Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
church were on the council?

I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
correct it if it's wrong?

(W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
(R) = Known to have supported Richard

(W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
(W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
(W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)

(R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
(R) Lord John Howard
(R) Thomas, Lord Stanley

Men of common birth - names unknown?

*Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
Woodvilles or Richard.

Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
(W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
(R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
(W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
...and a few others?...

~Weds

At least in May 1482 (though I'm not sure about early 1483) there was also Thomas Barowe, who later became Richard's Master of the Rolls and Keeper of the Great Seal.  He would definitely count as a (R).

This is in: James Fosdick Baldwin,The King's Council in England during the Middle Ages. Oxford, 1913

available from:  http://archive.org/stream/cu31924032667143#page/n13/mode/2up

He and others are mentioned on page 434.




________________________________
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013 9:25 AM
Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 
Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
church were on the council?

I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
correct it if it's wrong?

(W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
(R) = Known to have supported Richard

(W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
(W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
(W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)

(R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
(R) Lord John Howard
(R) Thomas, Lord Stanley

Men of common birth - names unknown?

*Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
Woodvilles or Richard.

Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
(W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
(R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
(W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
...and a few others?...

~Weds

Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.



________________________________
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
church were on the council?

I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
correct it if it's wrong?

(W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
(R) = Known to have supported Richard

(W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
(W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
(W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)

(R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
(R) Lord John Howard
(R) Thomas, Lord Stanley

Men of common birth - names unknown?

*Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
Woodvilles or Richard.

Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
(W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
(R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
(W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
...and a few others?...

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.


Hi Hilary,

Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.

I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?

Marie






>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> church were on the council?
>
> I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> correct it if it's wrong?
>
> (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> (R) = Known to have supported Richard
>
> (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
>
> (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> (R) Lord John Howard
> (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
>
> Men of common birth - names unknown?
>
> *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> Woodvilles or Richard.
>
> Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> ...and a few others?...
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.

Hi Hilary,

Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.

I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?

Marie

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> church were on the council?
>
> I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> correct it if it's wrong?
>
> (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> (R) = Known to have supported Richard
>
> (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
>
> (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> (R) Lord John Howard
> (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
>
> Men of common birth - names unknown?
>
> *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> Woodvilles or Richard.
>
> Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> ...and a few others?...
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.

Tamara



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
>
> I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > church were on the council?
> >
> > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > correct it if it's wrong?
> >
> > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> >
> > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> >
> > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > (R) Lord John Howard
> > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> >
> > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> >
> > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > Woodvilles or Richard.
> >
> > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > ...and a few others?...
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Rotherham was a Woodville supporter - is that not so Marie? And as he was a Yorkshireman (albeit from the South) you would perhaps have expected him to support Richard? Russell, as far as I'm concerned, needs a bit more investigation. Bourchier came from a royal line himself. So I agree - not packed with Richard supporters so that hits the 'fixed' claim on the head. But what about de-stabilising the Yorkist throne? Who knows. That's why perhaps the upper eschelons of the Church itself at this time could do with a bit more investigation? In some parts of the country they seem to have been supporting Lancaster for a long time; particularly the West Country. 



________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 


So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.

Tamara

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
>
> I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > church were on the council?
> >
> > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > correct it if it's wrong?
> >
> > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> >
> > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> >
> > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > (R) Lord John Howard
> > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> >
> > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> >
> > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > Woodvilles or Richard.
> >
> > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > ...and a few others?...
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just recalled - didn't Bourchier grant a licence for George  to marry Isabel in Calais (presumably against Edward's wishes)? Interesting that. I know little or nothing about him.



________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 


So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.

Tamara

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
>
> I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > church were on the council?
> >
> > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > correct it if it's wrong?
> >
> > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> >
> > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> >
> > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > (R) Lord John Howard
> > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> >
> > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> >
> > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > Woodvilles or Richard.
> >
> > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > ...and a few others?...
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 



________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 


So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.

Tamara

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
>
> I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > church were on the council?
> >
> > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > correct it if it's wrong?
> >
> > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> >
> > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> >
> > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > (R) Lord John Howard
> > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> >
> > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> >
> > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > Woodvilles or Richard.
> >
> > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > ...and a few others?...
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aha - the plot thickens. What are you reading?

A J


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father
> and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more
> interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington,
> Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths.
> Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
>
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time
> of His Death
>
>
>
>
> So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons
> inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what
> traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard
> proof of Stillington's claim.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very
> surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time
> of His Death
> >
> > ý
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of
> Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop
> had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble
> birth'.
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was
> arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was
> then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political
> plotting for the rest of the reign.
> >
> > I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have
> a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time
> of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > > ýýý
> > >
> > > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of
> Edward
> > > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's
> evidence
> > > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men
> of the
> > > church were on the council?
> > >
> > > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone
> please
> > > correct it if it's wrong?
> > >
> > > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> > >
> > > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> > >
> > > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's
> death)
> > > (R) Lord John Howard
> > > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> > >
> > > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> > >
> > > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to
> support the
> > > Woodvilles or Richard.
> > >
> > > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's
> will
> > > ...and a few others?...
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Wednesday McKenna wrote:
>
> Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the church were on the council?
>
> I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please correct it if it's wrong?
>
> (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> (R) = Known to have supported Richard
>
> (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow) <snip>

Carol responds:

I think you mean Lord Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset. His younger brother, Richard, had been at Ludlow with his uncle Anthony and was never, so far as I know, a member of the council. He was, of course, arrested by the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham at Stony Stratford.

Whether Edward Woodville was ever a member of the council, I don't know. He was only a knight, not a lord. The council overstepped their bounds by sending him to sea ostensibly to fight French pirates considering that the authority to do so was Richard's as Admiral of England. Anthony Woodville was Deputy Constable of the Tower (he illegally transferred that office to his nephew Thomas (Dorset), who was a member of the council after Edward IV's death, but whether he was a member before, I don't know. I believe (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that the queen dowager (EW) also attended the council meetings before she fled into sanctuary (odd thing to do if she'd done nothing wrong!)

<snip>

> *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the Woodvilles or Richard.
>
> Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will

Carol responds:
I snipped the part about men of common birth, names unknown, none of whom would have been members of the *Privy* Council, but the larger council no doubt included lawyers (not Catesby, who came later).

Someone mentioned Bishop Russell as "going over to the dark side." There's no evidence that he ever turned against Richard or that Richard deprived him of the Great Seal. He only borrowed it before Bosworth as he had done on progress in the matter of Buckingham's treason and would no doubt have returned it if he had won Bosworth. Richard's letter to Russell regarding Buckingham says something like, "We (I) would rather that you bring it yourself, but if you can't, please send it by another bearer." The implication is not reluctance but perhaps duties or more likely illness making it impossible for him to come himself.

The idea that Russell turned against Richard is tied in with the idea that he was the author of the Croyland Chronicle, shown to be highly improbable by the editors of the most recent translation of the Chronicle (Marie can supply their names). Both Russell *and Rotherham* signed the petition to Richard asking him to protect the rights of the Church after his only Parliament based upon his "noble and most blessed disposition in all other things" (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112 (as did Cardinal Bourchier, evidence against the Tudor idea that he regretted crowning and anointing King Richard). He also, of course, was responsible for talking EW into placing her son Richard in his uncle's custody, strong evidence that he knew that Richard (Gloucester) would not harm him. I would put an (R) by Cardinal Bourchier's name.

Could the minor members of the larger council have included Oliver King and someone named Foster (mentioned in the Stonor Letters), both arrested in connection with the same plot that resulted in the execution of Hastings and the arrests of Rotherham and Morton?

Also, whoever wrote the Croyland Chronicle continuation was must have been one of the minor members, obviously not a member of the Privy Council or he would not have made so many mistakes or have been so vague in stating what happened when Hastings was arrested. Possibly he lost his post after Richard became king.

Carol

I read Wiki for Bourchier but had researched some of the others a bit :)



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 17:14
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


Aha - the plot thickens.  What are you reading?

A J


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father
> and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more
> interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington,
> Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths.
> Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
>
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time
> of His Death
>
>
>
>
> So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons
> inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what
> traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard
> proof of Stillington's claim.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very
> surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time
> of His Death
> >
> > ‚
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of
> Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop
> had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble
> birth'.
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was
> arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was
> then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political
> plotting for the rest of the reign.
> >
> > I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have
> a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time
> of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > > ƒd
> > >
> > > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of
> Edward
> > > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's
> evidence
> > > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men
> of the
> > > church were on the council?
> > >
> > > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone
> please
> > > correct it if it's wrong?
> > >
> > > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> > >
> > > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> > >
> > > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's
> death)
> > > (R) Lord John Howard
> > > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> > >
> > > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> > >
> > > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to
> support the
> > > Woodvilles or Richard.
> > >
> > > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's
> will
> > > ...and a few others?...
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Carol - it was Rotherham I said went over to the dark side re his plotting with the Woodvilles. I knew of the theory about Russell being the Continuator, but isn't his style supposed to have been analysed and have been wrong?  I really know little about him H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 17:15
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

Wednesday McKenna wrote:
>
> Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the church were on the council?
>
> I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please correct it if it's wrong?
>
> (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> (R) = Known to have supported Richard
>
> (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow) <snip>

Carol responds:

I think you mean Lord Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset. His younger brother, Richard, had been at Ludlow with his uncle Anthony and was never, so far as I know, a member of the council. He was, of course, arrested by the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham at Stony Stratford.

Whether Edward Woodville was ever a member of the council, I don't know. He was only a knight, not a lord. The council overstepped their bounds by sending him to sea ostensibly to fight French pirates considering that the authority to do so was Richard's as Admiral of England. Anthony Woodville was Deputy Constable of the Tower (he illegally transferred that office to his nephew Thomas (Dorset), who was a member of the council after Edward IV's death, but whether he was a member before, I don't know. I believe (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that the queen dowager (EW) also attended the council meetings before she fled into sanctuary (odd thing to do if she'd done nothing wrong!)

<snip>

> *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the Woodvilles or Richard.
>
> Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will

Carol responds:
I snipped the part about men of common birth, names unknown, none of whom would have been members of the *Privy* Council, but the larger council no doubt included lawyers (not Catesby, who came later).

Someone mentioned Bishop Russell as "going over to the dark side." There's no evidence that he ever turned against Richard or that Richard deprived him of the Great Seal. He only borrowed it before Bosworth as he had done on progress in the matter of Buckingham's treason and would no doubt have returned it if he had won Bosworth. Richard's letter to Russell regarding Buckingham says something like, "We (I) would rather that you bring it yourself, but if you can't, please send it by another bearer." The implication is not reluctance but perhaps duties or more likely illness making it impossible for him to come himself.

The idea that Russell turned against Richard is tied in with the idea that he was the author of the Croyland Chronicle, shown to be highly improbable by the editors of the most recent translation of the Chronicle (Marie can supply their names). Both Russell *and Rotherham* signed the petition to Richard asking him to protect the rights of the Church after his only Parliament based upon his "noble and most blessed disposition in all other things" (Audrey Williamson, "The Mystery of the Princes," p. 112 (as did Cardinal Bourchier, evidence against the Tudor idea that he regretted crowning and anointing King Richard). He also, of course, was responsible for talking EW into placing her son Richard in his uncle's custody, strong evidence that he knew that Richard (Gloucester) would not harm him. I would put an (R) by Cardinal Bourchier's name.

Could the minor members of the larger council have included Oliver King and someone named Foster (mentioned in the Stonor Letters), both arrested in connection with the same plot that resulted in the execution of Hastings and the arrests of Rotherham and Morton?

Also, whoever wrote the Croyland Chronicle continuation was must have been one of the minor members, obviously not a member of the Privy Council or he would not have made so many mistakes or have been so vague in stating what happened when Hastings was arrested. Possibly he lost his post after Richard became king.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 

Carol responds:

Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.

Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.

Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.

As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.

Carol

Alison Hanham wrote an article analyzing the 3 speeches Bishop Russell
wrote to open the Parliament that was originally to be Edward V's, then
postponed because of Buckingham's rebellion, until January 1484. She
promoted these speeches as another contemporary source (alongside Croyland
& Mancini) that hadn't been examined before. I admit to only skimming it,
but it seemed to require a lot of interpretation of biblical quotations &
perhaps only indicated his reservations about the way Richard had become
king. I can't help thinking it could have been his bias as a churchman
that the matter of legitimacy should have been referred to an
ecclesiastical court.

Has anyone else read this article & digested it more thoroughly? I'd be
interested in a more informed opinion.

A J


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father
> and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more
> interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uniý of Morton, Stillington,
> Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths.
> Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)ý
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of
> Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition
> asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other
> things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the
> interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say,
> he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I
> doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He
> did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in
> the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age
> of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered
> the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe
> that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
>
> Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a
> speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be
> extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to
> Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member
> of his administration.
>
> Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as
> indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell,
> Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus
> and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and
> others not named by Audrey Williamson.
>
> As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in
> general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced
> by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man
> and arrested him twice.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol - it was Rotherham I said went over to the dark side re his plotting with the Woodvilles. I knew of the theory about Russell being the Continuator, but isn't his style supposed to have been analysed and have been wrong?  I really know little about him H

Carol responds:

Sorry about that! As I said, I think that even Rotherham came around to supporting Richard or at least accepting him as king. Certainly, he was involved in any further plotting.

