Stillington Article

I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.

After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.

Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.

If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.

Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary. I read it & was looking forward to
learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
answers to some of your questions. It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage. Do you have any
idea who might have? And, confessing that I have not finished reading
Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other? How do
we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?

I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.

A J


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
>
> After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> irrelevant.
>
> Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> was erased also.
>
> If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
>
>
>

Don't give up!

Judy


 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Stillington Article



 
I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.

After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.

Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.

If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.

There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it? Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
 
Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
 
All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
 
A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
 
I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
Subject: Re: Stillington Article


Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?

I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.

A J


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
>
> After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> irrelevant.
>
> Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> was erased also.
>
> If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Am picking the toys up again :)



________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:22
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

Don't give up!

Judy

 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Stillington Article


 
I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.

After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.

Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.

If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.

I'm glad to hear you'll keep working. There's something to be said for the
free-for-all that is the internet, & some sort of self-publication. I'd
like to believe that a well-researched, well-reasoned argument will find
its own level. And as you may know, I'm not all that reverential when it
comes to academics anyway...

A J


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character
> but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is
> actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same
> age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was
> lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential
> lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing
> well. Why take the risk?
>
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what
> he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was
> a bishop?
>
> All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have
> chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his
> love of litigation, Eborall (for EW) the country parson who owes you
> something is much more in keeping. And then of course there's Elizabeth
> Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he
> died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property
> for MB.
>
> A lot more work. All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the
> House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and
> Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle.
>
> I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether
> it fits the hypothesis or not. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>
>
> Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary. I read it & was looking forward to
> learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> answers to some of your questions. It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage. Do you have any
> idea who might have? And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other? How do
> we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
>
> I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was
> an
> > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to
> anyone
> > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded.
> H.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

And consider how much worse you'd feel if Hammond had stolen your work, the way Hicks stole my friend's. 

This same friend would say a lot depends upon serendipity; one of her best papers was the result of some stuff misfiled at the Bodleian. She'd been labouring for months, when a box toppled over, and as she was putting things back in order, she found the very thing she needed - a 14th C. item stuck among 17th C. stuff. No joke! (Actually, this wasn't the first time she'd had what I like to call her History of Quantum Spookiness. ;-)

Judy



 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Stillington Article



 
I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.

After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.

Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.

If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.

Had experiences like that myself - like scrolling through a microfilm &
winding up unexpectedly at something I needed & wouldn't have found if I'd
been looking systematically.

A J


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> And consider how much worse you'd feel if Hammond had stolen your work,
> the way Hicks stole my friend's.
>
> This same friend would say a lot depends upon serendipity; one of her best
> papers was the result of some stuff misfiled at the Bodleian. She'd been
> labouring for months, when a box toppled over, and as she was putting
> things back in order, she found the very thing she needed - a 14th C. item
> stuck among 17th C. stuff. No joke! (Actually, this wasn't the first time
> she'd had what I like to call her History of Quantum Spookiness. ;-)
>
> Judy
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:44 PM
> Subject: Stillington Article
>
>
>
> I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
>
> After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> irrelevant.
>
> Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> was erased also.
>
> If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
>
>
>
>
>

I am glad you did original research and encourage you to continue if you like doing it. You can always share it on the forum. The key here is to add to the knowledge base, and someday it maybe gain wider dissemination.

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
>
> After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
>
> Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
>
> If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
>

The following is stream-of-consciousness thinking. I'm sorry if, in my ignorance, it's just exasperating and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Hilary wrote:
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?

Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.

Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death?

Could Richard have been so focused on the Woodville threat after Edward died, that he was entirely oblivious to the Richmond threat until it was too late? Could it never have occurred to him in the early months of his reign that there was an actual, strategic possibility of putting Richmond on the throne? Maybe he wasn't a man who could think in shades of gray? To him, it was a case of, "It's obvious the Tydder has no legitimate claim, no one would support him"?

Could Stillington have been the one to reveal the precontract because Richard wouldn't have been aware Stillington had quite a bit of contact with Morton? Would Stillington have had any contact with Richard when the duke had been in London prior to Edward's death?

If Richard did know of Stillington's contact with Morton when the precontract was revealed, would Richard have known not to trust Morton at that point? Richard seems to have been oblivious to the moment he died as to the working trio of Morton, MB, and Bray...is it time yet to make it a quartet and add in Stillington as well? Or does any path yet lead to MB prior to Richard's death?

I guess I'm asking if we can know was there any contact, before or after the precontract's revelation, between Stillington and Margaret Beaufort, even through Morton?

If Stillington lied about being present at the marriage between E4 and EW, would he have lied/had to lie about anything else, or was that enough for Richard to take the precontract and run with it? The council (full of bishops) had to believe the precontract was valid...some sort of proofs had to be presented, else wouldn't they have thrown the thing out?

So confused with this Soap Opera of the Cousins....

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it? Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
>  
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>  
> All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
>  
> A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
>  
> I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?

Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
Marie



Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
>  
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>  
> All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.

There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
Marie


>  
> A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 


I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
Marie



>  
> I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>
> Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
>
> I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Hilary. I've just skimmed through your article. Can you just clarify one thing for me, please? When you write: "Robert would not have taken his Doctorate in Civil Law there, because in the fifteenth century College only offered degrees in Theology", do you mean colleges in general only offered degrees in Theology, or that Lincoln College only offered degrees in Theology?
Marie


--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
>
> After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
>
> Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
>
> If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The following is stream-of-consciousness thinking. I'm sorry if, in my ignorance, it's just exasperating and doesn't contribute to the discussion.
>
> Hilary wrote:
> > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>
> Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.
>
> Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death?

Marie responds:
Hi Wednesday. I simply see Stillington as an a-political administrator. A civil servant, if you like. Unlike Morton, he didn't go running off with Margaret of Anjou. His role in the Precontract affair may not have been that of witness/informant at all, but a Sir Humphrey figure would be the ideal choice - asks no questions, tells no secrets.
Hi Hillary. I personally don't think Stillington was terribly litigious by the standards of the day, or connected in suspicious ways. The upper ranks of society were a small world. I think it would be useful to research some other bishops and prominent government figures as well, to get a feel for where Stillington fits in the normal pattern of behaviour. Do keep researching.

Hi Pauline, thought you might like to see this, not good enough what.
Love
Christine


________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 22:44
Subject: Stillington Article

 

I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.

After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.

Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.

If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.

Hi hjnatdat, you might like to send it to The Yorkshire Branch of the Society, if you are interested in doing so let me know, I can speak to Pauline Pogmore about it. I have sent her the message as we were discussing the attitude of the so called academics who unless you have pages of qualification's you are not seen as good enough.
It's happened to quite a few people re The Society. Don't give up
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

the EC--- In , "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> I am glad you did original research and encourage you to continue if you like doing it. You can always share it on the forum. The key here is to add to the knowledge base, and someday it maybe gain wider dissemination.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> >
>

I think your strands do contribute a lot.
 
Because I was supposed to be answering the Hancock question and only had about 1500 words I could only write about Stillington up to 1461 and in fact it took ages to investigate him up to then.
 
So to answer some as best I can:
 
If Stillington was 'chosen' I'm pretty sure it was because he was both a bishop and a lawyer (I was surprised to find that one of his rulings is quoted in English case law). Far from being 'ill' from what I've found out so far about the latter period is that he spent most of his time on commissions of Oyer and Terminer, we have dispensations from the Pope for deputies to run his diocese, not because of illness, but because he's away from it. Yes, other clergymen did have Doctorates in Canon or Civil Law (his was Civil) but they don't seem to have used them to the extent that Stillington did (certainly his petitions to the Vatican for his own ends). Before anyone leaps in and says he was a reformer of bad prebendaries, we don't get any petitions about anything that doesn't affect him and we don't get petitions from other canons in this period. Beckynton, on the other hand, does seem to have been more the 'man of God'. True he had an infight with I think
it was the Abbot of Glastonbury, but his will comes across as that of a man with few 'earthly' possessions. The Pope could give dispensation for clergymen of noble birth to have a certain amount of lands and money. Stillington would seem to have had a lot more than he had dispensation for (unless the documents are missing of course).
 
I honestly don't know how well he knew Morton but he certainly recommended him for prebendaries in the West Country. By the late 1470s his family would have known of the Talbots through Isabel (Cheddar) Newton, whose sister had been Eleanor's sister-in-law (sorry about that), probably the Mowbrays through the Ingleby/Constable connection (needs more work) and Clarence. He probably also knew the Twynyhos as he recommended Christopher for an office. The Talbots had also been in-laws to MB and certainly had Lancastrian leanings (H7 knighted Gilbert after Bosworth)
 
My guess is that Edward kept him for his skills, as indeed he re-appointed most of the judges. The feeling you get from the CPR is that Edward was having quickly to build a government framework in 1461. Yes Warwick could patrol the security of the land and riches were heaped upon Herbert and the Woodviles (yes well before the EW marriage), but one would expect/hope a clergyman lawyer to be benign, and ambitious. Edward was astute enough to feed people's greed and win them over. Also Keeper of the Privy Seal would seem to have been more a legal rubber stamping function (literally) than implying that he was close to the King. William Hattycliff, Edward's physician, seems to have fulfilled that function but wasn't able to come back from the Continent until early 1462.
 
