still in print!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
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: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:49:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: Re: How did this work?
>
> Can you get to this?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
>
> Or this?
>
> http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
>
> Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny
> url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright
> issue. But that's where I got my "copy."
>
> A J
>
> I searched on Reid & King's Council
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard wrote:
> > >
> > > The agreement is also in my notes for Reid's book, for anyone looking
> > for it.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere; I just didn't know which file to
> > look in. Now to see if I can find an affordable copy of Reid's book,
> > assuming that it's still in print!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-24 02:36:34
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Can you get to this?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
>
> Or this?
>
> http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
>
> Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright issue. But that's where I got my "copy." [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks. I found it here http://archive.org/stream/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft_djvu.txt
and have been copying and reformatting all day. Some notes are omitted or misnumbered and there are a number of typos, my favorite being "Sheriff-button," but I got the gist of it and have added the parts on Richard and early Henry to my files. Love the way Reid shows Henry's indebtedness to Richard.
Since the book was published in 1921, it may be just out of copyright; I'm not sure. But in any case, there's no reason why you can't copy it to your private files or even upload it to our files for members' private use. You just can't republish it except to quote excerpts (properly credited) in essays, reviews, books, etc. If you need a refresher on U.S. copyright law, especially the Fair Use provision, go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ and http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html I assume that British copyright law is similar (and given "shew" and other British spellings, this is clearly a British work).
Now if only someone will link us to a legal dictionary so we can know what "seisen" and similar terms mean. At least, if found "oyer and terminer" at Merriam-Webster.com. Of course, now I have to look up "assizes"!
That Richard mastered three foreign languages: French, Latin, and legalese! {Grin]
Carol
P.S. To make a TinyURL, you just go to http://tinyurl.com/ , copy and paste in the long URL, and click "Make TinyURL." Then you copy and paste the TinyURL into your post to share it with us (or whatever else you want to do with it).
>
> Can you get to this?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
>
> Or this?
>
> http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
>
> Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright issue. But that's where I got my "copy." [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks. I found it here http://archive.org/stream/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft_djvu.txt
and have been copying and reformatting all day. Some notes are omitted or misnumbered and there are a number of typos, my favorite being "Sheriff-button," but I got the gist of it and have added the parts on Richard and early Henry to my files. Love the way Reid shows Henry's indebtedness to Richard.
Since the book was published in 1921, it may be just out of copyright; I'm not sure. But in any case, there's no reason why you can't copy it to your private files or even upload it to our files for members' private use. You just can't republish it except to quote excerpts (properly credited) in essays, reviews, books, etc. If you need a refresher on U.S. copyright law, especially the Fair Use provision, go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ and http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html I assume that British copyright law is similar (and given "shew" and other British spellings, this is clearly a British work).
Now if only someone will link us to a legal dictionary so we can know what "seisen" and similar terms mean. At least, if found "oyer and terminer" at Merriam-Webster.com. Of course, now I have to look up "assizes"!
That Richard mastered three foreign languages: French, Latin, and legalese! {Grin]
Carol
P.S. To make a TinyURL, you just go to http://tinyurl.com/ , copy and paste in the long URL, and click "Make TinyURL." Then you copy and paste the TinyURL into your post to share it with us (or whatever else you want to do with it).
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-24 10:48:00
Oyer is the old French verb to hear. Hence Oyez, oyez, beloved to town criers, means listen to me. Amazing how old-fashioned A level French still has its uses. Oyer and terminer - to hear and make a ruling. The assizes still happen over here. It's where a judge goes 'on circuit' to a particular county town to hear more serious cases which are beyond the jurisdiction of local magistrates. He/she usually parades in his wig and robes to the Court. Not a lot has changed, except that now only qualified judges sit; but they still sit on behalf of the monarch and are treated as such.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 2:36
Subject: Re: How did this work?
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Can you get to this?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
>
> Or this?
>
> http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
>
> Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright issue. But that's where I got my "copy." [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks. I found it here http://archive.org/stream/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft_djvu.txt
and have been copying and reformatting all day. Some notes are omitted or misnumbered and there are a number of typos, my favorite being "Sheriff-button," but I got the gist of it and have added the parts on Richard and early Henry to my files. Love the way Reid shows Henry's indebtedness to Richard.
Since the book was published in 1921, it may be just out of copyright; I'm not sure. But in any case, there's no reason why you can't copy it to your private files or even upload it to our files for members' private use. You just can't republish it except to quote excerpts (properly credited) in essays, reviews, books, etc. If you need a refresher on U.S. copyright law, especially the Fair Use provision, go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ and http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html I assume that British copyright law is similar (and given "shew" and other British spellings, this is clearly a British work).
Now if only someone will link us to a legal dictionary so we can know what "seisen" and similar terms mean. At least, if found "oyer and terminer" at Merriam-Webster.com. Of course, now I have to look up "assizes"!
That Richard mastered three foreign languages: French, Latin, and legalese! {Grin]
Carol
P.S. To make a TinyURL, you just go to http://tinyurl.com/ , copy and paste in the long URL, and click "Make TinyURL." Then you copy and paste the TinyURL into your post to share it with us (or whatever else you want to do with it).
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 2:36
Subject: Re: How did this work?
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Can you get to this?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
>
> Or this?
>
> http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog
>
> Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright issue. But that's where I got my "copy." [snip]
Carol responds:
Thanks. I found it here http://archive.org/stream/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft_djvu.txt
and have been copying and reformatting all day. Some notes are omitted or misnumbered and there are a number of typos, my favorite being "Sheriff-button," but I got the gist of it and have added the parts on Richard and early Henry to my files. Love the way Reid shows Henry's indebtedness to Richard.