I looked up the editors of the most recent (but not *very* recent) translation of the Croyland (or Crowland) Chronicle, Cox and Pronay. Somewhere, I read their arguments about the authorship in full and found them very convincing. You can glimpse them here:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=3qT2Uba3LaWUiQLN6YGYCg&id=mWRnAAAAMAAJ&dq=Crowland+Chronicle&q=Russell#search_anchor

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/lbeaoae

If anyone knows where we can read them in full online, I'd appreciate a link.

You can get a strong sense of Richard's attitude toward Russell from two famous letters, the one about Buckingham's treachery and the one about Thomas Lynom's wish to marry Mistress Shore. The fact that Russell carefully preserved Richard's letters to him may suggest a similar esteem on his part. So much relating to Richard was destroyed, including, apparently, most letters addressed *to* him, but fortunately, those letters were not.

BTW, I've put "The White Queen" (Nickells, not Gregory!) in my Amazon shopping cart, to be bought as soon as I get paid for my current editing project. Thanks for the recommendation.

Carol

I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 

Carol responds:

Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.

Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.

Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.

As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.

Carol

A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Alison Hanham wrote an article analyzing the 3 speeches Bishop Russell wrote to open the Parliament that was originally to be Edward V's, then postponed because of Buckingham's rebellion, until January 1484. She promoted these speeches as another contemporary source (alongside Croyland & Mancini) that hadn't been examined before. I admit to only skimming it, but it seemed to require a lot of interpretation of biblical quotations & perhaps only indicated his reservations about the way Richard had become king. I can't help thinking it could have been his bias as a churchman that the matter of legitimacy should have been referred to an ecclesiastical court.
>
> Has anyone else read this article & digested it more thoroughly? I'd be interested in a more informed opinion.
>
> A J

Carol responds:

I don't have access to the article, but Alison Hanham is best known for her view (which I agree with) that More's "History" of Richard is no history but a satirical drama and her argument that Hastings' execution must have occurred after, not before, EW released her son Richard into Richard of Gloucester's custody, which is clearly mistaken. (She thinks that EW would not have released her son after Hastings' death, which she views as a clear indication that Richard intended to seize the throne--yet another example of historians or literary analysts or whatever Hanham is interpreting events from the perspective of hindsight. Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler did the same.)

Anyway, Hanham has some interesting views, but I would bear in mind her stance as a moderate traditionalist in reading her interpretation of Russell's sermons--or anything else she has written. If I recall correctly, she places a little too much faith in the accuracy of Mancini. But I'm all for examining additional contemporary sources!

Marie, have you read the article in question, and, if so, what do you think of it?

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'.

Not a shred of evidence.
Marie




Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
> So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
> >
> > I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > > church were on the council?
> > >
> > > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > > correct it if it's wrong?
> > >
> > > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> > >
> > > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> > >
> > > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > > (R) Lord John Howard
> > > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> > >
> > > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> > >
> > > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > > Woodvilles or Richard.
> > >
> > > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > > ...and a few others?...
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
"He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
>
> Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
>
> Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
>
> As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'.
>
> Not a shred of evidence.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 

No. Honestly, no.
Of these, only Morton was seriously political - Rotherham had just been closely attached to the Queen and did what came naturally. Stillington was definitely NOT on Henry's side - no shadow of a doubt about that. Russell also was trusted by Richard and was ousted as Chancellor when Henry VII came to power; he was never close to government again. Bourchier was an old man, and his widowed sister-in-law, Isabel Countess of Essex, was Richard's aunt; he had been part of the York camp since the 1450s. He may have had misgivings about the deposition of Edward V for all we know, but if so he didn't let it show. He did what was asked of him by both Richard and Henry. I haven't looked at Alison Hanham's article for a long time, but she does tend to keep coming back with fresh anti-Richard make arguments which are merely hot air but sound impressive because she knows a lot and writes well (the most recent was a letter in the Bulletin suggesting the precontract might have been a marriage arrangement drawn up on paper between the Duke of York and the Earl of Shrewsabury when Edward and Eleanor were kids).
Marie



> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 15:59
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > >
> > > Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
> > >
> > > I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > > > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > > > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > > > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > > > church were on the council?
> > > >
> > > > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > > > correct it if it's wrong?
> > > >
> > > > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > > > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> > > >
> > > > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > > > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > > > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> > > >
> > > > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > > > (R) Lord John Howard
> > > > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> > > >
> > > > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> > > >
> > > > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > > > Woodvilles or Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > > > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > > > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > > > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > > > ...and a few others?...
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I always remember that the council wasn't willing to rubber-stamp Richard's wanting to execute the Stony Stratford Three upon his arrival in London. They seemed quite meticulous where the letter of the law was concerned.

Next, I remember that concerning the matter of Hastings' execution, the council appears to have backed Richard's reasons/motives after the fact, so he must have kept to the letter of the law where that was concerned -- or made them shake with fear in their fine slippers? Scholars have said the documentation of Richard's justification must have existed at some point, it's just gone now?

And then I look at the council list of men of the church (who were well versed in ecclesiastical law as well as the law of the land?), and I think Stillington must have offered solid proof of the pre-contract to satisfy those men. Because surely those bishops would have found fault with the pre-contract if they could have? Surely those bishops knew enough of ecclesiastical law to be able to tell Richard that Stillington's proofs wouldn't survive an ecclesiastical inquiry if that had been the case?

I remember in the British "trial" of Richard III, the traditionalist prosecution kept hammering home the fact that Stillington's evidence never underwent an ecclesiastical inquiry. I kept waiting for someone to point out how many bishops were on the council at the time, that those council bishops did review Stillington's evidence, and that the government was facing a bit of an emergency and hadn't the luxury of waiting weeks for a church inquiry to take place.

It's not as if Richard bought off everyone on the council, or threatened to execute them outside the Star Chamber if they didn't go along with him. It's not as if the council had only nobles and commoners on the council, or that there was no one on the council knowledgeable enough to examine and pass judgment on Stillington's evidence.

If Stillington's proofs hadn't satisfied the council bishops, wouldn't the entire council have set the pre-contract aside and gone on with the coronation of Edward V?

Regarding Rotherham, didn't H7 appointed him as...something, but Rotherham retired shortly after? As if he couldn't handle the office, or his heart was no longer in it, or was he just too old?

~Weds


--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
>
> So it's not exactly as if the council was utterly dominated by persons inclined to rubber-stamp anything Richard wanted - which is what traditionalists claim happened. Even his allies would have needed hard proof of Stillington's claim.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes it is. I stumbled on it when looking at 'you know who' and was very surprised. Will come back to you asap - working at moment. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 12:34
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Didn't Rotherham go over to the 'dark side' before the end of Richard's reign? And Russell, a strange man, whose appointment as a bishop had to be regularised by the Pope because he was a bastard but of 'noble birth'.
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > Rotherham was involved in the Tower plot - whatever that was - and was arrested and spent a couple of months imprisoned in Cardiff Castle, but was then released and is not known to have been involved in any other political plotting for the rest of the reign.
> >
> > I've not heard this about Russell before. Could you possibly let us have a link (I presume it's in the papal registers)?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 0:25
> > > Subject: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Someone a few days ago asked who was on the council at the time of Edward
> > > IV's death and when Richard was Protector, and when Stillington's evidence
> > > would have been presented -- I think in pursuit of knowing which men of the
> > > church were on the council?
> > >
> > > I found this list in my notes, I think it's from Kendall. Someone please
> > > correct it if it's wrong?
> > >
> > > (W) = Known to have supported the Woodville faction
> > > (R) = Known to have supported Richard
> > >
> > > (W) Lord Richard Grey, Marquess of Dorset (EW's son)
> > > (W) Sir Edward Woodville (EW's brother)
> > > (W) Anthony, Lord/Earl Rivers (in Ludlow)
> > >
> > > (R) William, Lord Hastings (bitter opposition to Woodvilles upon E4's death)
> > > (R) Lord John Howard
> > > (R) Thomas, Lord Stanley
> > >
> > > Men of common birth - names unknown?
> > >
> > > *Ecclesiastics* - a decisive ground who could go either way, to support the
> > > Woodvilles or Richard.
> > >
> > > Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury
> > > (W) Rotherham, Archbishop of York & Chancellor
> > > (R) John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln & Keeper of the Privy Seal
> > > (W) John Morton, Bishop of Ely
> > > Edward Story/Storey, Bishop of Chichester & executor of Edward IV's will
> > > ...and a few others?...
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 

Carol responds:

Richard wasn't an unknown Northerner. He had been the most popular man in the kingdom after his victory over the Scots, and most people accepted the Protectorship, according to both Mancini and Croyland, as a good alternative to Woodville control (and seem to have hoped that it would continue after Edward's coronation).

I very much doubt that Cardinal Bourchier, who was never suspected or convicted of anything related to conspiracy, was anything but what he seemed, a good and highly respected old man worthy of his high office. Richard must have had good reason to choose him as spokesman to convince EW to release Richard of York.

(I'm not so sure that MB thought that Morton was a good old man. I think she knew an inveterate conspirator like herself when she saw one!) Bourchier, as far as I know, was not a politician, or at least was a churchman first and then a politician. Morton (and, yes, Stillington) was the other way around.

I wouldn't believe Wikipedia. There's no evidence that I know of to justify that assertion.

Bourchier had also crowned Edward IV, which suggests a longstanding Yorkist association, but that may simply be a function of his office rather than his politics, if any. Given his descent from Thomas of Woodstock, he may originally have been Lancastrian. He would certainly have crowned Edward V had that coronation not been cancelled, but he didn't refuse to crown either of his successors. My feeling is that he was largely apolitical. Then again, he was old, and judging by his death in 1486, probably infirm by the time the year of three kings rolled around.

Carol

P.S. My screen went black and my computer turned off on its own without warning--I thought that my computer had died, but it was just the surge protector. Half an hour of panic and disconnected/reconnected plugs later, I discovered that I hadn't lost this message! I have, however, lost my train of thought, so I'm sending it half written and unchecked. My apologies if it contains any errors. C.

I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history. Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible; some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross) - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
 
For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:00
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
"He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uniàof Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)à
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
>
> Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
>
> Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
>
> As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history.

Marie responds:
Clearly my definition of "a proper source" is not "one that Ricardians agree with". Why put your own words in my mouth then lecture me about them? Wikipedia is not a proper source in anybody's book; any secondary source that doesn't reference a primary source for the statement in question is likely to be just giving the author's opinion or prejudice and so should also be avoided whatever "side" it comes down on.



Hilary again:
 Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible;


Marie again:
What concept that the Church was incorruptible? No one on the forum has suggested any such thing.


Hilary yet again:
some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross)


Marie replies:
Well, you could knock me down with a feather

Hilary continues:
 - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.

Marie again:
Theories need to be based on evidence.


And Hilary:
>  
> For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
>

Marie for the last time:
Absolutely fine, if we are really looking at the politics within the Church and not inventing spy rings based on no evidence. I quoted the previous sentence from Wiki about Bourchier's not being involved in the Princes' murder in order to demonstrate where the author was coming from with his unsupported suggestion that the Archbishop "probably" opposed Richard.
By the way, have you found the reference for Russell's being illegitimate & of noble birth yet?

Just my wild guess, but I would think that Bourchier, from his known history as described by Marie, may well have been a very fair-minded person - and not 'fair-minded' in the sense of 'wishy-washy' but in the sense of following where the evidence led him.

I can see him being looked to by all the council factions as one whose judgment on any given issue, particularly where the church or his fellow churchmen were concerned, would carry a great deal of weight.

This is all pure speculation, but I wonder if it was his considered opinion of Stillington and his evidence that convinced the rest of the council that Stillington was speaking truth. Which reminds me - would this have required a unanimous vote, or would a majority or even a plurality have sufficed?

Tamara



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history.
>
> Marie responds:
> Clearly my definition of "a proper source" is not "one that Ricardians agree with". Why put your own words in my mouth then lecture me about them? Wikipedia is not a proper source in anybody's book; any secondary source that doesn't reference a primary source for the statement in question is likely to be just giving the author's opinion or prejudice and so should also be avoided whatever "side" it comes down on.
>
>
>
> Hilary again:
>  Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible;
>
>
> Marie again:
> What concept that the Church was incorruptible? No one on the forum has suggested any such thing.
>
>
> Hilary yet again:
> some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross)
>
>
> Marie replies:
> Well, you could knock me down with a feather
>
> Hilary continues:
>  - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
>
> Marie again:
> Theories need to be based on evidence.
>
>
> And Hilary:
> >  
> > For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
> >
>
> Marie for the last time:
> Absolutely fine, if we are really looking at the politics within the Church and not inventing spy rings based on no evidence. I quoted the previous sentence from Wiki about Bourchier's not being involved in the Princes' murder in order to demonstrate where the author was coming from with his unsupported suggestion that the Archbishop "probably" opposed Richard.
> By the way, have you found the reference for Russell's being illegitimate & of noble birth yet?
>

Correction: "... his known history as described by Marie and Carol"!