Richard - yes he'd believe a bishop. He comes across as endearingly naive amid a nest of self-seeking vipers. Would he have believed a parish priest? I don't know. Would the Council have believed a parish priest? As for the Council, they need looking at too. An awful lot of work which could well yield nothing but I think it worth it. What did strike me was the freedom that the King and the Pope gave to leaders of religious orders to travel the country to visit their establishments. Think how easy it would have been to spread sedition and Prior Langstrother (executed after Tewkesbury) is a marvellous example of this.
 
Sorry it's so long - I've rambled too. No wonder it will take Thomas Penn 3 years' to write his book. It takes months to look at one tiny corner.
Cheers H
 


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 2:26
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

The following is stream-of-consciousness thinking. I'm sorry if, in my ignorance, it's just exasperating and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Hilary wrote:
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?

Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.

Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death?

Could Richard have been so focused on the Woodville threat after Edward died, that he was entirely oblivious to the Richmond threat until it was too late? Could it never have occurred to him in the early months of his reign that there was an actual, strategic possibility of putting Richmond on the throne? Maybe he wasn't a man who could think in shades of gray? To him, it was a case of, "It's obvious the Tydder has no legitimate claim, no one would support him"?

Could Stillington have been the one to reveal the precontract because Richard wouldn't have been aware Stillington had quite a bit of contact with Morton? Would Stillington have had any contact with Richard when the duke had been in London prior to Edward's death?

If Richard did know of Stillington's contact with Morton when the precontract was revealed, would Richard have known not to trust Morton at that point? Richard seems to have been oblivious to the moment he died as to the working trio of Morton, MB, and Bray...is it time yet to make it a quartet and add in Stillington as well? Or does any path yet lead to MB prior to Richard's death?

I guess I'm asking if we can know was there any contact, before or after the precontract's revelation, between Stillington and Margaret Beaufort, even through Morton?

If Stillington lied about being present at the marriage between E4 and EW, would he have lied/had to lie about anything else, or was that enough for Richard to take the precontract and run with it? The council (full of bishops) had to believe the precontract was valid...some sort of proofs had to be presented, else wouldn't they have thrown the thing out?

So confused with this Soap Opera of the Cousins....

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it? Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
>  
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>  
> All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
>  
> A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
>  
> I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H

He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
 
Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?

Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
Marie

Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
>  
> Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>  
> All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.

There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
Marie

>  
> A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 

I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
Marie

>  
> I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>
> Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
>
> I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks a million Christine - am interested, can you tell me where to send it? I'm sure the case with a lot of us is that our careers got in the way; I would have loved the luxury of being able to devote myself to research and thus call myself an historian but the 70-hour week got in the way:) Perhaps in my next incarnation ...


________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 9:01
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 



Hi hjnatdat, you might like to send it to The Yorkshire Branch of the Society, if you are interested in doing so let me know, I can speak to Pauline Pogmore about it. I have sent her the message as we were discussing the attitude of the so called academics who unless you have pages of qualification's you are not seen as good enough.
It's happened to quite a few people re The Society. Don't give up
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

the EC--- In , "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> I am glad you did original research and encourage you to continue if you like doing it. You can always share it on the forum. The key here is to add to the knowledge base, and someday it maybe gain wider dissemination.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> >
>

Sorry Marie. It was Lincoln that only offered degrees in Theology until the early seventeenth century - I got that from the uni website. At Stillington's time it had very few students, under 30 I recall.
(I was on a word limit, so couldn't expand as much as I would have liked to)


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:37
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 


Hi Hilary. I've just skimmed through your article. Can you just clarify one thing for me, please? When you write: "Robert would not have taken his Doctorate in Civil Law there, because in the fifteenth century College only offered degrees in Theology", do you mean colleges in general only offered degrees in Theology, or that Lincoln College only offered degrees in Theology?
Marie

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
>
> After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
>
> Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
>
> If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
>

I agree entirely that one needs to look at other bishops. Did you for example know that John Russell was illegitimate but came from a 'noble family'? There would seem to be a strata of what you'd call nobility bishops - George Neville, the Bourchiers, and then there was the next tier of career bishops who seem to be veering more and more towards the Wolseys.
Stilington comes over to me as a pragmatist, not an idealist. He assembled a very good property portolio in London, all acquired by MB and Reggie Bray. His greater family certainly seem to have been reactionary in outlook re religion. Bishop Nykke just died in time and Stillington's great-nephew Sir Robert Constable was one of the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace and suffered the same awful fate as Aske. 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:48
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 



--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The following is stream-of-consciousness thinking. I'm sorry if, in my ignorance, it's just exasperating and doesn't contribute to the discussion.
>
> Hilary wrote:
> > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>
> Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.
>
> Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death?

Marie responds:
Hi Wednesday. I simply see Stillington as an a-political administrator. A civil servant, if you like. Unlike Morton, he didn't go running off with Margaret of Anjou. His role in the Precontract affair may not have been that of witness/informant at all, but a Sir Humphrey figure would be the ideal choice - asks no questions, tells no secrets.
Hi Hillary. I personally don't think Stillington was terribly litigious by the standards of the day, or connected in suspicious ways. The upper ranks of society were a small world. I think it would be useful to research some other bishops and prominent government figures as well, to get a feel for where Stillington fits in the normal pattern of behaviour. Do keep researching.

Was it the first son gets the land/title, the second a soldier, the third a sailor, and the last one a theologian???? Or is that a myth?

On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:39 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I agree entirely that one needs to look at other bishops. Did you for example know that John Russell was illegitimate but came from a 'noble family'? There would seem to be a strata of what you'd call nobility bishops - George Neville, the Bourchiers, and then there was the next tier of career bishops who seem to be veering more and more towards the Wolseys.
Stilington comes over to me as a pragmatist, not an idealist. He assembled a very good property portolio in London, all acquired by MB and Reggie Bray. His greater family certainly seem to have been reactionary in outlook re religion. Bishop Nykke just died in time and Stillington's great-nephew Sir Robert Constable was one of the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace and suffered the same awful fate as Aske.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:48
Subject: Re: Stillington Article




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The following is stream-of-consciousness thinking. I'm sorry if, in my ignorance, it's just exasperating and doesn't contribute to the discussion.
>
> Hilary wrote:
> > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>
> Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.
>
> Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death?

Marie responds:
Hi Wednesday. I simply see Stillington as an a-political administrator. A civil servant, if you like. Unlike Morton, he didn't go running off with Margaret of Anjou. His role in the Precontract affair may not have been that of witness/informant at all, but a Sir Humphrey figure would be the ideal choice - asks no questions, tells no secrets.
Hi Hillary. I personally don't think Stillington was terribly litigious by the standards of the day, or connected in suspicious ways. The upper ranks of society were a small world. I think it would be useful to research some other bishops and prominent government figures as well, to get a feel for where Stillington fits in the normal pattern of behaviour. Do keep researching.

hjnatdat wrote:

"I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like
throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here
I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect
Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
irrelevant.
Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the
Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was
erased also.
If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H."

Doug here:
Sorry to hear this as I was looking forward to reading it in the Bulletin!
Whatever you do, though, don't imagine you "wasted" any time or effort. The
way things work in regard to Richard, someone will come across what you've
done, add it to something else and - Voila!
Doug
("Non desperandum...")

Hilary Jones wrote:

//snip//
"Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what
he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a
bishop?"

Doug here:
Would approaching the problem from the view that it wasn't that Stillington
was "chosen" to reveal Edward's marriage, but rather that Stillington was
chosen to be the repository of the knowledge about the marriage make any
difference? And by whom and when he was "chosen"?
What were (are?) the limitations, if any, on what a priest can publicly
relate if heard, say, on a deathbed? I know the confessional is sancrosanct,
but I don't know about anything else.
FWIW, it seems to me as if there almost must have been someone other than
Stillington who knew about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. Because if
Stillington didn't tell George, who did? And that it was the realization
that *someone* was quite probably still out there that led Stillington to
reveal what he did and, most interestingly to me, *when* he did - almost two
months after Edward died. Why did Stillington take so long to reveal what he
knew? Was it because he realized that if he didn't say something *then*,
what was to stop someone from revealing E(V)'s illegitimacy at a most
inopportune moment - right after the Protectorate ended?
Doug
(who's looking forward to reading your file; one never knows, perhaps
something will jump out at me...)