Since the book was published in 1921, it may be just out of copyright; I'm not sure. But in any case, there's no reason why you can't copy it to your private files or even upload it to our files for members' private use. You just can't republish it except to quote excerpts (properly credited) in essays, reviews, books, etc. If you need a refresher on U.S. copyright law, especially the Fair Use provision, go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ and http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html I assume that British copyright law is similar (and given "shew" and other British spellings, this is clearly a British work).
Now if only someone will link us to a legal dictionary so we can know what "seisen" and similar terms mean. At least, if found "oyer and terminer" at Merriam-Webster.com. Of course, now I have to look up "assizes"!
That Richard mastered three foreign languages: French, Latin, and legalese! {Grin]
Carol
P.S. To make a TinyURL, you just go to http://tinyurl.com/ , copy and paste in the long URL, and click "Make TinyURL." Then you copy and paste the TinyURL into your post to share it with us (or whatever else you want to do with it).
Re: How did this work?
2013-06-24 11:02:41
Sorry the verb is ouir, not oyer, must have been going mad - B-
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 10:08
Subject: Re: Re: How did this work?
Oyer is the old French verb to hear. Hence Oyez, oyez, beloved to town criers, means listen to me. Amazing how old-fashioned A level French still has its uses. Oyer and terminer - to hear and make a ruling. The assizes still happen over here. It's where a judge goes 'on circuit' to a particular county town to hear more serious cases which are beyond the jurisdiction of local magistrates. He/she usually parades in his wig and robes to the Court. Not a lot has changed, except that now only qualified judges sit; but they still sit on behalf of the monarch and are treated as such.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 2:36
Subject: Re: How did this work?
A J Hibbard wrote: > > Can you get to this? > > http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA > > Or this? > > http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog > > Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright issue. But that's where I got my "copy." [snip] Carol responds: Thanks. I found it here http://archive.org/stream/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft_djvu.txt and have been copying and reformatting all day. Some notes are omitted or misnumbered and there are a number of typos, my favorite being "Sheriff-button," but I got the gist of it and have added the parts on Richard and early Henry to my files. Love the way Reid shows Henry's indebtedness to Richard. Since the book was published in 1921, it may be just out of copyright;
I'm not sure. But in any case, there's no reason why you can't copy it to your private files or even upload it to our files for members' private use. You just can't republish it except to quote excerpts (properly credited) in essays, reviews, books, etc. If you need a refresher on U.S. copyright law, especially the Fair Use provision, go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ and http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html I assume that British copyright law is similar (and given "shew" and other British spellings, this is clearly a British work). Now if only someone will link us to a legal dictionary so we can know what "seisen" and similar terms mean. At least, if found "oyer and terminer" at Merriam-Webster.com. Of course, now I have to look up "assizes"! That Richard mastered three foreign languages: French, Latin, and legalese! {Grin] Carol P.S. To make a TinyURL, you just go to http://tinyurl.com/ , copy and paste in the long URL, and click "Make
TinyURL." Then you copy and paste the TinyURL into your post to share it with us (or whatever else you want to do with it).
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 10:08
Subject: Re: Re: How did this work?
Oyer is the old French verb to hear. Hence Oyez, oyez, beloved to town criers, means listen to me. Amazing how old-fashioned A level French still has its uses. Oyer and terminer - to hear and make a ruling. The assizes still happen over here. It's where a judge goes 'on circuit' to a particular county town to hear more serious cases which are beyond the jurisdiction of local magistrates. He/she usually parades in his wig and robes to the Court. Not a lot has changed, except that now only qualified judges sit; but they still sit on behalf of the monarch and are treated as such.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 2:36
Subject: Re: How did this work?
A J Hibbard wrote: > > Can you get to this? > > http://books.google.com/books?id=vXpDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reid+king's+council&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kULHUb2EOImZqQG7mYCYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA > > Or this? > > http://archive.org/details/kingscouncilinn00reidgoog > > Didn't check the Gutenberg project, and sorry, don't know how to do tiny url's. Also I suppose if you're not in the US, there may be a copyright issue. But that's where I got my "copy." [snip] Carol responds: Thanks. I found it here http://archive.org/stream/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft/kingscouncilinno00reiduoft_djvu.txt and have been copying and reformatting all day. Some notes are omitted or misnumbered and there are a number of typos, my favorite being "Sheriff-button," but I got the gist of it and have added the parts on Richard and early Henry to my files. Love the way Reid shows Henry's indebtedness to Richard. Since the book was published in 1921, it may be just out of copyright;
I'm not sure. But in any case, there's no reason why you can't copy it to your private files or even upload it to our files for members' private use. You just can't republish it except to quote excerpts (properly credited) in essays, reviews, books, etc. If you need a refresher on U.S. copyright law, especially the Fair Use provision, go here: http://www.copyright.gov/ and http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html I assume that British copyright law is similar (and given "shew" and other British spellings, this is clearly a British work). Now if only someone will link us to a legal dictionary so we can know what "seisen" and similar terms mean. At least, if found "oyer and terminer" at Merriam-Webster.com. Of course, now I have to look up "assizes"! That Richard mastered three foreign languages: French, Latin, and legalese! {Grin] Carol P.S. To make a TinyURL, you just go to http://tinyurl.com/ , copy and paste in the long URL, and click "Make
TinyURL." Then you copy and paste the TinyURL into your post to share it with us (or whatever else you want to do with it).
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.