Tamara

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just my wild guess, but I would think that Bourchier, from his known history as described by Marie, may well have been a very fair-minded person - and not 'fair-minded' in the sense of 'wishy-washy' but in the sense of following where the evidence led him.
>
> I can see him being looked to by all the council factions as one whose judgment on any given issue, particularly where the church or his fellow churchmen were concerned, would carry a great deal of weight.
>
> This is all pure speculation, but I wonder if it was his considered opinion of Stillington and his evidence that convinced the rest of the council that Stillington was speaking truth. Which reminds me - would this have required a unanimous vote, or would a majority or even a plurality have sufficed?
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history.
> >
> > Marie responds:
> > Clearly my definition of "a proper source" is not "one that Ricardians agree with". Why put your own words in my mouth then lecture me about them? Wikipedia is not a proper source in anybody's book; any secondary source that doesn't reference a primary source for the statement in question is likely to be just giving the author's opinion or prejudice and so should also be avoided whatever "side" it comes down on.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary again:
> >  Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible;
> >
> >
> > Marie again:
> > What concept that the Church was incorruptible? No one on the forum has suggested any such thing.
> >
> >
> > Hilary yet again:
> > some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross)
> >
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > Well, you could knock me down with a feather
> >
> > Hilary continues:
> >  - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
> >
> > Marie again:
> > Theories need to be based on evidence.
> >
> >
> > And Hilary:
> > >  
> > > For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
> > >
> >
> > Marie for the last time:
> > Absolutely fine, if we are really looking at the politics within the Church and not inventing spy rings based on no evidence. I quoted the previous sentence from Wiki about Bourchier's not being involved in the Princes' murder in order to demonstrate where the author was coming from with his unsupported suggestion that the Archbishop "probably" opposed Richard.
> > By the way, have you found the reference for Russell's being illegitimate & of noble birth yet?
> >
>

I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary, articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to be trusted in one instance, but not in another.

Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about everything.

Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?

~Weds

PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly, many hugs, Wednesday.



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
> I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
> "He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
> I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
> >
> > Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
> >
> > Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
> >
> > As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
> >
> > Carol

I think the medieval church considered itself incorruptible and never-changing, but the men serving the church were another matter entirely. And "serving the church" was open to each cleric's personal interpretation. The churchmen wriggled into civic life far more than nobility/the king wriggled into the enclosure of the church.

My view is this - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be remembering flawed sources that I've studied. The spiritual lords in E4's and R3's government were civil servants, but they were also learned in theology and still clerics. (I believe Morton got a bishopric and rewards for being a successful minister of state? Did others under E4 or R3 receive rewards as well?)

The spiritual lords accepted Richard's government as Protector. As bishops, they supported peace, continuity and royal dominion.

At the time, the church didn't supply a king with officers; the officers of the king staffed the English Church? Weren't these particular clerics servants of Westminster, rather than servants of their sees, for all their titles attaching them to their sees?

If that's the case, then men like Morton was a public servant during Edward and Richard's time? Meaning, he didn't personally possess power under E4 or R3; he served power. The only public power the clerics had was to be executives and advisers? ("I'm only thinking of you and advising you. The decision must be yours," Morton said to Buckingham at Brecon.)

The clerics like Morton and Bourchier could administer policy that each helped create, but only to the extent that the king (the power over the clerics) heeded their counsel. Once Richard became king, his word became law, and he could override the council at will?

But until Richard became king...well, what power exactly did the council have over him when he was Protector and still Constable of England and Admiral, and...whatever other responsibilities/titles that Edward favored him with?

I guess I'm asking how, exactly, the clerics on Edward VI/V's interim council could have openly controlled Richard and/or his actions before he became king? Because, always, whether cleric or noble, it always came down to power, either shadowed or open: who had it, and who could use it against whom. So a council member challenging Richard when he was Protector may have been something acceptable, but once he became king a council member had better serve the office even if they didn't like the man?

(As an aside, I think MB may have succeeded in her machinations because no male with power thought of any woman as capable of threatening his power. The same may have held true for any male in power thinking a cleric could work behind the scenes with any success to bring him down. Clerics and women simply weren't supposed to have that sort of ability or opportunity?)

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history. Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible; some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross) - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
>  
> For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:00
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
> Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
> I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
> "He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
> I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uni of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:) 
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
> >
> > Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
> >
> > Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
> >
> > As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
> >
> > Carol

Firstly to everyone - I was being humorous when I quoted Wiki, which is why I said it came from there. (Actually, some Wiki entries are by current scholars, such as Hicks on Stillington, though I disagree with him). I had already said that I have never investigated Bourchier, other than to know he is of royal descent through Thomas of Woodstock. I also asked why he issued the licence for George's marriage in Calais, which was clearly against Edward's wishes, wasn't it? No-one has yet answered that.
 
Secondly, again to everyone, there does seem to be this belief that the Church consisted of benign old men who must be virtuous. All that is, except Morton. The Church's key interest in the fifteenth century was not who was on the throne but to prevent the creeping spread of Lollardy, in England and abroad - we are only twelve years before Luther is summoned to the Diet of Worms. Protestantism was an enormous threat to the power of the Church; no longer could it mediate between man and God. The early Lancastrian kings had been robust in their suppression of Lollardy; the lovely Henry V enjoyed nothing better than a good roasting. Edward IV I think had one Lollard put to death early in his reign, but his pursuit of them was less robust. Richard possessed a Wycliff bible and heard the first official service in English at York. I'm asking what the Church thought of the Yorkist kings. My guess is, and it is only a guess because it needs investigation, that
most of the upper clergy were conservative in their views. Certainly Stillington's nephew Nyckke was extremely conservative, as were Stillington's Yorkshire relations the Inglebys and Constables, Sir Robert Constable being a leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace. I doubt Bourchier, as a Cardinal, was liberal and we know another, Fisher, was not. I'd also ask what part they had in the wording of Titulus Regius (some say it was Stillington) and in the Parliament. It is a scathing attack by a Yorkist king on his Yorkist brother the former King. Did loyal Richard really mean that, or was he obliged to say that to gain Church support? In fact was his reign dependent on Church support, as is claimed in the much-maligned Collins?
 
Finally the Northerner bit. I wouldn't dispute that Richard was popular with the 'people' - victors always are. But most modern biographers from Horrox onwards have claimed that Richard's failure to win support of key southern gentry and indeed London Court circles was a key reason for the dissent in his reign, particularly when he had to summon help from the North to put down rebellion. England had never had a 'northern' King, in particular London had never had a northern King. They didn't know him as they had Edward (through no fault of his as we know).  He might have achieved total trust over time, but as we know, sadly he didn't have time.  
 
 
 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 22:06
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 

Carol responds:

Richard wasn't an unknown Northerner. He had been the most popular man in the kingdom after his victory over the Scots, and most people accepted the Protectorship, according to both Mancini and Croyland, as a good alternative to Woodville control (and seem to have hoped that it would continue after Edward's coronation).

I very much doubt that Cardinal Bourchier, who was never suspected or convicted of anything related to conspiracy, was anything but what he seemed, a good and highly respected old man worthy of his high office. Richard must have had good reason to choose him as spokesman to convince EW to release Richard of York.

(I'm not so sure that MB thought that Morton was a good old man. I think she knew an inveterate conspirator like herself when she saw one!) Bourchier, as far as I know, was not a politician, or at least was a churchman first and then a politician. Morton (and, yes, Stillington) was the other way around.

I wouldn't believe Wikipedia. There's no evidence that I know of to justify that assertion.

Bourchier had also crowned Edward IV, which suggests a longstanding Yorkist association, but that may simply be a function of his office rather than his politics, if any. Given his descent from Thomas of Woodstock, he may originally have been Lancastrian. He would certainly have crowned Edward V had that coronation not been cancelled, but he didn't refuse to crown either of his successors. My feeling is that he was largely apolitical. Then again, he was old, and judging by his death in 1486, probably infirm by the time the year of three kings rolled around.

Carol

P.S. My screen went black and my computer turned off on its own without warning--I thought that my computer had died, but it was just the surge protector. Half an hour of panic and disconnected/reconnected plugs later, I discovered that I hadn't lost this message! I have, however, lost my train of thought, so I'm sending it half written and unchecked. My apologies if it contains any errors. C.

That's a really good analysis Weds. I like your bit about the churchmen wriggling into civil life more than the nobility. Could that be because some were frustrated younger sons and others were men of high intellect who sought an outlet to use it which was not restricted by the rites of the Church? They would probably now have gone into the higher Civil Service and become the mandarins behind what was then the throne. The nobility on the other hand had one main ambition which was to gain more land and to hold on to it. And the higher up they were they had the pesky business of listening to tenant disputes, misdemeanours etc. and recruiting troops for the King. Much better life as a bishop!
 
Your question about the power of Richard and the Church during the Protectorate is also v good.  H


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 5:27
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

I think the medieval church considered itself incorruptible and never-changing, but the men serving the church were another matter entirely. And "serving the church" was open to each cleric's personal interpretation. The churchmen wriggled into civic life far more than nobility/the king wriggled into the enclosure of the church.

My view is this - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be remembering flawed sources that I've studied. The spiritual lords in E4's and R3's government were civil servants, but they were also learned in theology and still clerics. (I believe Morton got a bishopric and rewards for being a successful minister of state? Did others under E4 or R3 receive rewards as well?)

The spiritual lords accepted Richard's government as Protector. As bishops, they supported peace, continuity and royal dominion.

At the time, the church didn't supply a king with officers; the officers of the king staffed the English Church? Weren't these particular clerics servants of Westminster, rather than servants of their sees, for all their titles attaching them to their sees?

If that's the case, then men like Morton was a public servant during Edward and Richard's time? Meaning, he didn't personally possess power under E4 or R3; he served power. The only public power the clerics had was to be executives and advisers? ("I'm only thinking of you and advising you. The decision must be yours," Morton said to Buckingham at Brecon.)

The clerics like Morton and Bourchier could administer policy that each helped create, but only to the extent that the king (the power over the clerics) heeded their counsel. Once Richard became king, his word became law, and he could override the council at will?

But until Richard became king...well, what power exactly did the council have over him when he was Protector and still Constable of England and Admiral, and...whatever other responsibilities/titles that Edward favored him with?

I guess I'm asking how, exactly, the clerics on Edward VI/V's interim council could have openly controlled Richard and/or his actions before he became king? Because, always, whether cleric or noble, it always came down to power, either shadowed or open: who had it, and who could use it against whom. So a council member challenging Richard when he was Protector may have been something acceptable, but once he became king a council member had better serve the office even if they didn't like the man?

(As an aside, I think MB may have succeeded in her machinations because no male with power thought of any woman as capable of threatening his power. The same may have held true for any male in power thinking a cleric could work behind the scenes with any success to bring him down. Clerics and women simply weren't supposed to have that sort of ability or opportunity?)

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history. Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible; some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross) - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
>  
> For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:00
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
> Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
> I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
> "He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
> I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard. àAs I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though beàa covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerneràwould play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was.à
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uniÃ’â¬aàof Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)Ã’â¬aà
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
> >
> > Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
> >
> > Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
> >
> > As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
> >
> > Carol

Can I counter-sign that?  H



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 4:57
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary, articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to be trusted in one instance, but not in another.

Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about everything.

Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?

~Weds

PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly, many hugs, Wednesday.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
> I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
> "He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
> I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uniàof Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)à
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
> >
> > Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
> >
> > Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
> >
> > As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
> >
> > Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard.  As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. Y


Hi Hilary,
The problem is that you quoted that without giving any reference - you didn't say "According to Wiki" (so we'd all have known not to set too much store by it), just:
"Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'." You only told us it was from Wikipedia when directly asked.
You later try to link Bourchier with Morton as part of a political ring because all the bishops you listed had studied at Oxford. So it looks as though you were quoting Wiki in support of your own view, or suspicions. And we've as yet no source for your claim about Bishop Russell's birth so maybe he was a noble bastard, but maybe your memory was playing tricks with you - we don't know.
I hope I don't sound picky about sources, but if we don't know where a piece of information is coming from we don't know what to make of it.
As for current scholars writing Wiki articles, I don't think that most(say, 99%) would touch it with a bargepole. What Michael Hicks has written is the piece on Stillington in the ODNB, not Wikipedia. Many Wiki articles are based in part on the current ODNB articles, but that is a different thing.
I am quite prepared to answer you about Bourchier's granting the licence for Clarence and Isabel to marry in Calais. The fact seems to be that the marriage was approved by many of George and Isabel's relatives. What most of them probably didn't realise is that it was to be the precursor to a rebellion; they more likely hoped that, once Edward had come to terms with it, it would heal the rift between him and Warwick. Cecily seems to have been in on it too (the Canterbury records show she passed through there on the way to see Warwick and Clarence off at Sandwich; she evidently did not tell Edward what she knew). The Earl of Oxford (Warwick's brother-in-law) wrote to the Pastons asking them to be ready to ride down with him. There was a great turn-out according to a contemporary source that I can't remember. I believe this was a one-off, therefore, and not evidence that Bourchier was for ever plotting.
Besides, by 1483 he was an old man, almost eighty.
And whilst I'm here, someone else asked about Thomas Rotherham under Henry VII. Yes, indeed, he was reappointed Chancellor (18 Sept.), but quickly replaced by John Alcock, Bishop of Worcester (7 Oct.). During the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy he was impeached before the court of Star Chamber on an unknown charge. He had also, incidentally, spent the Re-adeption in St Martin's Sanctuary. (All this is from Sutton & Visser-Fuchs, `Richard III, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and Two Turbulent Priests', Ricardian, vol XIX, 2009.) He survived until 1500.
Marie


Hilary continues:
You can though be a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northerner would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was. 