Wednesday wrote:
> Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.
>
> Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death? [snip]

Carol responds:

First, thanks to Hilary for posting her interesting article.

Regarding Wednesday's questions, I have no answers but do have more questions. First, what was Henry VI's mental state when Stillington was appointed privy seal? If Henry was non compos mentis, Stillington may have been appointed by the Duke of York acting as Protector/regent, which would mean that he had Yorkist, not Lancastrian, connections.

Second, Hilary's article doesn't mention Stillington's connections with George of Clarence, which I had thought were well established. He was certainly one of the people who convinced George to return to his allegiance.

Third, if Stillington was associated with Margaret Beaufort and Morton in a plot to undermine the House of York (an intriguing idea that I don't think was sufficiently developed in the article), why would Henry Tudor have arrested him immediately and prevented him from testifying before Parliament about Titulus Regius?

Hilary, I think you have the material for three separate articles, Stillington's connections to gentry(?) families, Stillington's illegitimate children, and Stillington's Lancastrian connections. You might try resubmitting these articles separately, starting with the least contentious. Also, I found a few slightly confusing sentences in the article and one apparent typo ("might also could") where you appear to have revised the sentence in mid-thought without deleting the original wording). A second pair of eyes is always good, so in future you might consider having other forum members read the article in manuscript and make suggestions that you might or might not choose to act on before submitting it (or resubmitting it if Peter Hammond made any helpful suggestions for revision).

Anyway, it's good to know that there's more to Stillington than his being the "noted pluralist" of Hicks' article, and you're almost certainly right that Hicks is off in his birth date for Stillington.

Weds, hope you're well away from that forest fire near Prescott!

Carol

Carol, thanks. Firstly it was a draft (hence the double spacing and the annotations which vary in preference from discipline to discipline). I was also given a word limit of 1500 which was mainly to answer the Bygrave/Hancock question. When I got hold of the Hampden 1976 article (which I have to say was no better than mine and just addressed the genealogy) I found Hancock had mis-read it, simple as that. But I wanted to prompt some interest in Stillington so I investigated his past in the Church and in working for H6 to give people a flavour. I would have loved to do another one but Mr Hammond did not think Stillington was of sufficient interest; just a typical 'cleric'. As you say, there is a lot more post 1461, including how he came to own so much property in London, including a house in Chiswick which MB coveted.
 
It's not just Stillington, so many characters in this story are very 'cardboard'. The Church itself at the time needs a lot more work, all these plotting monks and money going to Tudor.
 
By the way, do you know how Chapuys came by the story? Would he really have read Comines or did he get it from elsewhere?
 
I honestly don't pretend to know any answers - I just want to flesh people out more and point out where they don't always fit the stereotype that has been attached to them for so long. 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

Wednesday wrote:
> Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.
>
> Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death? [snip]

Carol responds:

First, thanks to Hilary for posting her interesting article.

Regarding Wednesday's questions, I have no answers but do have more questions. First, what was Henry VI's mental state when Stillington was appointed privy seal? If Henry was non compos mentis, Stillington may have been appointed by the Duke of York acting as Protector/regent, which would mean that he had Yorkist, not Lancastrian, connections.

Second, Hilary's article doesn't mention Stillington's connections with George of Clarence, which I had thought were well established. He was certainly one of the people who convinced George to return to his allegiance.

Third, if Stillington was associated with Margaret Beaufort and Morton in a plot to undermine the House of York (an intriguing idea that I don't think was sufficiently developed in the article), why would Henry Tudor have arrested him immediately and prevented him from testifying before Parliament about Titulus Regius?

Hilary, I think you have the material for three separate articles, Stillington's connections to gentry(?) families, Stillington's illegitimate children, and Stillington's Lancastrian connections. You might try resubmitting these articles separately, starting with the least contentious. Also, I found a few slightly confusing sentences in the article and one apparent typo ("might also could") where you appear to have revised the sentence in mid-thought without deleting the original wording). A second pair of eyes is always good, so in future you might consider having other forum members read the article in manuscript and make suggestions that you might or might not choose to act on before submitting it (or resubmitting it if Peter Hammond made any helpful suggestions for revision).

Anyway, it's good to know that there's more to Stillington than his being the "noted pluralist" of Hicks' article, and you're almost certainly right that Hicks is off in his birth date for Stillington.

Weds, hope you're well away from that forest fire near Prescott!

Carol

I think that worked in big aristocratic families where they had to find the younger sons something to do. Wilkinson suggests that, if the Duke of York had lived, Richard may have been destined for the Church. Hence his beautiful writing and rather serious nature. Not that all clergymen were serious. You should see the number of dispensations given to those living with 'virgin' wives :) 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Stillington Article


Was it the first son gets the land/title, the second a soldier, the third a sailor, and the last one a theologian???? Or is that a myth?

On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:39 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I agree entirely that one needs to look at other bishops. Did you for example know that John Russell was illegitimate but came from a 'noble family'? There would seem to be a strata of what you'd call nobility bishops - George Neville, the Bourchiers, and then there was the next tier of career bishops who seem to be veering more and more towards the Wolseys.
Stilington comes over to me as a pragmatist, not an idealist. He assembled a very good property portolio in London, all acquired by MB and Reggie Bray. His greater family certainly seem to have been reactionary in outlook re religion. Bishop Nykke just died in time and Stillington's great-nephew Sir Robert Constable was one of the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace and suffered the same awful fate as Aske.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:48
Subject: Re: Stillington Article




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The following is stream-of-consciousness thinking. I'm sorry if, in my ignorance, it's just exasperating and doesn't contribute to the discussion.
>
> Hilary wrote:
> > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
>
> Hmm...could Stillington have been chosen to reveal it because Richard's being up in Middleham for years meant he wasn't knowledgeable about Stillington or the circles he moved in, or his possible Lancastrian loyalties? From all appearances, Edward trusted Stillington, so that may have been enough for Richard.
>
> Why would Edward IV have kept Henry VI's Keeper of the Privy Seal as his own? Would Warwick have known or trusted Stillington, so they didn't get rid of him after Henry VI's death?

Marie responds:
Hi Wednesday. I simply see Stillington as an a-political administrator. A civil servant, if you like. Unlike Morton, he didn't go running off with Margaret of Anjou. His role in the Precontract affair may not have been that of witness/informant at all, but a Sir Humphrey figure would be the ideal choice - asks no questions, tells no secrets.
Hi Hillary. I personally don't think Stillington was terribly litigious by the standards of the day, or connected in suspicious ways. The upper ranks of society were a small world. I think it would be useful to research some other bishops and prominent government figures as well, to get a feel for where Stillington fits in the normal pattern of behaviour. Do keep researching.











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hilary Jones wrote:
> [snip] The feeling you get from the CPR is that Edward was having quickly to build a government framework in 1461. Yes Warwick could patrol the security of the land and riches were heaped upon Herbert and the Woodviles (yes well before the EW marriage) [snip}

Carol responds:

The Herberts, yes, but the Woodvilles? What kinds of riches did he heap on them before the secret May "marriage" and when? All I can recall about the pre-"marriage" relationship between Edward and the Woodvilles is that the Woodvilles and EW's first husband, Sir John Gray (killed in the Second Battle of St. Albans), fought against him in at least one battle and something about Edward and Warwick "rating" the Woodvilles as upstarts. Hastings may also have been involved in the "rating," but I can't recall the source of that story.

Can you elaborate on the rewards, etc.? That's a very interesting and suggestive tidbit. Why would he do it considering that, setting aside a former marriage of Jaquetta Woodville to the Duke of Bedford, they were nobodies--and "traitors" at that?

Thanks,
Carol

I'll come back to you. It surpised me, it was quite early after he took over in 1461 and Woodville appears again quite a bit. I thought they got little until 1464, but Edward did seem clever at buying people off (though not so clever with Herbert in the long run).



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 17:12
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
> [snip] The feeling you get from the CPR is that Edward was having quickly to build a government framework in 1461. Yes Warwick could patrol the security of the land and riches were heaped upon Herbert and the Woodviles (yes well before the EW marriage) [snip}

Carol responds:

The Herberts, yes, but the Woodvilles? What kinds of riches did he heap on them before the secret May "marriage" and when? All I can recall about the pre-"marriage" relationship between Edward and the Woodvilles is that the Woodvilles and EW's first husband, Sir John Gray (killed in the Second Battle of St. Albans), fought against him in at least one battle and something about Edward and Warwick "rating" the Woodvilles as upstarts. Hastings may also have been involved in the "rating," but I can't recall the source of that story.

Can you elaborate on the rewards, etc.? That's a very interesting and suggestive tidbit. Why would he do it considering that, setting aside a former marriage of Jaquetta Woodville to the Duke of Bedford, they were nobodies--and "traitors" at that?

Thanks,
Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
[snip]

Carol responds:

I think that Marie may be referring to a different arrest, immediately after Bosworth, which almost certainly related to Titulus Regius. But there's also the question of why Stillington would involve himself in the Simnel rebellion unless he honestly believed that it would put George of Clarence's son on the throne--and still saw Edward IV's children, including EoY, as illegitimate (and Tudor as a usurper without a claim).

Carol

Exactly, it is weird. I'm not yet at 1471!



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 17:19
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
[snip]

Carol responds:

I think that Marie may be referring to a different arrest, immediately after Bosworth, which almost certainly related to Titulus Regius. But there's also the question of why Stillington would involve himself in the Simnel rebellion unless he honestly believed that it would put George of Clarence's son on the throne--and still saw Edward IV's children, including EoY, as illegitimate (and Tudor as a usurper without a claim).

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
> [snip] By the way, do you know how Chapuys came by the story? Would he really have read Comines or did he get it from elsewhere?

Carol responds:

I don't know, but I suspect that he got it from Commynes, whose memoir was published in Paris in 1524 but completed much earlier. Chapuys was writing in 1533. It makes more sense than Alison Weir's theory that he got it from Yorkist families with a grudge against the Tudors at that late date!

http://books.google.com/books?id=5-4FZ8PmKvgC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Chapuys+%22Bishop+of+Bath%22&source=bl&ots=hn2oFiC-rY&sig=oYFu85d0VhnBcE5EOJl7ixTjMiM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X9HFUeeNOIOtigKK_oDgBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Chapuys%20%22Bishop%20of%20Bath%22&f=false

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/l6y8ran

Don't you love tinyurls?

Carol

Carol I think that is an important point. For years I think people have felt a bit odd about John of Lincoln and others supporting young Warwick because they felt that it might have meant that Lincoln knew that the Princes ( "Princes? What Princes?") were dead. In fact it appears to mean that Lincoln considered the Princes to be illegitimate and therefore not eligible for the throne. Obviously it appears that Stillington must have thought the same. The problem is that EW is also supposed to have supported the Lambert Simnel rebellion and she wouldn't have been supporting Warwick. Oh dear more questions. Incidentally the Princes quote comes from a tee shirt printed by a member of the Australian branch years ago. She was a friend of a friend who told me about it.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think that Marie may be referring to a different arrest, immediately after Bosworth, which almost certainly related to Titulus Regius. But there's also the question of why Stillington would involve himself in the Simnel rebellion unless he honestly believed that it would put George of Clarence's son on the throne--and still saw Edward IV's children, including EoY, as illegitimate (and Tudor as a usurper without a claim).
>
> Carol
>

Research and Weir, that could be a contradiction in terms.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> > [snip] By the way, do you know how Chapuys came by the story? Would he really have read Comines or did he get it from elsewhere?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know, but I suspect that he got it from Commynes, whose memoir was published in Paris in 1524 but completed much earlier. Chapuys was writing in 1533. It makes more sense than Alison Weir's theory that he got it from Yorkist families with a grudge against the Tudors at that late date!
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=5-4FZ8PmKvgC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Chapuys+%22Bishop+of+Bath%22&source=bl&ots=hn2oFiC-rY&sig=oYFu85d0VhnBcE5EOJl7ixTjMiM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X9HFUeeNOIOtigKK_oDgBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Chapuys%20%22Bishop%20of%20Bath%22&f=false
>
> Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/l6y8ran
>
> Don't you love tinyurls?
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Carol I think that is an important point. For years I think people have felt a bit odd about John of Lincoln and others supporting young Warwick because they felt that it might have meant that Lincoln knew that the Princes ( "Princes? What Princes?") were dead. In fact it appears to mean that Lincoln considered the Princes to be illegitimate and therefore not eligible for the throne. Obviously it appears that Stillington must have thought the same. The problem is that EW is also supposed to have supported the Lambert Simnel rebellion and she wouldn't have been supporting Warwick. Oh dear more questions. Incidentally the Princes quote comes from a tee shirt printed by a member of the Australian branch years ago. She was a friend of a friend who told me about it.

Carol responds:

My very tentative hypothesis is that just as the rebellion against Richard III had Tudor/"Lancaster" and Edwardian Yorkist factions, there was more than one focus of rebellion against Henry Tudor. Some, like the Irish, opposed Tudor oppression and remained loyal to the House of York regardless of whether the candidate was Edward ex-V, Edward of Warwick, or John of Gloucester; some were ex-Ricardians like Lincoln and Lovell, who apparently supported Warwick as both legitimate and malleable, unlikely to seek vengeance against them as Edward's sons probably would; and some, like EW and Dorsett, must have wanted to restore Edward V (evidently knowing that he was still alive). Stillington, given his apparent authorship of Titulus Regius, would almost certainly have supported the Lincoln-Lovell pro-Warwick faction.

I wonder if your friend's T-shirt, which presumably features the saccharine Millais painting of the "Princes," stirs up conversation and controversy. Or maybe she only dares to wear it to RIII Society meetings!

Carol

It sounds as if understanding Elizabeth Woodville's actions is as much a
key to Richard's story as is getting the protectorate right. What are the
options?

She knew her sons were dead - why would she support Warwick against her
daughter as queen?
She knew her son(s) was/were alive, but accepted that they were
illegitimate - would she have supported Warwick against her daughter as
queen? Was there anything for her to gain in that situation? (How well
did she know Henry & his supporters by that time?)
She knew her son(s) was/were alive, and believed that supporting Warwick,
in some way, would lead to the opportunity to make him king?
?????

Do we know for sure that she did support Warwick?

A J


On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Carol I think that is an important point. For years I think people have
> felt a bit odd about John of Lincoln and others supporting young Warwick
> because they felt that it might have meant that Lincoln knew that the
> Princes ( "Princes? What Princes?") were dead. In fact it appears to mean
> that Lincoln considered the Princes to be illegitimate and therefore not
> eligible for the throne. Obviously it appears that Stillington must have
> thought the same. The problem is that EW is also supposed to have supported
> the Lambert Simnel rebellion and she wouldn't have been supporting Warwick.
> Oh dear more questions. Incidentally the Princes quote comes from a tee
> shirt printed by a member of the Australian branch years ago. She was a
> friend of a friend who told me about it.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting
> the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused
> to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think that Marie may be referring to a different arrest, immediately
> after Bosworth, which almost certainly related to Titulus Regius. But
> there's also the question of why Stillington would involve himself in the
> Simnel rebellion unless he honestly believed that it would put George of
> Clarence's son on the throne--and still saw Edward IV's children, including
> EoY, as illegitimate (and Tudor as a usurper without a claim).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>

Your hypothesis makes complete sense and also still shows that the Princes could still be alive, indeed thinking about it EW's involvement that could be the proof that they were alive.

I think the tee-shirt ( I never actually saw it) just had the words on it. On the front it said Princes? and on the back What Princes? This was probably in the early 1990s. I only knew about it because one of the Worcestershire Branch was in contact with someone from the Australian Branch.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol I think that is an important point. For years I think people have felt a bit odd about John of Lincoln and others supporting young Warwick because they felt that it might have meant that Lincoln knew that the Princes ( "Princes? What Princes?") were dead. In fact it appears to mean that Lincoln considered the Princes to be illegitimate and therefore not eligible for the throne. Obviously it appears that Stillington must have thought the same. The problem is that EW is also supposed to have supported the Lambert Simnel rebellion and she wouldn't have been supporting Warwick. Oh dear more questions. Incidentally the Princes quote comes from a tee shirt printed by a member of the Australian branch years ago. She was a friend of a friend who told me about it.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> My very tentative hypothesis is that just as the rebellion against Richard III had Tudor/"Lancaster" and Edwardian Yorkist factions, there was more than one focus of rebellion against Henry Tudor. Some, like the Irish, opposed Tudor oppression and remained loyal to the House of York regardless of whether the candidate was Edward ex-V, Edward of Warwick, or John of Gloucester; some were ex-Ricardians like Lincoln and Lovell, who apparently supported Warwick as both legitimate and malleable, unlikely to seek vengeance against them as Edward's sons probably would; and some, like EW and Dorsett, must have wanted to restore Edward V (evidently knowing that he was still alive). Stillington, given his apparent authorship of Titulus Regius, would almost certainly have supported the Lincoln-Lovell pro-Warwick faction.
>
> I wonder if your friend's T-shirt, which presumably features the saccharine Millais painting of the "Princes," stirs up conversation and controversy. Or maybe she only dares to wear it to RIII Society meetings!
>
> Carol
>

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> [snip] Do we know for sure that she [EW] did support Warwick?