Marie finishes:
But that is groundless speculation, isn't it? Historians can't go to those places; that is for novelists. What we know about Bourchier is that he was, in political terms, a protégé of the House of York, his brother being married to York's sister.
Your view that senior bishops were "career politicians" because Morton and George Neville were, is misleading you. I know it would be great fun if they were, but George Neville was Warwick's brother, for heaven's sake. Most bishops who were in political office could better be described as career civil servants - ie they attempted to serve whoever was in power to the best of their ability. Not all scuttled into sanctuary during the Readeption like Rotherham; a large number co-operated with the new government and were forced to acquire pardons after Edward IV came back. Many bishops did not have Westminster careers at all.
I'll end my part in this thread here.

And the clergy could,plead both sides, ""listen to me, I am the voice of God" and don't blame me, "I am doing God's work"!

On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:56 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



That's a really good analysis Weds. I like your bit about the churchmen wriggling into civil life more than the nobility. Could that be because some were frustrated younger sons and others were men of high intellect who sought an outlet to use it which was not restricted by the rites of the Church? They would probably now have gone into the higher Civil Service and become the mandarins behind what was then the throne. The nobility on the other hand had one main ambition which was to gain more land and to hold on to it. And the higher up they were they had the pesky business of listening to tenant disputes, misdemeanours etc. and recruiting troops for the King. Much better life as a bishop!

Your question about the power of Richard and the Church during the Protectorate is also v good. H


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 5:27
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



I think the medieval church considered itself incorruptible and never-changing, but the men serving the church were another matter entirely. And "serving the church" was open to each cleric's personal interpretation. The churchmen wriggled into civic life far more than nobility/the king wriggled into the enclosure of the church.

My view is this - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be remembering flawed sources that I've studied. The spiritual lords in E4's and R3's government were civil servants, but they were also learned in theology and still clerics. (I believe Morton got a bishopric and rewards for being a successful minister of state? Did others under E4 or R3 receive rewards as well?)

The spiritual lords accepted Richard's government as Protector. As bishops, they supported peace, continuity and royal dominion.

At the time, the church didn't supply a king with officers; the officers of the king staffed the English Church? Weren't these particular clerics servants of Westminster, rather than servants of their sees, for all their titles attaching them to their sees?

If that's the case, then men like Morton was a public servant during Edward and Richard's time? Meaning, he didn't personally possess power under E4 or R3; he served power. The only public power the clerics had was to be executives and advisers? ("I'm only thinking of you and advising you. The decision must be yours," Morton said to Buckingham at Brecon.)

The clerics like Morton and Bourchier could administer policy that each helped create, but only to the extent that the king (the power over the clerics) heeded their counsel. Once Richard became king, his word became law, and he could override the council at will?

But until Richard became king...well, what power exactly did the council have over him when he was Protector and still Constable of England and Admiral, and...whatever other responsibilities/titles that Edward favored him with?

I guess I'm asking how, exactly, the clerics on Edward VI/V's interim council could have openly controlled Richard and/or his actions before he became king? Because, always, whether cleric or noble, it always came down to power, either shadowed or open: who had it, and who could use it against whom. So a council member challenging Richard when he was Protector may have been something acceptable, but once he became king a council member had better serve the office even if they didn't like the man?

(As an aside, I think MB may have succeeded in her machinations because no male with power thought of any woman as capable of threatening his power. The same may have held true for any male in power thinking a cleric could work behind the scenes with any success to bring him down. Clerics and women simply weren't supposed to have that sort of ability or opportunity?)

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history.ý Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorousý one,ý are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible; some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross)ý - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditionalý views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some?ý Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
> ý
> For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with lookingý in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:00
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
> ý
>
> Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
> I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
> "He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
> I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard. ýýý As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though beýýý a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown Northernerýýý would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was.ýýý
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uniýýýýýýýý of Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)ýýýýýýýý
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
> >
> > Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
> >
> > Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
> >
> > As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
> >
> > Carol

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

> yet another example of historians or literary analysts or whatever
Hanham is interpreting events from the perspective of hindsight.


There was a wonderful example of this in the news yesterday.  Someone - surely not a historian, because it was facile stuff - had put together an article listing the number of occasions that England had been invaded post-1066 as a counter to the unassailable "island fortress myth".  It was ludicrous as, to try and make a point, he assigned the same weight to every minor or abortive coastal incursion as to the Glorious Revolution.  He identified 73 "invasions" including, for instance, Lambert Simnel in 1487, but did NOT list 1485!

The only way I can explain that is by assuming that the Tudor narrative had become so deeply embedded in his psyche that he sub-consciously assumed there was never a time when Henry VII *wasn't* king, therefore he couldn't invade!  I don't care whether you're pro or anti Richard, or devoutly see 1485 as a liberation from tyranny a la D Day, but - whatever your perspective - you surely have to accept that 1485 was the most significant invasion since 1066!

Jonathan


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Alison Hanham wrote an article analyzing the 3 speeches Bishop Russell wrote to open the Parliament that was originally to be Edward V's, then postponed because of Buckingham's rebellion, until January 1484. She promoted these speeches as another contemporary source (alongside Croyland & Mancini) that hadn't been examined before. I admit to only skimming it, but it seemed to require a lot of interpretation of biblical quotations & perhaps only indicated his reservations about the way Richard had become king. I can't help thinking it could have been his bias as a churchman that the matter of legitimacy should have been referred to an ecclesiastical court.
>
> Has anyone else read this article & digested it more thoroughly? I'd be interested in a more informed opinion.
>
> A J

Carol responds:

I don't have access to the article, but Alison Hanham is best known for her view (which I agree with) that More's "History" of Richard is no history but a satirical drama and her argument that Hastings' execution must have occurred after, not before, EW released her son Richard into Richard of Gloucester's custody, which is clearly mistaken. (She thinks that EW would not have released her son after Hastings' death, which she views as a clear indication that Richard intended to seize the throne--yet another example of historians or literary analysts or whatever Hanham is interpreting events from the perspective of hindsight. Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler did the same.)

Anyway, Hanham has some interesting views, but I would bear in mind her stance as a moderate traditionalist in reading her interpretation of Russell's sermons--or anything else she has written. If I recall correctly, she places a little too much faith in the accuracy of Mancini. But I'm all for examining additional contemporary sources!

Marie, have you read the article in question, and, if so, what do you think of it?

Carol

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary, articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to be trusted in one instance, but not in another.
>
> Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about everything.
>
> Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?
>
> ~Weds
>
> PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly, many hugs, Wednesday.

Carol responds:

I don't know about anyone else, but the only sources I trust fully are Richard's own letters, parliamentary records, and other official documents. Letters of the period are interesting but always have a bias and usually reveal incomplete knowledge. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous are useful but must be treated with a grain of salt as both prejudiced against Richard (assuming after the fact that he intended from the outset to "usurp" the throne and so forth and neither is as well informed as many historians have assumed. Any Tudor source must be (in my view) treated with suspicion, examined carefully for anything that (might) be true and compared with contemporary sources. Vergil is better than More--he was at least *trying* to write a history rather than a satire or a moral drama or whatever More was writing.

Comments by contemporaries never meant for Richard's ears, such as Langton's remarks (which are oddly close to those made by Rous while Richard lived) give us, I think, an indication of how he impressed intelligent contemporaries who actually saw and heard him (as opposed to those who didn't know him, especially the diehard Lancastrians or dissident Yorkists who opposed him on political grounds or because they feared that he would undermine their financial interests).

Trustworthy sources for the Protectorate are hardest to find--someone seems to have destroyed not only the codicil to Edward's will (and any will Richard ever made) but the council records. Those are the primary sources I would most like to see, along with the correspondence between Richard, Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, and the council for the days before Richard's appointment as Protector was confirmed by the council.

All this is my own opinion only, but I think historians make a grave error to repeat Mancini's or Croyland's version unquestioningly, and, worse, to treat More as a reliable source. They seem to parrot each other without looking deeper, or to quibble over one or two interpretations (Mancini is wrong *here* but not *there*) that don't agree with their interpretations without realizing that we can't take anything the chroniclers say at face value.

And people who come up with wild hypotheses (Collins's idea that *Richard* must have destroyed the codicil to Edward's will!) should be figuratively raked over the coals--or rather, shot down with logical arguments (as Annette has done for that particular hypothesis).

Side note: I've forced myself to watch four episodes of "Shadow of the Tower," which does present a believable Henry, but I keep wanting to shake my fist at him. (How could *anyone* believe that that man was the rightful king? The king is the dead man thrown across the horse near the beginning of the first episode and the crown is rightfully his!) I also keep disagreeing with many of the interpretations and characterizations, especially Humphrey Stafford and John Earl of Lincoln (both now dead by this point). Many of the actors (e.g., the one who plays Northumberland) are two old for their roles. The little boy who plays Lambert Simnel is amazing--but, of course, we see the Tudor interpretation of those events. But, then, we have no record of the correspondence from the Yorkist side. Margaret is a "termagant" boasting about her brother Richard's temper, John of Lincoln is ambitious and hot-headed, opposing Tudor only when Tudor's reign challenges his self-interest. And Henry is pious and essentially good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But at least they got the tights and codpieces right!

Carol

I saw that in the Daily Mail so posted a comment pointing out that they'd missed it and that most of Henry's troops were French!
 
Did you notice that he had Perkin Warbeck invading three times?


Liz

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 14:48
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

> yet another example of historians or literary analysts or whatever
Hanham is interpreting events from the perspective of hindsight.

There was a wonderful example of this in the news yesterday.  Someone - surely not a historian, because it was facile stuff - had put together an article listing the number of occasions that England had been invaded post-1066 as a counter to the unassailable "island fortress myth".  It was ludicrous as, to try and make a point, he assigned the same weight to every minor or abortive coastal incursion as to the Glorious Revolution.  He identified 73 "invasions" including, for instance, Lambert Simnel in 1487, but did NOT list 1485!

The only way I can explain that is by assuming that the Tudor narrative had become so deeply embedded in his psyche that he sub-consciously assumed there was never a time when Henry VII *wasn't* king, therefore he couldn't invade!  I don't care whether you're pro or anti Richard, or devoutly see 1485 as a liberation from tyranny a la D Day, but - whatever your perspective - you surely have to accept that 1485 was the most significant invasion since 1066!

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:56
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Alison Hanham wrote an article analyzing the 3 speeches Bishop Russell wrote to open the Parliament that was originally to be Edward V's, then postponed because of Buckingham's rebellion, until January 1484. She promoted these speeches as another contemporary source (alongside Croyland & Mancini) that hadn't been examined before. I admit to only skimming it, but it seemed to require a lot of interpretation of biblical quotations & perhaps only indicated his reservations about the way Richard had become king. I can't help thinking it could have been his bias as a churchman that the matter of legitimacy should have been referred to an ecclesiastical court.
>
> Has anyone else read this article & digested it more thoroughly? I'd be interested in a more informed opinion.
>
> A J

Carol responds:

I don't have access to the article, but Alison Hanham is best known for her view (which I agree with) that More's "History" of Richard is no history but a satirical drama and her argument that Hastings' execution must have occurred after, not before, EW released her son Richard into Richard of Gloucester's custody, which is clearly mistaken. (She thinks that EW would not have released her son after Hastings' death, which she views as a clear indication that Richard intended to seize the throne--yet another example of historians or literary analysts or whatever Hanham is interpreting events from the perspective of hindsight. Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler did the same.)

Anyway, Hanham has some interesting views, but I would bear in mind her stance as a moderate traditionalist in reading her interpretation of Russell's sermons--or anything else she has written. If I recall correctly, she places a little too much faith in the accuracy of Mancini. But I'm all for examining additional contemporary sources!

Marie, have you read the article in question, and, if so, what do you think of it?