Carol responds:

No. All we know is that after a council meeting at Shene to discuss the Simnel uprising (November 1486}, Henry suddenly confined her to Bermondsey Abbey with apparently limited funds. (She died in poverty.) His excuse was that she had made friends with Richard to come out of sanctuary! Since that "crime" had occurred four years earlier, it could hardly be the real reason even if it were reasonable grounds for punishment. Her son Dorset was arrested at around the same time, which suggests that they were plotting some sort of "treason" together. (Dorset was released from the Tower after the Battle of Stoke. His mother wasn't so lucky.)

How deeply they were involved (assuming that Henry wasn't just being paranoid) and whether they were supporting the same "pretender" as Lincoln and Lovell is unknown, but I can't see her supporting little Warwick against her own daughter. She must have thought (or known) that one or both of her sons were alive and that no one (except Ricardian diehards) would support Warwick against the "rightful" king. At least, that's the only way I can make sense of her supporting a rebellion which, if successful, would dethrone her own daughter and disinherit her new grandson, Arthur.

Carol

That makes more sense to me as well. And he doesn't quote the name, just the bishopric, so it could well have come second or third hand through European rumour. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 17:39
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
> [snip] By the way, do you know how Chapuys came by the story? Would he really have read Comines or did he get it from elsewhere?

Carol responds:

I don't know, but I suspect that he got it from Commynes, whose memoir was published in Paris in 1524 but completed much earlier. Chapuys was writing in 1533. It makes more sense than Alison Weir's theory that he got it from Yorkist families with a grudge against the Tudors at that late date!

http://books.google.com/books?id=5-4FZ8PmKvgC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Chapuys+%22Bishop+of+Bath%22&source=bl&ots=hn2oFiC-rY&sig=oYFu85d0VhnBcE5EOJl7ixTjMiM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X9HFUeeNOIOtigKK_oDgBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Chapuys%20%22Bishop%20of%20Bath%22&f=false

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/l6y8ran

Don't you love tinyurls?

Carol

Geoffrey Richardson in his book on the Woodvilles, The Popinjays, suggests that EW became involved in the Simnel plot because she had found out that MB (and Morton)had been involved in the murder of her two sons which led to "a violent swing in EW's allegiance" and "to protect his mother's reputation and pious honour of his Chancellor.......Henry decided that EW musts be placed in secure confinement".

Of course this scenario would mean that EW was willing to have her daughter chucked off the throne and her small grandson disinherited because she could not contain her rage or her need for vengeance. Hmmmmm a tricky one that....Eileen


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > [snip] Do we know for sure that she [EW] did support Warwick?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No. All we know is that after a council meeting at Shene to discuss the Simnel uprising (November 1486}, Henry suddenly confined her to Bermondsey Abbey with apparently limited funds. (She died in poverty.) His excuse was that she had made friends with Richard to come out of sanctuary! Since that "crime" had occurred four years earlier, it could hardly be the real reason even if it were reasonable grounds for punishment. Her son Dorset was arrested at around the same time, which suggests that they were plotting some sort of "treason" together. (Dorset was released from the Tower after the Battle of Stoke. His mother wasn't so lucky.)
>
> How deeply they were involved (assuming that Henry wasn't just being paranoid) and whether they were supporting the same "pretender" as Lincoln and Lovell is unknown, but I can't see her supporting little Warwick against her own daughter. She must have thought (or known) that one or both of her sons were alive and that no one (except Ricardian diehards) would support Warwick against the "rightful" king. At least, that's the only way I can make sense of her supporting a rebellion which, if successful, would dethrone her own daughter and disinherit her new grandson, Arthur.
>
> Carol
>

Sounds sensible to me Carol. More feasible that Richard murdered the Princes and Lincoln deliberately fought a battle to put a cook boy on the throne.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > [snip] Do we know for sure that she [EW] did support Warwick?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No. All we know is that after a council meeting at Shene to discuss the Simnel uprising (November 1486}, Henry suddenly confined her to Bermondsey Abbey with apparently limited funds. (She died in poverty.) His excuse was that she had made friends with Richard to come out of sanctuary! Since that "crime" had occurred four years earlier, it could hardly be the real reason even if it were reasonable grounds for punishment. Her son Dorset was arrested at around the same time, which suggests that they were plotting some sort of "treason" together. (Dorset was released from the Tower after the Battle of Stoke. His mother wasn't so lucky.)
>
> How deeply they were involved (assuming that Henry wasn't just being paranoid) and whether they were supporting the same "pretender" as Lincoln and Lovell is unknown, but I can't see her supporting little Warwick against her own daughter. She must have thought (or known) that one or both of her sons were alive and that no one (except Ricardian diehards) would support Warwick against the "rightful" king. At least, that's the only way I can make sense of her supporting a rebellion which, if successful, would dethrone her own daughter and disinherit her new grandson, Arthur.
>
> Carol
>

EILEEN BATES wrote:

"Geoffrey Richardson in his book on the Woodvilles, The Popinjays, suggests
that EW became involved in the Simnel plot because she had found out that MB
(and Morton)had been involved in the murder of her two sons which led to "a
violent swing in EW's allegiance" and "to protect his mother's reputation
and pious honour of his Chancellor.......Henry decided that EW musts be
placed in secure confinement".
Of course this scenario would mean that EW was willing to have her daughter
chucked off the throne and her small grandson disinherited because she could
not contain her rage or her need for vengeance. Hmmmmm a tricky one
that...."

Doug here:
I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
out something
that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
*personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
that great...
Doug
(who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
prevalent)

We assume that EW had strong affectionate feelings for her daughter and grandson, but she may not have.  Perhaps the relationship between a former queen and the current queen was not a good one.  Perhaps she saw too much of Henry in the child.  Perhaps she preferred her boys to her girls.

From this distance and without documentary evidence, it is difficult to decide what her reasons were for joining in a conspiracy.


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote@




I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
out something
that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
*personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
that great...
Doug
(who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
prevalent)

Or perhaps she came to realise that with MB about she'd never be restored to her former power and influence, however docile Elizabeth might have been (if she was)? She could have thought to emulate Jacquetta? As you say, who knows, though.



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

We assume that EW had strong affectionate feelings for her daughter and grandson, but she may not have.  Perhaps the relationship between a former queen and the current queen was not a good one.  Perhaps she saw too much of Henry in the child.  Perhaps she preferred her boys to her girls.

From this distance and without documentary evidence, it is difficult to decide what her reasons were for joining in a conspiracy.

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote@

I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
out something
that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
*personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
that great...
Doug
(who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
prevalent)

It could be possible that there were issues between EoY and EW...Perfectly possible and human. Did EoY ever defends her mother or try to make things easier for her arter she
A very good point Doug, and yet because of the human factors here we cannot rule it out. It could be possible there were issues between mother and daughter. As far as I know EoY did not seem to have intervened in any way to try to make her mother's situation easier...although there were occasions when she could put her foot down with Henry. Could the fact that when she was brought to London after Bosworth she stayed with MB instead of her mother imply anything . Who knows?

Although it may seem madness for EW to have got involved with a plot that would have seen her daughter turfed off the throne, was EW the type of woman who would take the murder of her two young sons lying down. I don't think so. All in all I don't think this theory can be discarded too quickly. What a nest of vipers.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>

>
> Doug here:
> I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
> daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
> vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
> But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
> out something
> that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
> *personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
> the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
> Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
> personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
> seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
> to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
> that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
> motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
> All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
> that great...
> Doug
> (who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
> prevalent)
>

That is a good point Doug. I don't think many people, unless they were really top notch, woke up and said 'I'm a Yorkist' or 'I'm a Lancastrian'; it wasn't a religion. It was more likely 'what will get in the way of my business, or why has my stupid 'lord of the manor' got himself mixed up in this'. People were ever nasty, selffish, mean and cruel, or whatever it was Hobbes said. I suppose in some respects you have to admire MB and Morton for conspiring for so long. I was just looking up something for Carol and noticed that Edward put out a warrent for Morton in 1461 for stirring up treason in York. You can imagine him creeping round the backstreets - I'm sure he didn't, but imagining it is fun. 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 


EILEEN BATES wrote:

"Geoffrey Richardson in his book on the Woodvilles, The Popinjays, suggests
that EW became involved in the Simnel plot because she had found out that MB
(and Morton)had been involved in the murder of her two sons which led to "a
violent swing in EW's allegiance" and "to protect his mother's reputation
and pious honour of his Chancellor.......Henry decided that EW musts be
placed in secure confinement".
Of course this scenario would mean that EW was willing to have her daughter
chucked off the throne and her small grandson disinherited because she could
not contain her rage or her need for vengeance. Hmmmmm a tricky one
that...."

Doug here:
I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
out something
that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
*personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
that great...
Doug
(who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
prevalent)

Please God, do not let PG red the threads....another book in the making. It is a fascinating story. There are so many threads in this tapestry. Scholars, historians, both professional and those you you here, who are learned and looking, I hope will someday find the answers. I agree too bad no diaries were kept. Or perhaps there were some writings which have been lost....

On Jun 23, 2013, at 10:58 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



It could be possible that there were issues between EoY and EW...Perfectly possible and human. Did EoY ever defends her mother or try to make things easier for her arter she
A very good point Doug, and yet because of the human factors here we cannot rule it out. It could be possible there were issues between mother and daughter. As far as I know EoY did not seem to have intervened in any way to try to make her mother's situation easier...although there were occasions when she could put her foot down with Henry. Could the fact that when she was brought to London after Bosworth she stayed with MB instead of her mother imply anything . Who knows?

Although it may seem madness for EW to have got involved with a plot that would have seen her daughter turfed off the throne, was EW the type of woman who would take the murder of her two young sons lying down. I don't think so. All in all I don't think this theory can be discarded too quickly. What a nest of vipers.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>

>
> Doug here:
> I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
> daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
> vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
> But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
> out something
> that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
> *personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
> the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
> Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
> personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
> seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
> to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
> that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
> motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
> All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
> that great...
> Doug
> (who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
> prevalent)
>

Oh don't you worry Pamela....PG can churn out books like rice...With sometimes only two pages to a chapter, as in The Kingmakers Daughter, she is not going to gets writers cramp any time soon...unfortunately ...Eileen
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Please God, do not let PG red the threads....another book in the making. It is a fascinating story. There are so many threads in this tapestry. Scholars, historians, both professional and those you you here, who are learned and looking, I hope will someday find the answers. I agree too bad no diaries were kept. Or perhaps there were some writings which have been lost....
>
> On Jun 23, 2013, at 10:58 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It could be possible that there were issues between EoY and EW...Perfectly possible and human. Did EoY ever defends her mother or try to make things easier for her arter she
> A very good point Doug, and yet because of the human factors here we cannot rule it out. It could be possible there were issues between mother and daughter. As far as I know EoY did not seem to have intervened in any way to try to make her mother's situation easier...although there were occasions when she could put her foot down with Henry. Could the fact that when she was brought to London after Bosworth she stayed with MB instead of her mother imply anything . Who knows?
>
> Although it may seem madness for EW to have got involved with a plot that would have seen her daughter turfed off the throne, was EW the type of woman who would take the murder of her two young sons lying down. I don't think so. All in all I don't think this theory can be discarded too quickly. What a nest of vipers.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Doug here:
> > I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
> > daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
> > vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
> > But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
> > out something
> > that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
> > *personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
> > the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
> > Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
> > personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
> > seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
> > to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
> > that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
> > motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
> > All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
> > that great...
> > Doug
> > (who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
> > prevalent)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

PG will also not sneeze in some dusty library, doing her research. You are giving rice an unfair shake. I envision her writings as imagination dysentery.

On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Oh don't you worry Pamela....PG can churn out books like rice...With sometimes only two pages to a chapter, as in The Kingmakers Daughter, she is not going to gets writers cramp any time soon...unfortunately ...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Please God, do not let PG red the threads....another book in the making. It is a fascinating story. There are so many threads in this tapestry. Scholars, historians, both professional and those you you here, who are learned and looking, I hope will someday find the answers. I agree too bad no diaries were kept. Or perhaps there were some writings which have been lost....
>
> On Jun 23, 2013, at 10:58 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It could be possible that there were issues between EoY and EW...Perfectly possible and human. Did EoY ever defends her mother or try to make things easier for her arter she
> A very good point Doug, and yet because of the human factors here we cannot rule it out. It could be possible there were issues between mother and daughter. As far as I know EoY did not seem to have intervened in any way to try to make her mother's situation easier...although there were occasions when she could put her foot down with Henry. Could the fact that when she was brought to London after Bosworth she stayed with MB instead of her mother imply anything . Who knows?
>
> Although it may seem madness for EW to have got involved with a plot that would have seen her daughter turfed off the throne, was EW the type of woman who would take the murder of her two young sons lying down. I don't think so. All in all I don't think this theory can be discarded too quickly. What a nest of vipers.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Doug here:
> > I find it a bit hard to believe EW would act in that manner, sacrificing her
> > daughter's position as queen (and her grandson's future as king!) to wreak
> > vengeance against MB and Morton for the deaths of her sons.
> > But the idea itself, of EW doing something for revenge, does, I think, point
> > out something
> > that we may be omitting as we try to make sense out of these goings on -
> > *personal* motives; ie, hatred, revenge, greed, love, as the reason behind
> > the actions of various people and *not* some deep-laid plan.
> > Of course, trying to "prove" that someone did something only because of a
> > personal reason, and *not* because that person supported York or Lancaster
> > seems to me to be nearly impossible. Would it be worth the effort, however,
> > to examine *what* someone did, try to determine if the probable motive for
> > that action would *most likely* fit under a heading of private or public
> > motive; ie, personal gain or political gain?
> > All the time realizing that the differences between the two might not be all
> > that great...
> > Doug
> > (who regrets it wasn't until the Victorians that diary-keeping was so
> > prevalent)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"ricard1an" wrote:
>
> Sounds sensible to me Carol. More feasible that Richard murdered the Princes and Lincoln deliberately fought a battle to put a cook boy on the throne.

Carol responds:

I think you left out an important word: "More feasible *than* that Richard murdered the 'Princes,'" right? But I'm glad you like my theory.

Just for fun, we should find and list the reasons various people have found for her being placed in Bermondsey Abbey (including suddenly feeling a religious calling!) and/or for supporting the rebellion, or, for that matter, coming out of sanctuary and placing her daughters in the keeping of the man who "murdered" her sons. Maybe all historians (and novelists) should be required to take courses in logic and psychology. Too bad you can't teach common sense (or that common sense is so uncommon).

Carol

I did indeed. I did post a correction but it said that it couldn't find it when Ihad posted it.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > Sounds sensible to me Carol. More feasible that Richard murdered the Princes and Lincoln deliberately fought a battle to put a cook boy on the throne.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think you left out an important word: "More feasible *than* that Richard murdered the 'Princes,'" right? But I'm glad you like my theory.
>
> Just for fun, we should find and list the reasons various people have found for her being placed in Bermondsey Abbey (including suddenly feeling a religious calling!) and/or for supporting the rebellion, or, for that matter, coming out of sanctuary and placing her daughters in the keeping of the man who "murdered" her sons. Maybe all historians (and novelists) should be required to take courses in logic and psychology. Too bad you can't teach common sense (or that common sense is so uncommon).
>
> Carol
>

EILEEN BATES wrote:

"It could be possible that there were issues between EoY and EW...Perfectly
possible and human. Did EoY ever defends her mother or try to make things
easier for her arter she
A very good point Doug, and yet because of the human factors here we cannot
rule it out. It could be possible there were issues between mother and
daughter. As far as I know EoY did not seem to have intervened in any way to
try to make her mother's situation easier...although there were occasions
when she could put her foot down with Henry. Could the fact that when she
was brought to London after Bosworth she stayed with MB instead of her
mother imply anything . Who knows?
Although it may seem madness for EW to have got involved with a plot that
would have seen her daughter turfed off the throne, was EW the type of woman
who would take the murder of her two young sons lying down. I don't think
so. All in all I don't think this theory can be discarded too quickly.
What a nest of vipers."

Doug here:
Could EW have been sent to Bermondsey, not so much because she supported
young Warwick, but because she *didn't* support the official line that her
two sons were dead and said so?
I seem to recall someone having Titulus Regius repealed, thus legalizing
*all* of EW's children. Now, what *was* his name...?
Doug

Hilary Jones wrote:

"That is a good point Doug. I don't think many people, unless they were
really top notch, woke up and said 'I'm a Yorkist' or 'I'm a Lancastrian';
it wasn't a religion. It was more likely 'what will get in the way of my
business, or why has my stupid 'lord of the manor' got himself mixed up in
this'. People were ever nasty, selffish, mean and cruel, or whatever it was
Hobbes said. I suppose in some respects you have to admire MB and Morton for
conspiring for so long. I was just looking up something for Carol and
noticed that Edward put out a warrent for Morton in 1461 for stirring up
treason in York. You can imagine him creeping round the backstreets - I'm
sure he didn't, but imagining it is fun."