Carol

Hi Carol,
I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
I'll have to watch The Shadow of the Tower; I missed it first time round - I think our antiquated TV couldn't pick up BBC2 or something.
Caught up on The WQ yesterday. It's now getting upsetting - almost couldn't watch it through. Do they have a different writer for each episode? because the characters are undergoing personality changes with bewildering rapidity.
Where do I start? Richard rushes Anne into marriage without a dispensation. Richard and Anne make their home at Warwick Castle and grab the major share of the Countess' inheritance. The Countess is hostile to the marriage & curses Anne. Edward of Middleham (sorry, now Warwick) is born in 1472/3 whilst the Countess is still in sanctuary. Richard and Anne lock the Countess up so she can't give all her fortune (which in real life she didn't have) to George. The 1474 Act does render the Countess legally dead for all purposes, and does allow Richard simply to divorce Anne and keep her inheritance. MB is one of EW's most trusted ladies in waiting. Isabel dies having Edward Earl of Warwick. Thomas Burdet is Clarence's sorcerer, not (as in reality) a bluff old retainer accused of handing out leaflets and consulting an astrologer about the King's lifespan. Clarence asks to be drowned in Malmsey but the wine in the barrel is deep red (no wonder he was cross).
Now, some of these errors are deliberate and made for dramatic reasons. The others are the result of uncritical reliance on a couple of populist secondary sources.
Can't bear to watch on. The thing is so obviously set up for Richard trying to divorce Anne to get an heir.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary, articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to be trusted in one instance, but not in another.
> >
> > Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about everything.
> >
> > Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly, many hugs, Wednesday.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but the only sources I trust fully are Richard's own letters, parliamentary records, and other official documents. Letters of the period are interesting but always have a bias and usually reveal incomplete knowledge. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous are useful but must be treated with a grain of salt as both prejudiced against Richard (assuming after the fact that he intended from the outset to "usurp" the throne and so forth and neither is as well informed as many historians have assumed. Any Tudor source must be (in my view) treated with suspicion, examined carefully for anything that (might) be true and compared with contemporary sources. Vergil is better than More--he was at least *trying* to write a history rather than a satire or a moral drama or whatever More was writing.
>
> Comments by contemporaries never meant for Richard's ears, such as Langton's remarks (which are oddly close to those made by Rous while Richard lived) give us, I think, an indication of how he impressed intelligent contemporaries who actually saw and heard him (as opposed to those who didn't know him, especially the diehard Lancastrians or dissident Yorkists who opposed him on political grounds or because they feared that he would undermine their financial interests).
>
> Trustworthy sources for the Protectorate are hardest to find--someone seems to have destroyed not only the codicil to Edward's will (and any will Richard ever made) but the council records. Those are the primary sources I would most like to see, along with the correspondence between Richard, Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, and the council for the days before Richard's appointment as Protector was confirmed by the council.
>
> All this is my own opinion only, but I think historians make a grave error to repeat Mancini's or Croyland's version unquestioningly, and, worse, to treat More as a reliable source. They seem to parrot each other without looking deeper, or to quibble over one or two interpretations (Mancini is wrong *here* but not *there*) that don't agree with their interpretations without realizing that we can't take anything the chroniclers say at face value.
>
> And people who come up with wild hypotheses (Collins's idea that *Richard* must have destroyed the codicil to Edward's will!) should be figuratively raked over the coals--or rather, shot down with logical arguments (as Annette has done for that particular hypothesis).
>
> Side note: I've forced myself to watch four episodes of "Shadow of the Tower," which does present a believable Henry, but I keep wanting to shake my fist at him. (How could *anyone* believe that that man was the rightful king? The king is the dead man thrown across the horse near the beginning of the first episode and the crown is rightfully his!) I also keep disagreeing with many of the interpretations and characterizations, especially Humphrey Stafford and John Earl of Lincoln (both now dead by this point). Many of the actors (e.g., the one who plays Northumberland) are two old for their roles. The little boy who plays Lambert Simnel is amazing--but, of course, we see the Tudor interpretation of those events. But, then, we have no record of the correspondence from the Yorkist side. Margaret is a "termagant" boasting about her brother Richard's temper, John of Lincoln is ambitious and hot-headed, opposing Tudor only when Tudor's reign challenges his self-interest. And Henry is pious and essentially good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But at least they got the tights and codpieces right!
>
> Carol
>

Agree with what you've written. I actually enjoy looking at all those dry
government sources & plan to finish working through them before going on to
the "best" contemporary chroniclers. Such a shame that so much seems to
have been deliberately destroyed.

A J


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc"
> <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for
> 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary,
> articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone
> out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to
> be trusted in one instance, but not in another.
> >
> > Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about
> everything.
> >
> > Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please
> arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal
> diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve
> of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly,
> many hugs, Wednesday.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but the only sources I trust fully are
> Richard's own letters, parliamentary records, and other official documents.
> Letters of the period are interesting but always have a bias and usually
> reveal incomplete knowledge. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous are useful
> but must be treated with a grain of salt as both prejudiced against Richard
> (assuming after the fact that he intended from the outset to "usurp" the
> throne and so forth and neither is as well informed as many historians have
> assumed. Any Tudor source must be (in my view) treated with suspicion,
> examined carefully for anything that (might) be true and compared with
> contemporary sources. Vergil is better than More--he was at least *trying*
> to write a history rather than a satire or a moral drama or whatever More
> was writing.
>
> Comments by contemporaries never meant for Richard's ears, such as
> Langton's remarks (which are oddly close to those made by Rous while
> Richard lived) give us, I think, an indication of how he impressed
> intelligent contemporaries who actually saw and heard him (as opposed to
> those who didn't know him, especially the diehard Lancastrians or dissident
> Yorkists who opposed him on political grounds or because they feared that
> he would undermine their financial interests).
>
> Trustworthy sources for the Protectorate are hardest to find--someone
> seems to have destroyed not only the codicil to Edward's will (and any will
> Richard ever made) but the council records. Those are the primary sources I
> would most like to see, along with the correspondence between Richard,
> Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, and the council for the days before Richard's
> appointment as Protector was confirmed by the council.
>
> All this is my own opinion only, but I think historians make a grave error
> to repeat Mancini's or Croyland's version unquestioningly, and, worse, to
> treat More as a reliable source. They seem to parrot each other without
> looking deeper, or to quibble over one or two interpretations (Mancini is
> wrong *here* but not *there*) that don't agree with their interpretations
> without realizing that we can't take anything the chroniclers say at face
> value.
>
> And people who come up with wild hypotheses (Collins's idea that *Richard*
> must have destroyed the codicil to Edward's will!) should be figuratively
> raked over the coals--or rather, shot down with logical arguments (as
> Annette has done for that particular hypothesis).
>
> Side note: I've forced myself to watch four episodes of "Shadow of the
> Tower," which does present a believable Henry, but I keep wanting to shake
> my fist at him. (How could *anyone* believe that that man was the rightful
> king? The king is the dead man thrown across the horse near the beginning
> of the first episode and the crown is rightfully his!) I also keep
> disagreeing with many of the interpretations and characterizations,
> especially Humphrey Stafford and John Earl of Lincoln (both now dead by
> this point). Many of the actors (e.g., the one who plays Northumberland)
> are two old for their roles. The little boy who plays Lambert Simnel is
> amazing--but, of course, we see the Tudor interpretation of those events.
> But, then, we have no record of the correspondence from the Yorkist side.
> Margaret is a "termagant" boasting about her brother Richard's temper, John
> of Lincoln is ambitious and hot-headed, opposing Tudor only when Tudor's
> reign challenges his self-interest. And Henry is pious and essentially
> good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But at least they got the tights
> and codpieces right!
>
> Carol
>
>
>

I agree with you and Carol. In lots of ways the most interesting things are those which had little or nothing directly to do with Richard, like land tranactions, Treasury Records, papal dispensations etc. I was looking today at a Star Chamber account of part of the quarrel between the Sacheverells, the Hastings family and that of the Greys (Dorset). These papers were from the 1530s but apparently the quarrel had been ongoing in Leics since (our) Hastings quarrelled with EW's Dorset about lands there, Lots of marauding, bending bows and breaking into property. It was like real life Robin Hood.
 
As for the chroniclers, well they had a tale to tell for someone. I leave them to the scholars who have studied them and their biases for years. 


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 16:27
Subject: Re: Reliable sources and "Shadow of the Tower (Was: Edward IV's Council . . .)


Agree with what you've written.  I actually enjoy looking at all those dry
government sources & plan to finish working through them before going on to
the "best" contemporary chroniclers.  Such a shame that so much seems to
have been deliberately destroyed.

A J


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc"
> <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for
> 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary,
> articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone
> out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to
> be trusted in one instance, but not in another.
> >
> > Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about
> everything.
> >
> > Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please
> arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal
> diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve
> of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly,
> many hugs, Wednesday.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but the only sources I trust fully are
> Richard's own letters, parliamentary records, and other official documents.
> Letters of the period are interesting but always have a bias and usually
> reveal incomplete knowledge. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous are useful
> but must be treated with a grain of salt as both prejudiced against Richard
> (assuming after the fact that he intended from the outset to "usurp" the
> throne and so forth and neither is as well informed as many historians have
> assumed. Any Tudor source must be (in my view) treated with suspicion,
> examined carefully for anything that (might) be true and compared with
> contemporary sources. Vergil is better than More--he was at least *trying*
> to write a history rather than a satire or a moral drama or whatever More
> was writing.
>
> Comments by contemporaries never meant for Richard's ears, such as
> Langton's remarks (which are oddly close to those made by Rous while
> Richard lived) give us, I think, an indication of how he impressed
> intelligent contemporaries who actually saw and heard him (as opposed to
> those who didn't know him, especially the diehard Lancastrians or dissident
> Yorkists who opposed him on political grounds or because they feared that
> he would undermine their financial interests).
>
> Trustworthy sources for the Protectorate are hardest to find--someone
> seems to have destroyed not only the codicil to Edward's will (and any will
> Richard ever made) but the council records. Those are the primary sources I
> would most like to see, along with the correspondence between Richard,
> Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, and the council for the days before Richard's
> appointment as Protector was confirmed by the council.
>
> All this is my own opinion only, but I think historians make a grave error
> to repeat Mancini's or Croyland's version unquestioningly, and, worse, to
> treat More as a reliable source. They seem to parrot each other without
> looking deeper, or to quibble over one or two interpretations (Mancini is
> wrong *here* but not *there*) that don't agree with their interpretations
> without realizing that we can't take anything the chroniclers say at face
> value.
>
> And people who come up with wild hypotheses (Collins's idea that *Richard*
> must have destroyed the codicil to Edward's will!) should be figuratively
> raked over the coals--or rather, shot down with logical arguments (as
> Annette has done for that particular hypothesis).
>
> Side note: I've forced myself to watch four episodes of "Shadow of the
> Tower," which does present a believable Henry, but I keep wanting to shake
> my fist at him. (How could *anyone* believe that that man was the rightful
> king? The king is the dead man thrown across the horse near the beginning
> of the first episode and the crown is rightfully his!) I also keep
> disagreeing with many of the interpretations and characterizations,
> especially Humphrey Stafford and John Earl of Lincoln (both now dead by
> this point). Many of the actors (e.g., the one who plays Northumberland)
> are two old for their roles. The little boy who plays Lambert Simnel is
> amazing--but, of course, we see the Tudor interpretation of those events.
> But, then, we have no record of the correspondence from the Yorkist side.
> Margaret is a "termagant" boasting about her brother Richard's temper, John
> of Lincoln is ambitious and hot-headed, opposing Tudor only when Tudor's
> reign challenges his self-interest. And Henry is pious and essentially
> good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But at least they got the tights
> and codpieces right!
>
> Carol
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

WQ series is pretty much following WG the book, so blame PG. Again.

In the book, the countess curses Anne for leaving her in sanctuary and not working to convince [Edward, Richard, God] to let her out. Richard got her out to prevent George from getting her out. (What-huh? is what I said too.)

In the book, Richard locks up the countess once she gets to [Warwick? Middleham? I can't remember which one it was in the book] with Anne's agreement, because the countess has nastily informed Anne that her marriage to Richard isn't valid, that she's only a [bad word] and her son is a bastard. Anne doesn't want her mother bandying this about the battlements, so she's frantic to keep her mother in a tower and walking endlessly in the little walled green at the base, and Richard hasn't a problem with that. "You want her walled away, we can do that."

PG uses the "I can divorce you at will" clause in the 1474 act as an interior conflict for Anne where Richard is concerned; she's convinced he's planning to get rid of her regardless he's treating her like a loving husband, but this interior conflict thread is dropped further into the book (WQ, anyway), so I've no idea what PG planned originally. It may be a thread picked up again in White Princess, but I don't know.

If I remember correctly, PG also didn't make use of the "I want to divorce my wife" with Richard. I think she went the poisoning route, if only in rumor. Not sure, and not interested enough to go look at White Princess to find out. Will wait for the definitive scene in WG to appear. Hmphm.