Doug here:
Except for Morton, I'm not even that certain about MB "conspiring for so
long". Well, trying to get Henry back into England and making sure he was
given his rightful place in society, yes. But I tend to lean towards the
idea that it wasn't until *after* the failure of Buckingham's rebellion that
MB really got involved in plots to put her Henry sitting on the throne of
England.
All of the plotting MB did *before* Buckingham's rebellion can be just as
easily explained as MB offering *her* support (and the Stanley's?) to EW in
order to return E(V) to the throne, with the payoff being Henry's marriage
to EoY, but *not* substituting Henry for E(V).
Or have I missed something again?
Doug

No I don't think so. I'd tend to agree. The summer of 1483 must have been a golden opportunity for her. As you say before that it was probably more about getting Henry back safely, or making sure he stayed safe.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2013, 5:32
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"That is a good point Doug. I don't think many people, unless they were
really top notch, woke up and said 'I'm a Yorkist' or 'I'm a Lancastrian';
it wasn't a religion. It was more likely 'what will get in the way of my
business, or why has my stupid 'lord of the manor' got himself mixed up in
this'. People were ever nasty, selffish, mean and cruel, or whatever it was
Hobbes said. I suppose in some respects you have to admire MB and Morton for
conspiring for so long. I was just looking up something for Carol and
noticed that Edward put out a warrent for Morton in 1461 for stirring up
treason in York. You can imagine him creeping round the backstreets - I'm
sure he didn't, but imagining it is fun."

Doug here:
Except for Morton, I'm not even that certain about MB "conspiring for so
long". Well, trying to get Henry back into England and making sure he was
given his rightful place in society, yes. But I tend to lean towards the
idea that it wasn't until *after* the failure of Buckingham's rebellion that
MB really got involved in plots to put her Henry sitting on the throne of
England.
All of the plotting MB did *before* Buckingham's rebellion can be just as
easily explained as MB offering *her* support (and the Stanley's?) to EW in
order to return E(V) to the throne, with the payoff being Henry's marriage
to EoY, but *not* substituting Henry for E(V).
Or have I missed something again?
Doug

Hi Hilary,

Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know. You can find it all in the York House books.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
> I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
>  
> Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
>
> Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> Marie
>
> Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> >  
> > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
> >  
> > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
>
> There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> Marie
>
> >  
> > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
>
> I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> Marie
>
> >  
> > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> >
> >
> > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
> >
> > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > >
> > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > > irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > > was erased also.
> > >
> > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

All you need is to slip the word "the" before "College".
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Marie. It was Lincoln that only offered degrees in Theology until the early seventeenth century - I got that from the uni website. At Stillington's time it had very few students, under 30 I recall.
> (I was on a word limit, so couldn't expand as much as I would have liked to)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:37
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>  
>
>
> Hi Hilary. I've just skimmed through your article. Can you just clarify one thing for me, please? When you write: "Robert would not have taken his Doctorate in Civil Law there, because in the fifteenth century College only offered degrees in Theology", do you mean colleges in general only offered degrees in Theology, or that Lincoln College only offered degrees in Theology?
> Marie
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Marie. Hammond also didn't realise I was talking about Stillington in Yorkshire the place (where Beckynton was a prebend) - it can get confusing if you haven't got many words to expand. It needs tidying anyway now I'm not answering Joan's question.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

All you need is to slip the word "the" before "College".
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Marie. It was Lincoln that only offered degrees in Theology until the early seventeenth century - I got that from the uni website. At Stillington's time it had very few students, under 30 I recall.
> (I was on a word limit, so couldn't expand as much as I would have liked to)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:37
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>  
>
>
> Hi Hilary. I've just skimmed through your article. Can you just clarify one thing for me, please? When you write: "Robert would not have taken his Doctorate in Civil Law there, because in the fifteenth century College only offered degrees in Theology", do you mean colleges in general only offered degrees in Theology, or that Lincoln College only offered degrees in Theology?
> Marie
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> >
> > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was irrelevant.
> >
> > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you was erased also.
> >
> > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I haven't got that far but will look it up in the YHB. He does seem good at playing the health card (there speaks the cynical former employer). Considering how long he appears to have been ailing he lasted a good time until Oxford Uni turfed him out after the Simnel thing. One minute he'd be pleading ill health and the next off on another commission. Apparently he had very nice house at Chiswick by the river where he would entertain. You can tell I don't have much affection for him - which strangely enough I do for Beckynton so far. He was clearly admired by his 'deputies' who asked to be buried near him. 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 15:50
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 

Hi Hilary,

Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know. You can find it all in the York House books.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
> I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
>  
> Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
>
> Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> Marie
>
> Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> >  
> > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
> >  
> > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
>
> There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> Marie
>
> >  
> > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
>
> I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> Marie
>
> >  
> > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> >
> >
> > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
> >
> > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > >
> > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > > irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > > was erased also.
> > >
> > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie
Have you got a date for the entry in the York House Books? I have Volume 1, which goes up to 1490 and have looked through but can't seem to find it.
Elainen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know. You can find it all in the York House books.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> > PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
> > I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
> >  
> > Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> >
> > Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> > Marie
> >
> > Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> > >  
> > > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
> > >  
> > > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
> >
> > There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> > Marie
> >
> > >  
> > > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
> >
> > I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> > Marie
> >
> > >  
> > > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > >
> > >
> > > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> > > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> > > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> > > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> > > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> > > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> > > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
> > >
> > > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > > >
> > > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > > > irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > > > was erased also.
> > > >
> > > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
> Have you got a date for the entry in the York House Books? I have Volume 1, which goes up to 1490 and have looked through but can't seem to find it.
> Elainen


Hi Elaine,
No, it's all in Volume 2, which covers different books that, timewise, run in parallel with the ones in Volume 1.
The page numbers are 734 to 737 (it isn't a massive volume - the page numbers carry straight on from Volume 1).
Marie


>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know. You can find it all in the York House books.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > > By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> > > PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
> > > I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
> > >  
> > > Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> > >
> > > Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> > > >  
> > > > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
> > > >  
> > > > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
> > >
> > > There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >  
> > > > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
> > >
> > > I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >  
> > > > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> > > > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> > > > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> > > > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> > > > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> > > > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> > > > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
> > > >
> > > > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > > > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > > > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > > > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > > > >
> > > > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > > > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > > > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > > > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > > > > irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > > > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > > > > was erased also.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

So there is a Volume Two, is there? I've never been able to track it down. I have the Attreed version of Volume One which only has about 400 pages.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 0:03
Subject: Re: Stillington Article

 



--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
> Have you got a date for the entry in the York House Books? I have Volume 1, which goes up to 1490 and have looked through but can't seem to find it.
> Elainen

Hi Elaine,
No, it's all in Volume 2, which covers different books that, timewise, run in parallel with the ones in Volume 1.
The page numbers are 734 to 737 (it isn't a massive volume - the page numbers carry straight on from Volume 1).
Marie

>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know. You can find it all in the York House books.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > > By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> > > PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
> > > I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
> > >  
> > > Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> > >
> > > Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> > > >  
> > > > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
> > > >  
> > > > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
> > >
> > > There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >  
> > > > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
> > >
> > > I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >  
> > > > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> > > > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> > > > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> > > > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> > > > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> > > > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> > > > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
> > > >
> > > > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > > > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > > > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > > > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > > > >
> > > > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > > > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > > > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > > > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > > > > irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > > > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > > > > was erased also.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Just ordered & received a set with both volumes. (Hope it wasn't the last
available at a reasonable price).