~Weds


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
> I'll have to watch The Shadow of the Tower; I missed it first time round - I think our antiquated TV couldn't pick up BBC2 or something.
> Caught up on The WQ yesterday. It's now getting upsetting - almost couldn't watch it through. Do they have a different writer for each episode? because the characters are undergoing personality changes with bewildering rapidity.
> Where do I start? Richard rushes Anne into marriage without a dispensation. Richard and Anne make their home at Warwick Castle and grab the major share of the Countess' inheritance. The Countess is hostile to the marriage & curses Anne. Edward of Middleham (sorry, now Warwick) is born in 1472/3 whilst the Countess is still in sanctuary. Richard and Anne lock the Countess up so she can't give all her fortune (which in real life she didn't have) to George. The 1474 Act does render the Countess legally dead for all purposes, and does allow Richard simply to divorce Anne and keep her inheritance. MB is one of EW's most trusted ladies in waiting. Isabel dies having Edward Earl of Warwick. Thomas Burdet is Clarence's sorcerer, not (as in reality) a bluff old retainer accused of handing out leaflets and consulting an astrologer about the King's lifespan. Clarence asks to be drowned in Malmsey but the wine in the barrel is deep red (no wonder he was cross).
> Now, some of these errors are deliberate and made for dramatic reasons. The others are the result of uncritical reliance on a couple of populist secondary sources.
> Can't bear to watch on. The thing is so obviously set up for Richard trying to divorce Anne to get an heir.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary, articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to be trusted in one instance, but not in another.
> > >
> > > Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about everything.
> > >
> > > Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly, many hugs, Wednesday.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I don't know about anyone else, but the only sources I trust fully are Richard's own letters, parliamentary records, and other official documents. Letters of the period are interesting but always have a bias and usually reveal incomplete knowledge. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous are useful but must be treated with a grain of salt as both prejudiced against Richard (assuming after the fact that he intended from the outset to "usurp" the throne and so forth and neither is as well informed as many historians have assumed. Any Tudor source must be (in my view) treated with suspicion, examined carefully for anything that (might) be true and compared with contemporary sources. Vergil is better than More--he was at least *trying* to write a history rather than a satire or a moral drama or whatever More was writing.
> >
> > Comments by contemporaries never meant for Richard's ears, such as Langton's remarks (which are oddly close to those made by Rous while Richard lived) give us, I think, an indication of how he impressed intelligent contemporaries who actually saw and heard him (as opposed to those who didn't know him, especially the diehard Lancastrians or dissident Yorkists who opposed him on political grounds or because they feared that he would undermine their financial interests).
> >
> > Trustworthy sources for the Protectorate are hardest to find--someone seems to have destroyed not only the codicil to Edward's will (and any will Richard ever made) but the council records. Those are the primary sources I would most like to see, along with the correspondence between Richard, Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, and the council for the days before Richard's appointment as Protector was confirmed by the council.
> >
> > All this is my own opinion only, but I think historians make a grave error to repeat Mancini's or Croyland's version unquestioningly, and, worse, to treat More as a reliable source. They seem to parrot each other without looking deeper, or to quibble over one or two interpretations (Mancini is wrong *here* but not *there*) that don't agree with their interpretations without realizing that we can't take anything the chroniclers say at face value.
> >
> > And people who come up with wild hypotheses (Collins's idea that *Richard* must have destroyed the codicil to Edward's will!) should be figuratively raked over the coals--or rather, shot down with logical arguments (as Annette has done for that particular hypothesis).
> >
> > Side note: I've forced myself to watch four episodes of "Shadow of the Tower," which does present a believable Henry, but I keep wanting to shake my fist at him. (How could *anyone* believe that that man was the rightful king? The king is the dead man thrown across the horse near the beginning of the first episode and the crown is rightfully his!) I also keep disagreeing with many of the interpretations and characterizations, especially Humphrey Stafford and John Earl of Lincoln (both now dead by this point). Many of the actors (e.g., the one who plays Northumberland) are two old for their roles. The little boy who plays Lambert Simnel is amazing--but, of course, we see the Tudor interpretation of those events. But, then, we have no record of the correspondence from the Yorkist side. Margaret is a "termagant" boasting about her brother Richard's temper, John of Lincoln is ambitious and hot-headed, opposing Tudor only when Tudor's reign challenges his self-interest. And Henry is pious and essentially good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But at least they got the tights and codpieces right!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> WQ series is pretty much following WG the book, so blame PG. Again.
>
> In the book, the countess curses Anne for leaving her in sanctuary and not working to convince [Edward, Richard, God] to let her out. Richard got her out to prevent George from getting her out. (What-huh? is what I said too.)
>
> In the book, Richard locks up the countess once she gets to [Warwick? Middleham? I can't remember which one it was in the book] with Anne's agreement, because the countess has nastily informed Anne that her marriage to Richard isn't valid, that she's only a [bad word] and her son is a bastard. Anne doesn't want her mother bandying this about the battlements, so she's frantic to keep her mother in a tower and walking endlessly in the little walled green at the base, and Richard hasn't a problem with that. "You want her walled away, we can do that."
>
> PG uses the "I can divorce you at will" clause in the 1474 act

Sounds as though PG got her history from Hicks. Of course, the Act really says that if they were divorced (meaning if the marriage were to be declared void) he could keep her share of the lands so long as he remained single and kept trying to effect a valid marriage with her. That's all. The Hicks version is such a travesty.
Marie

I remember watching The Shadow of The Tower when it was first on in 1971 not long after I'd read We Speak No Treason by Rosemary Hawley Jarman. I do remember what a cold fish Henry was and how opportunistic he was. I also can remember the Simnel rebellion and the Battle of Stoke Field and how Richard's presence was still there through Lovell and John of Lincoln. I was a teenager at the time. I also had the book which was quite useful; I recently lent it to a student and never got it back.
Elaine

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
> I'll have to watch The Shadow of the Tower; I missed it first time round - I think our antiquated TV couldn't pick up BBC2 or something.
> Caught up on The WQ yesterday. It's now getting upsetting - almost couldn't watch it through. Do they have a different writer for each episode? because the characters are undergoing personality changes with bewildering rapidity.
> Where do I start? Richard rushes Anne into marriage without a dispensation. Richard and Anne make their home at Warwick Castle and grab the major share of the Countess' inheritance. The Countess is hostile to the marriage & curses Anne. Edward of Middleham (sorry, now Warwick) is born in 1472/3 whilst the Countess is still in sanctuary. Richard and Anne lock the Countess up so she can't give all her fortune (which in real life she didn't have) to George. The 1474 Act does render the Countess legally dead for all purposes, and does allow Richard simply to divorce Anne and keep her inheritance. MB is one of EW's most trusted ladies in waiting. Isabel dies having Edward Earl of Warwick. Thomas Burdet is Clarence's sorcerer, not (as in reality) a bluff old retainer accused of handing out leaflets and consulting an astrologer about the King's lifespan. Clarence asks to be drowned in Malmsey but the wine in the barrel is deep red (no wonder he was cross).
> Now, some of these errors are deliberate and made for dramatic reasons. The others are the result of uncritical reliance on a couple of populist secondary sources.
> Can't bear to watch on. The thing is so obviously set up for Richard trying to divorce Anne to get an heir.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm so confused after reading about this man, his life and his times for 25 years, I no longer know which titles (contemporary, primary, secondary, articles, et. al.) are "proper sources" anymore, and which ones have gone out of fashion, are no longer reliable, or aren't to be trusted. Or are to be trusted in one instance, but not in another.
> > >
> > > Except for P. Gregory. I don't trust her. And Wiki is right/wrong about everything.
> > >
> > > Maybe a list could be assembled of what's to be trusted and what's not?
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > PS. Dear King Richard the Third by the Grace of God, could you please arrange for someone to find, intact and with no damage, your personal diaries covering the time from when you were placed with Warwick to the eve of Bosworth? Preferably with illustrations and annotations. Thanks muchly, many hugs, Wednesday.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I don't know about anyone else, but the only sources I trust fully are Richard's own letters, parliamentary records, and other official documents. Letters of the period are interesting but always have a bias and usually reveal incomplete knowledge. Mancini, Croyland, and even Rous are useful but must be treated with a grain of salt as both prejudiced against Richard (assuming after the fact that he intended from the outset to "usurp" the throne and so forth and neither is as well informed as many historians have assumed. Any Tudor source must be (in my view) treated with suspicion, examined carefully for anything that (might) be true and compared with contemporary sources. Vergil is better than More--he was at least *trying* to write a history rather than a satire or a moral drama or whatever More was writing.
> >
> > Comments by contemporaries never meant for Richard's ears, such as Langton's remarks (which are oddly close to those made by Rous while Richard lived) give us, I think, an indication of how he impressed intelligent contemporaries who actually saw and heard him (as opposed to those who didn't know him, especially the diehard Lancastrians or dissident Yorkists who opposed him on political grounds or because they feared that he would undermine their financial interests).
> >
> > Trustworthy sources for the Protectorate are hardest to find--someone seems to have destroyed not only the codicil to Edward's will (and any will Richard ever made) but the council records. Those are the primary sources I would most like to see, along with the correspondence between Richard, Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, and the council for the days before Richard's appointment as Protector was confirmed by the council.
> >
> > All this is my own opinion only, but I think historians make a grave error to repeat Mancini's or Croyland's version unquestioningly, and, worse, to treat More as a reliable source. They seem to parrot each other without looking deeper, or to quibble over one or two interpretations (Mancini is wrong *here* but not *there*) that don't agree with their interpretations without realizing that we can't take anything the chroniclers say at face value.
> >
> > And people who come up with wild hypotheses (Collins's idea that *Richard* must have destroyed the codicil to Edward's will!) should be figuratively raked over the coals--or rather, shot down with logical arguments (as Annette has done for that particular hypothesis).
> >
> > Side note: I've forced myself to watch four episodes of "Shadow of the Tower," which does present a believable Henry, but I keep wanting to shake my fist at him. (How could *anyone* believe that that man was the rightful king? The king is the dead man thrown across the horse near the beginning of the first episode and the crown is rightfully his!) I also keep disagreeing with many of the interpretations and characterizations, especially Humphrey Stafford and John Earl of Lincoln (both now dead by this point). Many of the actors (e.g., the one who plays Northumberland) are two old for their roles. The little boy who plays Lambert Simnel is amazing--but, of course, we see the Tudor interpretation of those events. But, then, we have no record of the correspondence from the Yorkist side. Margaret is a "termagant" boasting about her brother Richard's temper, John of Lincoln is ambitious and hot-headed, opposing Tudor only when Tudor's reign challenges his self-interest. And Henry is pious and essentially good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But at least they got the tights and codpieces right!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Yes, on reflection the Clergy would always have the upper hand, even with the King, because they were guardians of your eternal soul and could put a spike in your 'heavenly' ambitions. This of course H8 was to find out when he asked for a divorce.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 13:08
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


And the clergy could,plead both sides, ""listen to me, I am the voice of God" and don't blame me, "I am doing God's work"!

On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:56 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



That's a really good analysis Weds. I like your bit about the churchmen wriggling into civil life more than the nobility. Could that be because some were frustrated younger sons and others were men of high intellect who sought an outlet to use it which was not restricted by the rites of the Church? They would probably now have gone into the higher Civil Service and become the mandarins behind what was then the throne. The nobility on the other hand had one main ambition which was to gain more land and to hold on to it. And the higher up they were they had the pesky business of listening to tenant disputes, misdemeanours etc. and recruiting troops for the King. Much better life as a bishop!

Your question about the power of Richard and the Church during the Protectorate is also v good.  H


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013, 5:27
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



I think the medieval church considered itself incorruptible and never-changing, but the men serving the church were another matter entirely. And "serving the church" was open to each cleric's personal interpretation. The churchmen wriggled into civic life far more than nobility/the king wriggled into the enclosure of the church.

My view is this - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be remembering flawed sources that I've studied. The spiritual lords in E4's and R3's government were civil servants, but they were also learned in theology and still clerics. (I believe Morton got a bishopric and rewards for being a successful minister of state? Did others under E4 or R3 receive rewards as well?)

The spiritual lords accepted Richard's government as Protector. As bishops, they supported peace, continuity and royal dominion.

At the time, the church didn't supply a king with officers; the officers of the king staffed the English Church? Weren't these particular clerics servants of Westminster, rather than servants of their sees, for all their titles attaching them to their sees?

If that's the case, then men like Morton was a public servant during Edward and Richard's time? Meaning, he didn't personally possess power under E4 or R3; he served power. The only public power the clerics had was to be executives and advisers? ("I'm only thinking of you and advising you. The decision must be yours," Morton said to Buckingham at Brecon.)

The clerics like Morton and Bourchier could administer policy that each helped create, but only to the extent that the king (the power over the clerics) heeded their counsel. Once Richard became king, his word became law, and he could override the council at will?

But until Richard became king...well, what power exactly did the council have over him when he was Protector and still Constable of England and Admiral, and...whatever other responsibilities/titles that Edward favored him with?

I guess I'm asking how, exactly, the clerics on Edward VI/V's interim council could have openly controlled Richard and/or his actions before he became king? Because, always, whether cleric or noble, it always came down to power, either shadowed or open: who had it, and who could use it against whom. So a council member challenging Richard when he was Protector may have been something acceptable, but once he became king a council member had better serve the office even if they didn't like the man?

(As an aside, I think MB may have succeeded in her machinations because no male with power thought of any woman as capable of threatening his power. The same may have held true for any male in power thinking a cleric could work behind the scenes with any success to bring him down. Clerics and women simply weren't supposed to have that sort of ability or opportunity?)

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point but how do you define a 'proper source' - one that Ricardians agree with? That's bias and not good history. Hypotheses - and this was but a vague, slightly humorous one, are there to be discussed and proved or disproved if they can be. I worry about this concept that the Church was incorruptible; some of those at the top (Bourchier was one) were career clerics (see Ross) - look at George Neville. If we can't put forward theories (and they are just that to be tossed around) then we might just as well go on churning out traditional views. Why bother to research or to discuss if new theories are tossed aside as unacceptable to some? Or if they throw up what we don't want to believe.
> Â
> For what it's worth I was just, yet again, saying that we could do with looking in more detail at the politics within the Church. It was nothing whatsoever to do with Richard, or any implication of his guilt, or the Princes (over whose fate I have not a clue). H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:00
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
> Â
>
> Just a general plea: Can we try to stick to posting what we have proper sources for? Otherwise it can be misleading for newbies, of whom there are now many, interested in the subject and easily misled because they've not had the time to get familiar with the period.
> I've just looked at the Wiki article, and it gives as it's main source Chisholm's 1911 article on the Archbishop in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - an out-of-date and trustworthy source for 15thC history. This is what Wiki actually says:-
> "He was, however, in no way implicated in the murder of the young princes, and he was probably a participant in the conspiracies against Richard."
> I can't get the whole Encylop. Brit. article up, but I bet this is where it comes from. This statement is completely typical of old-fashioned gentlemanly biographies of the learned men of Richard's time: their authors inevitably try to distance their subjects from wicked child-murdering RIII, even if they have evidence for it at all. Another member of the forum found a similar baseless claim about Russell in an "old book" two or three years back.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying any of them were 'enemies' of Richard. ÃÂ As I've said I don't know enough about a number of them. It wasn't me who said Bourchier was pro-Henry and 'participated in plots against Richard' it was whoever wrote Wiki. You can though beÃÂ a covert enemy of the Yorkist regime (as was Morton for years under Edward) and it might just be that the reign of an unknown NorthernerÃÂ would play into your hands down the line. Could be pure fate or fate with a push. I don't know. And we honestly don't know which of them were good old men. I'm sure MB thought Morton was.ÃÂ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 18:16
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have just read that Bourchier was a half-brother of Buckingham's father and 'probably a participant in plots against Richard'. Even more interesting; as is Oxford, which is the common uniÃ’â¬aàof Morton, Stillington, Rotherham, Bourchier and Russell; at about the same time in their youths. Was this the 'Cambridge spies' of the fifteenth century:)Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Cardinal Bourchier persuaded EW to release Richard of York into Richard of Gloucester's custody, crowned Richard and Anne, and signed the petition asking Richard, because of his "noble and blessed disposition in all other things," to protect the interests of the Church (as he had protected the interests of the common people in his acts of Parliament). Needless to say, he was not among those arrested or suspected in the Hastings-Morton plot. I doubt very much that Cardinal Bourchier ever plotted against Richard. He did, however, subsequently crown Henry Tudor, perhaps having no choice in the matter. He died two months after marrying the Tydder and EoY at the age of (about) eighty-two. It's only people who believe that Richard murdered the Princes (for example, the author of the Wikipedia article) who believe that this good old man must have been a conspirator against Richard.
> >
> > Nor do I believe for reasons already stated that Russell, who wrote a speech (never delivered) stating that Richard's Protectorate should be extended after the coronation of Edward V, was in any way opposed to Richard, who viewed him, I think rightly, as a valuable and trusted member of his administration.
> >
> > Even Rotherham seems to have come around to supporting Richard as indicated by his signature on that petition, also signed by Russell, Bourchier, Waynfleet (Bishop of Winchester), John Fisher (friend of Erasmus and later Bishop of Rochester, eventually executed by Henry VIII), and others not named by Audrey Williamson.
> >
> > As for Stillington's being an enemy of Richard (or the House of York in general) and a supporter of Henry Tudor, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by your arguments. Certainly, Henry Tudor regarded him as a dangerous man and arrested him twice.
> >
> > Carol











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hilary Jones wrote:


"Firstly to everyone - I was being humorous when I quoted Wiki, which is why
I said it came from there. (Actually, some Wiki entries are by current
scholars, such as Hicks on Stillington, though I disagree with him). I had
already said that I have never investigated Bourchier, other than to know he
is of royal descent through Thomas of Woodstock. I also asked why he issued
the licence for George's marriage in Calais, which was clearly against
Edward's wishes, wasn't it? No-one has yet answered that."

Doug here:
I don't use Wiki, so I can't say how good/bad it may be, but I would think
much would depend on the sourcing of any article and whether or not those
sources are noted. As for Bourchier issuing a licence for George's marriage,
did the king have the legal authority to forbid a religious rite, even
though that ceremony might have political implications? I know of later
occasions (Tudors and after) when marriages that were diapproved of caused
those marrying to be sent from, or denied access to, court. There were also
occasions when one participant was placed in custody because the marriage
was seen solely as a political move and involved one of the monarch's close
relatives.
If Bourchier was convinced that George's marriage, while having political
consequences, was indeed being sought for the "right" reasons, why shouldn't
he issue the licence? Also, does/did the licence have a "use by" date? If it
didn't, then one could look at the issuing of the licence as merely making
the marriage possible *at some future date*, which may have been Bourchier's
view.

(I broke this paragraph into two, hope you don't mind)
"Secondly, again to everyone, there does seem to be this belief that the
Church consisted of benign old men who must be virtuous. All that is, except
Morton. The Church's key interest in the fifteenth century was not who was
on the throne but to prevent the creeping spread of Lollardy, in England and
abroad - we are only twelve years before Luther is summoned to the Diet of
Worms. Protestantism was an enormous threat to the power of the Church; no
longer could it mediate between man and God. The early Lancastrian kings had
been robust in their suppression of Lollardy; the lovely Henry V enjoyed
nothing better than a good roasting. Edward IV I think had one Lollard put
to death early in his reign, but his pursuit of them was less robust.
Richard possessed a Wycliff bible and heard the first official service in
English at York."
(break)

Doug here:
I wonder if perhaps you're not being a bit too sweeping with some of your
assertions/conclusions? Or rather that you're employing a "straw man"
argument (I *think* that's the one) without realizing it. I can only speak
for myself, but I certainly don't consider the upper heirarchy of the 15th
century Church to consist of "benign old men who must be virtuous." Many, if
not most, seemed to have become members of the clergy because that allowed
them to best exercise their abilities; for some (Morton) that meant being
deeply involved in politics, for others (most?) that meant serving as, in a
sense, area managers of a large concern, if they remained active in their
diocese, or as high-level civil servants if they were at Court. In both
cases their work was mostly what we nowadays would consider secular; either
seeing to the managing of properties, appointing priests to livings (local
"mamgers") and ensuring that all the *civil* legal rights of their diocese
were maintained, or, if they served at Court, managing a great department of
State, with all that meant.In neither case was religion, seemingly,
uppermost in their minds. Or so it appears to me, anyway. It won't be the
first error on my part if I'm mistaken! Then there's the number of Bishops
involved, We tend to talk about four or fine, but weren't there thirty-odd
Bishops total? Of course, the ones we *do* mention frequently may have been
considered "leaders" and the rest followed their lead, but is there any
evidence that happened?
I think I'm safe in stating that Lollardy appeared during the last quarter
of the previous century and peaked, in England anyway, prior to the
Lancastrian usurpation. On the Continent, of course, the Hussite wars
weren't decided until the 1420s with the complete military defeat of the
Bohemian armies, but that just seems to have driven Lollardy underground,
made it that much harder to combat and helped give rise to the Reformation..
It does seem to me that the divisions in the Papacy; ie, one Pope at Rome,
another at Avignon, was *one* of the reasons Lollardy managed to spread so
widely. Rulers could play one Pope off the other and, as long as Lollards
remained on the rulers' side, most seemed not to much care. It was only when
various Lollard beliefs that contradicted Church dogma began to be widely
aired; ie, denial of transubstantiation, that the Church cracked down and
was supported by secular governments. And even then, again, actions against
Lollards varied from country to country.
I believe one view of the Lancastrian "crackdown" on Lollards, which I lean
towards, is that it was as much political as religious. IOW, Lollards tended
to be outspoken against abuses in and by the Church and it didn't take a lot
of deep thought to realize that such outspokeness could easily be turned
against the policies of the ruler, *any* ruler*. So, by cracking down on
Lollards, the various Henries could be seen as both supporting Mother Church
in Her fight against damnable views and theories *and* propping up their
own, rather shaky, claim to the throne.

"I'm asking what the Church thought of the Yorkist kings. My guess is, and
it is only a guess because it needs investigation, that most of the upper
clergy were conservative in their views. Certainly Stillington's nephew
Nyckke was extremely conservative, as were Stillington's Yorkshire relations
the Inglebys and Constables, Sir Robert Constable being a leader of the
Pilgrimage of Grace. I doubt Bourchier, as a Cardinal, was liberal and we
know another, Fisher, was not. I'd also ask what part they had in the
wording of Titulus Regius (some say it was Stillington) and in the
Parliament. It is a scathing attack by a Yorkist king on his Yorkist brother
the former King. Did loyal Richard really mean that, or was he obliged to
say that to gain Church support? In fact was his reign dependent on Church
support, as is claimed in the much-maligned Collins?"

Doug here:
The question, it seems to me, is just how "political" were the members the
Church heirarchy and how far did they go in using their powers as Bishops in
promoting a "Church" agenda that may, or may not, have been at odds with
royal policies and actions? I don't know of any concerted actions by English
Bishops regarding secular politics (as opposed to any instructions from
Rome); were there any?
Being "conservative" can mean many things; it was certainly used by Luther
to justify his opposition to various Church practices! While Edward and
Richard don't seem to have gone out of their way to hunt down Lollards, I
also don't recall English Bishops turning over large numbers of people
convicted of Lollardy for punishment during their reigns, then voicing their
displeasure to the King, *or* to the Pope, when the proper punishments
weren't carried out.
As for the wording of Titulus Regius, didn't Edward deserve that attack?
Edward had tried to pass the throne to his son, knowing that son to be
illegitimate! He'd not only gone against Church teachings and the entire
legal structure of the country, but he'd also placed England in an
incredibly dangerous position. What if the proofs Stillington provided to
the Council and Parliament had lain hidden for another decade and *then*
been produced? I think the contemplation of what *might* have happened,
added to what was known, more than explains any "scathing attack" in Titulus
Regius.
Nor do I think, and rather doubt there's any substantial proof, of any need
for Richard to do anything to gain "Church support". As far as the Church
was concerned, Richard was Edward's legal heir, what with George's
Attainder, and that was that. Possibly, seeing that Richard did own a
Wycliffe Bible, there *might* have been problems in the future, but that
wasn't known in 1483.

"Finally the Northerner bit. I wouldn't dispute that Richard was popular
with the 'people' - victors always are. But most modern biographers from
Horrox onwards have claimed that Richard's failure to win support of key
southern gentry and indeed London Court circles was a key reason for the
dissent in his reign, particularly when he had to summon help from the North
to put down rebellion. England had never had a 'northern' King, in
particular London had never had a northern King. They didn't know him as
they had Edward (through no fault of his as we know). He might have achieved
total trust over time, but as we know, sadly he didn't have time."

Doug again:
Perhaps a better way to look at Richard's "support", or any lack, among "key
southern gentry and indeed London Court circles" is: Why *should* Richard
have their support? He was Edward's legal heir, but he also wasn't
well-known *personally* to those groups. And who were the members of those
groups, anyway? "Southern gentry" undoubtedly included Lancastrians who'd
paid their fines and retained *some* of their properties and Woodvilles and
their immediate supporters, two groups that would be difficult to swing to
Richard's side except with the passage of time. The same caveats would apply
to "Court circles", presuming by "Court circles" you meant the ones extant
at the time of Edward's death.
Which, as you say, was something denied to Richard.

I hope you didn't mind the format. I rather like it as it's more as if we're
actually having a converstion and not posting past each other. I hope it's
clear that it's only your conclusions I disagree with. *I* think it is, but
then I'm biased!
Doug

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
> I'll have to watch The Shadow of the Tower; I missed it first time round - I think our antiquated TV couldn't pick up BBC2 or something. <snip>

Carol responds:

Glad you agree with me (typos and all). I can't believe that I typed "two" for "too," and why I put parentheses around "might" is anybody's guess! We really need a thorough reexamination of the sources, new translations (especially of Rous--I don't know of any full translation), and a new biography taking advantage of all the new material. I'm so tired of biographies that purport to be objective and then repeat, Ross-style, the moderate traditionalist position.

Source books like Keith Dockray's are useful but spoiled by the inclusion of excerpts from Mancini and CC. I'd love to see a book in which Richard tells his own story through letters, acts of Parliament, and other documents, with the only commentary being clarification of the old-fashioned wording. Imagine reading Richard's statements about, say, the Woodville conspiracy, and taking them at face value! Too bad, as I said earlier, that we don't have any correspondence for the Protectorate.

You can find "Shadow of the Tower" on You Tube. Here's the URL for the first episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
Someone posted it earlier, suggesting the miniseries as an alternative (or palliative?) to WQ. It still makes my hackles rise, sometimes from points I disagree with and sometimes because the actor who plays Henry (though too old for the part in the early episodes) needs his face slapped for believing himself to be the rightful king. One heart-breaking moment has little Warwick asking cousin Lincoln about Uncle Richard. Lincoln responds (as I hope he really would have) with "he was my friend and mentor" and Warwick (portrayed as mentally slow but not profoundly retarded) asks, "Was he the devil"? Lincoln turns away with a shocked and angry expression, with no answer for the brainwashed child (who had earlier hoped that Uncle Richard would provide him with a white horse if he won Bosworth).