A J


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> So there is a Volume Two, is there? I've never been able to track it down.
> I have the Attreed version of Volume One which only has about 400 pages.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 0:03
>
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > Have you got a date for the entry in the York House Books? I have Volume
> 1, which goes up to 1490 and have looked through but can't seem to find it.
> > Elainen
>
> Hi Elaine,
> No, it's all in Volume 2, which covers different books that, timewise, run
> in parallel with the ones in Volume 1.
> The page numbers are 734 to 737 (it isn't a massive volume - the page
> numbers carry straight on from Volume 1).
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > >
> > > Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated
> Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to
> York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably
> at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been
> sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington
> already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city
> authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or
> five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know.
> You can find it all in the York House books.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of
> supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni
> and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > > > By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> > > > PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative
> Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem
> quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them
> out of the way when they can.
> > > > I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was
> around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
> > > > ý
> > > > Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just
> saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'.ý
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > >
> > > > ý
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting
> character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who
> is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the
> same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > Hancock has Catesby as the one whoý knew and told Richard, because
> he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been
> confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years
> and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> > > > > ý
> > > > > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard andý Richard
> believed what he said because he was a bishop.ý Was he chosen to reveal it
> because he was a bishop?
> > > > > ý
> > > > > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have
> chosený Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his
> love of litigation, Eborallý ý (for EW) the country parson who owes you
> something is much more in keeping.ý ý ý And then of course there's
> Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich
> when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his
> property for MB.
> > > >
> > > > There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine
> marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's
> reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us
> the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the
> Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter
> of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor.
> Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > > A lot more work.ý All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring
> down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the
> Crown and Richmondý were two boysý and an unknown northern uncle.ý
> > > >
> > > > I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything ,
> whether it fits the hypothesis or not.ý H
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > > To: "" <
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.ý I read it & was looking forward
> to
> > > > > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe
> even some
> > > > > answers to some of your questions.ý It sounds as if you're pretty
> sure that
> > > > > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.ý Do you
> have any
> > > > > idea who might have?ý And, confessing that I have not finished
> reading
> > > > > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the
> other?ý How do
> > > > > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the
> pre-contract?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the
> Bulletin as
> > > > > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as
> though I was an
> > > > > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as
> Penn and
> > > > > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do
> I feel
> > > > > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful
> to anyone
> > > > > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification
> did not
> > > > > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until
> 1461 was
> > > > > > irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste.
> But you on
> > > > > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any
> mention of you
> > > > > > was erased also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have
> succeeded. H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >ý
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, 'The York House Books' (the Attreed edition of the York civic records for the period) is a two-volume work, as you can see from the contents list in Volume 1. I imagine the volumes are probably still available to buy separately from the Society's sales officer. It would be well worth while forking out because there is only one index for both volumes, and it is at the back of Volume 2.
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So there is a Volume Two, is there? I've never been able to track it down. I have the Attreed version of Volume One which only has about 400 pages.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 0:03
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > Have you got a date for the entry in the York House Books? I have Volume 1, which goes up to 1490 and have looked through but can't seem to find it.
> > Elainen
>
> Hi Elaine,
> No, it's all in Volume 2, which covers different books that, timewise, run in parallel with the ones in Volume 1.
> The page numbers are 734 to 737 (it isn't a massive volume - the page numbers carry straight on from Volume 1).
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > >
> > > Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know. You can find it all in the York House books.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > > > By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> > > > PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them out of the way when they can.
> > > > I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
> > > >  
> > > > Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> > > > >  
> > > > > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it because he was a bishop?
> > > > >  
> > > > > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his property for MB.
> > > >
> > > > There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor. Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle. 
> > > >
> > > > I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything , whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > > To: "" <>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward to
> > > > > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe even some
> > > > > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty sure that
> > > > > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you have any
> > > > > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished reading
> > > > > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the other?  How do
> > > > > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the pre-contract?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the Bulletin as
> > > > > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as though I was an
> > > > > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as Penn and
> > > > > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do I feel
> > > > > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful to anyone
> > > > > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification did not
> > > > > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until 1461 was
> > > > > > irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste. But you on
> > > > > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any mention of you
> > > > > > was erased also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have succeeded. H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The one I could find was $465 for both! 



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 12:22
Subject: Re: Stillington Article


Just ordered & received a set with both volumes.  (Hope it wasn't the last
available at a reasonable price).

A J


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> So there is a Volume Two, is there? I've never been able to track it down.
> I have the Attreed version of Volume One which only has about 400 pages.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 0:03
>
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > Have you got a date for the entry in the York House Books? I have Volume
> 1, which goes up to 1490 and have looked through but can't seem to find it.
> > Elainen
>
> Hi Elaine,
> No, it's all in Volume 2, which covers different books that, timewise, run
> in parallel with the ones in Volume 1.
> The page numbers are 734 to 737 (it isn't a massive volume - the page
> numbers carry straight on from Volume 1).
> Marie
>
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > >
> > > Glad you liked the "smoking priest". Actually, Henry treated
> Stillington badly straight after Bosworth. The messengers Henry had sent to
> York with news of the battle found him and arrested him en route, probably
> at Nether Acaster. So when Robert Rawdon, the man who had actually been
> sent north to arrest him, reached York two days later he found Stillington
> already in custody. Because of the poor state of his health, the city
> authorities begged Rawdon to allow him to rest up for a further four or
> five days before being taken away. Whether Rawdon agreed, we don't know.
> You can find it all in the York House books.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He apparently treated him badly because he was suspected of
> supporting the Lambert Simnel rebellion. He holed himself up in Oxford uni
> and refused to come out, so the uni got scared and pushed him out.
> > > > By the way I agree with your bit about the 'smoking priest' - love it
> > > > PS Did he support the rebellion because of EW and his near-relative
> Prior Ingleby (who seems to have got away with this unscathed)? H7/MB seem
> quite capable of using people, like perhaps Buckingham, and getting them
> out of the way when they can.
> > > > I know Morton was with MA in the late 1460s in France, but he was
> around in the 1450s; at one point he was Chancellor of Oxford.
> > > > Â
> > > > Sorry this is a bit disjointed. I'm not saying I know, I'm just
> saying it begs questions, certainly as much as the 'Catesby thoery'.Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2013, 3:33
> > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a lot more work to do. Prior Ingleby is an interesting
> character but Stillington also had quite a bit of contact with Morton, who
> is actually very low profile in the 1460s, given that they were about the
> same age and the same intelligence. Was Morton less ambitious - I doubt it?
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Morton in exile with Queen Margaret in the 1460s?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > Hancock has Catesby as the one who knew and told Richard, because
> he was lawyer to the Talbots. I doubt it; the Catesbys had been
> confidential lawyers to the aristocracy and the Crown for about 150 years
> and were doing well. Why take the risk?
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Where I am is that Stillington did tell Richard and Richard
> believed what he said because he was a bishop. Was he chosen to reveal it
> because he was a bishop?
> > > > > Â
> > > > > All I can say is that I don't think the astute Edward would have
> chosen Stillington as witness given his record of working for H6 and his
> love of litigation, Eborall  (for EW) the country parson who owes you
> something is much more in keeping.   And then of course there's
> Elizabeth Mowbray out to avenge her sister. And Stillington was very rich
> when he died (didn't get round to that). Reggie Bray bought some of his
> property for MB.
> > > >
> > > > There is no need to look for a "smoking priest" really. Clandestine
> marriages really didn't usually involve one, and although in Henry VII's
> reign a story emerges of a priest and singing boys, Titulus Regius tells us
> the marriage took place "I a profane place and not in the face of the
> Church". The Year Book of 1 Henry VII identifies Stillington as the drafter
> of Tituls Regius, not as the priest who married Edward and Eleanor.
> Commines may be very unreliable on this.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > A lot more work.  All hypothesis. But what a clever plot to bring
> down the House of York if you realised that all that stood between the
> Crown and Richmond were two boys and an unknown northern uncle.Â
> > > >
> > > > I'm puzzled, then, as to why Henry VII treated Stillington so badly.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > I shall keep working. And you have to be prepared for anything ,
> whether it fits the hypothesis or not.  H
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > > To: "" <
> >
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013, 23:06
> > > > > Subject: Re: Stillington Article
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ohh - sorry to hear that Hilary.  I read it & was looking forward
> to
> > > > > learning what else you found (or are still finding) out & maybe
> even some
> > > > > answers to some of your questions.  It sounds as if you're pretty
> sure that
> > > > > Stillington himself did not perform the Talbot marriage.  Do you
> have any
> > > > > idea who might have?  And, confessing that I have not finished
> reading
> > > > > Hancock's book, does it affect his argument one way or the
> other?  How do
> > > > > we come, then, to associate Stillington with the story of the
> pre-contract?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see what you mean, wherever we look, more questions than answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:44 PM, hjnatdat <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've uploaded what I researched. Sadly it will not be in the
> Bulletin as
> > > > > > Peter Hammond thought it was sub-standard and amended it as
> though I was an
> > > > > > amateur (aged about eight). I have the same qualifications as
> Penn and
> > > > > > Skidmore but they're obviously not good enough for the Society.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After months of eye-aching research do I feel put out - yes. Do
> I feel
> > > > > > like throwing the toys out of the pram - yes. But if it's useful
> to anyone
> > > > > > here I'm glad. His comment was that having a legal qualification
> did not
> > > > > > affect Stillington's character and that his background up until
> 1461 was
> > > > > > irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like Eileen and some others this leaves me with a sour taste.
> But you on
> > > > > > the Forum have been a joy to work with. Unfortunately, any
> mention of you
> > > > > > was erased also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it in anyway adds to the knowledge base then I shall have
> succeeded. H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Â
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ouch - I got mine for about 98 l including shipping to the US.

A J


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The one I could find was $465 for both!
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 12:22
>
> Subject: Re: Stillington Article
>
>
> Just ordered & received a set with both volumes. (Hope it wasn't the last
> available at a reasonable price).
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > So there is a Volume Two, is there? I've never been able to track it
> down.
> > I have the Attreed version of Volume One which only has about 400 pages.
> >
> >
> <snip>
>

Thanks for posting this Marie - I've discovered where I was going wrong
- clicking on reply rather than group reply. As Eileen says
'Technology'!!!!

Jac