Anyway, it's worth watching if you can tolerate the sweet-faced MB, the genial courtier Surrey, the colorless Morton who shows no signs of shrewd, manipulative intelligence, or the pious Henry who wants everyone to love him (oops, wasn't that Richard?) and sees himself as the rightful king when he had no right whatever to the crown. I'm not sure whether the last-second pardons of Thomas Stafford and Lambert Simnel are historically accurate (I do know that neither was executed), but they make him seem somewhere between a softie who can't bring himself to kill more than a few people (like Humphrey Stafford, who obviously hates him) and a cat who likes to play with his prey. He treats little Warwick well at first (though the boy's reaction to being removed from any contact with the people he knows is not realistic) but later places him sin strict confinement in what is essentially a prison cell. I wonder what the people who knew nothing of him thought of him as they watched this series. It's as if the writers (a different one for each episode, it appears) have mixed feelings about him (and possibly about the soon-to-be extinct Yorkists as well).

It's painful to watch Richard's time and Richard's place without Richard!

Carol

Hi Doug,
 
No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom and were not without personal ambition.
I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported. I find it hard to accept he came up with those words (even if he privately agreed Edward had been a naughty boy)
And finally the Bourchier/George thing. I only mentioned it because when Warwick announced to his citizens in Coventry that Isabel was to marry George this was regarded as an act of treason (either Kendall or Ross). So had Bourchier granted the licence first or didn't he realise the potential implication of what he'd done? I'm not accusing him of anything (in fact it's thought Cis supported the marriage). I'd just like to know why, and how he got away with it without a murmur.  
 
 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Firstly to everyone - I was being humorous when I quoted Wiki, which is why
I said it came from there. (Actually, some Wiki entries are by current
scholars, such as Hicks on Stillington, though I disagree with him). I had
already said that I have never investigated Bourchier, other than to know he
is of royal descent through Thomas of Woodstock. I also asked why he issued
the licence for George's marriage in Calais, which was clearly against
Edward's wishes, wasn't it? No-one has yet answered that."

Doug here:
I don't use Wiki, so I can't say how good/bad it may be, but I would think
much would depend on the sourcing of any article and whether or not those
sources are noted. As for Bourchier issuing a licence for George's marriage,
did the king have the legal authority to forbid a religious rite, even
though that ceremony might have political implications? I know of later
occasions (Tudors and after) when marriages that were diapproved of caused
those marrying to be sent from, or denied access to, court. There were also
occasions when one participant was placed in custody because the marriage
was seen solely as a political move and involved one of the monarch's close
relatives.
If Bourchier was convinced that George's marriage, while having political
consequences, was indeed being sought for the "right" reasons, why shouldn't
he issue the licence? Also, does/did the licence have a "use by" date? If it
didn't, then one could look at the issuing of the licence as merely making
the marriage possible *at some future date*, which may have been Bourchier's
view.

(I broke this paragraph into two, hope you don't mind)
"Secondly, again to everyone, there does seem to be this belief that the
Church consisted of benign old men who must be virtuous. All that is, except
Morton. The Church's key interest in the fifteenth century was not who was
on the throne but to prevent the creeping spread of Lollardy, in England and
abroad - we are only twelve years before Luther is summoned to the Diet of
Worms. Protestantism was an enormous threat to the power of the Church; no
longer could it mediate between man and God. The early Lancastrian kings had
been robust in their suppression of Lollardy; the lovely Henry V enjoyed
nothing better than a good roasting. Edward IV I think had one Lollard put
to death early in his reign, but his pursuit of them was less robust.
Richard possessed a Wycliff bible and heard the first official service in
English at York."
(break)

Doug here:
I wonder if perhaps you're not being a bit too sweeping with some of your
assertions/conclusions? Or rather that you're employing a "straw man"
argument (I *think* that's the one) without realizing it. I can only speak
for myself, but I certainly don't consider the upper heirarchy of the 15th
century Church to consist of "benign old men who must be virtuous." Many, if
not most, seemed to have become members of the clergy because that allowed
them to best exercise their abilities; for some (Morton) that meant being
deeply involved in politics, for others (most?) that meant serving as, in a
sense, area managers of a large concern, if they remained active in their
diocese, or as high-level civil servants if they were at Court. In both
cases their work was mostly what we nowadays would consider secular; either
seeing to the managing of properties, appointing priests to livings (local
"mamgers") and ensuring that all the *civil* legal rights of their diocese
were maintained, or, if they served at Court, managing a great department of
State, with all that meant.In neither case was religion, seemingly,
uppermost in their minds. Or so it appears to me, anyway. It won't be the
first error on my part if I'm mistaken! Then there's the number of Bishops
involved, We tend to talk about four or fine, but weren't there thirty-odd
Bishops total? Of course, the ones we *do* mention frequently may have been
considered "leaders" and the rest followed their lead, but is there any
evidence that happened?
I think I'm safe in stating that Lollardy appeared during the last quarter
of the previous century and peaked, in England anyway, prior to the
Lancastrian usurpation. On the Continent, of course, the Hussite wars
weren't decided until the 1420s with the complete military defeat of the
Bohemian armies, but that just seems to have driven Lollardy underground,
made it that much harder to combat and helped give rise to the Reformation..
It does seem to me that the divisions in the Papacy; ie, one Pope at Rome,
another at Avignon, was *one* of the reasons Lollardy managed to spread so
widely. Rulers could play one Pope off the other and, as long as Lollards
remained on the rulers' side, most seemed not to much care. It was only when
various Lollard beliefs that contradicted Church dogma began to be widely
aired; ie, denial of transubstantiation, that the Church cracked down and
was supported by secular governments. And even then, again, actions against
Lollards varied from country to country.
I believe one view of the Lancastrian "crackdown" on Lollards, which I lean
towards, is that it was as much political as religious. IOW, Lollards tended
to be outspoken against abuses in and by the Church and it didn't take a lot
of deep thought to realize that such outspokeness could easily be turned
against the policies of the ruler, *any* ruler*. So, by cracking down on
Lollards, the various Henries could be seen as both supporting Mother Church
in Her fight against damnable views and theories *and* propping up their
own, rather shaky, claim to the throne.

"I'm asking what the Church thought of the Yorkist kings. My guess is, and
it is only a guess because it needs investigation, that most of the upper
clergy were conservative in their views. Certainly Stillington's nephew
Nyckke was extremely conservative, as were Stillington's Yorkshire relations
the Inglebys and Constables, Sir Robert Constable being a leader of the
Pilgrimage of Grace. I doubt Bourchier, as a Cardinal, was liberal and we
know another, Fisher, was not. I'd also ask what part they had in the
wording of Titulus Regius (some say it was Stillington) and in the
Parliament. It is a scathing attack by a Yorkist king on his Yorkist brother
the former King. Did loyal Richard really mean that, or was he obliged to
say that to gain Church support? In fact was his reign dependent on Church
support, as is claimed in the much-maligned Collins?"

Doug here:
The question, it seems to me, is just how "political" were the members the
Church heirarchy and how far did they go in using their powers as Bishops in
promoting a "Church" agenda that may, or may not, have been at odds with
royal policies and actions? I don't know of any concerted actions by English
Bishops regarding secular politics (as opposed to any instructions from
Rome); were there any?
Being "conservative" can mean many things; it was certainly used by Luther
to justify his opposition to various Church practices! While Edward and
Richard don't seem to have gone out of their way to hunt down Lollards, I
also don't recall English Bishops turning over large numbers of people
convicted of Lollardy for punishment during their reigns, then voicing their
displeasure to the King, *or* to the Pope, when the proper punishments
weren't carried out.
As for the wording of Titulus Regius, didn't Edward deserve that attack?
Edward had tried to pass the throne to his son, knowing that son to be
illegitimate! He'd not only gone against Church teachings and the entire
legal structure of the country, but he'd also placed England in an
incredibly dangerous position. What if the proofs Stillington provided to
the Council and Parliament had lain hidden for another decade and *then*
been produced? I think the contemplation of what *might* have happened,
added to what was known, more than explains any "scathing attack" in Titulus
Regius.
Nor do I think, and rather doubt there's any substantial proof, of any need
for Richard to do anything to gain "Church support". As far as the Church
was concerned, Richard was Edward's legal heir, what with George's
Attainder, and that was that. Possibly, seeing that Richard did own a
Wycliffe Bible, there *might* have been problems in the future, but that
wasn't known in 1483.

"Finally the Northerner bit. I wouldn't dispute that Richard was popular
with the 'people' - victors always are. But most modern biographers from
Horrox onwards have claimed that Richard's failure to win support of key
southern gentry and indeed London Court circles was a key reason for the
dissent in his reign, particularly when he had to summon help from the North
to put down rebellion. England had never had a 'northern' King, in
particular London had never had a northern King. They didn't know him as
they had Edward (through no fault of his as we know). He might have achieved
total trust over time, but as we know, sadly he didn't have time."

Doug again:
Perhaps a better way to look at Richard's "support", or any lack, among "key
southern gentry and indeed London Court circles" is: Why *should* Richard
have their support? He was Edward's legal heir, but he also wasn't
well-known *personally* to those groups. And who were the members of those
groups, anyway? "Southern gentry" undoubtedly included Lancastrians who'd
paid their fines and retained *some* of their properties and Woodvilles and
their immediate supporters, two groups that would be difficult to swing to
Richard's side except with the passage of time. The same caveats would apply
to "Court circles", presuming by "Court circles" you meant the ones extant
at the time of Edward's death.
Which, as you say, was something denied to Richard.

I hope you didn't mind the format. I rather like it as it's more as if we're
actually having a converstion and not posting past each other. I hope it's
clear that it's only your conclusions I disagree with. *I* think it is, but
then I'm biased!
Doug

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>  
> No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men

Hi Hilary,
I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
Marie

when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom


That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
Marie

and were not without personal ambition.
> I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.


If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
Marie

Hilary wrote: 
,snip>
> I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported. I find it hard to accept he came up with those words (even if he privately agreed Edward had been a naughty boy) <snip>

Carol responds:

Clearly, Richard wasn't the author of the petition that the Three Estates presented to him asking him to become king. (Probably Stillington was; he was almost certainly the author of Titulus Regius, anyway, and TR purports to quote the original petition.) Consequently, we can't blame him for the wording of the petition (and he was in no position to ask them to reword it--at that point, he had virtually no choice but to accept the offer whether he wanted to be king or not--and the "show of reluctance" may not have been a "show" at all).

Rosemary Horrox theorizes that despite wording to the contrary, Titulus Regius adds a great deal to the "certain parchment roll" described by the Croyland Chronicler, which appears from his description to focus mostly or entirely on the precontract with Eleanor Butler. Horrox (who holds a moderate traditional view of Richard which I believe is too harsh) suggests that mentioning his mother's adultery was not in Richard's *interest* at that time--he wanted to appear as his brother's legitimate successor. She thinks that later, it was in his *interest* to find additional reasons.

In my own view, she may be right about the roll of parchment, but for the wrong reasons. Richard and the Three Estates may have been solely concerned with the precontract at the time and may have asked him to be king for that reason only (though they would need to have brought in the Earl of Warwick's attainder as well), and Parliament (or Stillington) may have added some flourishes later to justify--in the fifteenth-century mind--Richard's deposition of his nephew and provide as many qualifications for him as possible even to the extent of denigrating the previous reign (with the implication that it would have continued into the next if Edward V had been crowned).

Whether or not that theory is true, I agree with you that Richard himself would not have "written scathingly about a brother he loved" (or added that hint that Edward might also have been illegitimate, which would insult his mother), but *Richard was not the author of either the petition or Titulus Regius.*

Just how much influence Buckingham had on the contents of the original petition is an interesting question. (He'd have had none on TR, of course.) The anti-Edward propaganda may have been at least partly his contribution. He certainly seems to have made some speeches promoting Richard's cause at the time. Whether he stepped out of line a bit, deliberately or accidentally making Richard seem to insult his own family, is impossible to say without the texts of the speeches.

Then again, if Stillington is solely responsible for both the petition and Titulus Regius, the anti-Edward portions may reflect his feelings--or the disapproval of a licentious and lustful king felt by the clergy in general.

Carol

Marie wrote: <snip>
> As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.

Carol responds:

Just Richard's luck that Sixtus IV, the pope to whom Edward IV had written praising Richard as the victor in the Scottish campaign (and who may have approved of Richard as king, especially if Langton had a chance to influence him) should suddenly die in August 1484, leaving the way open for Morton to slither into the new pope's good graces! Too bad Langton apparently didn't tell Innocent about *Richard's* desire to drive back the Turks! (But I don't think that Innocent would have shared Richard's apparent tolerance of Lollardy or that Richard would have approved of the Inquisition.)

Can you elaborate on the scales falling from the Pope's eyes? did it have anything to do with Henry's reluctance to lead his own troops into battle? Or did he come to realize, too late, that Tudor had no real claim to the throne?

Carol

It's a fair point. Titulus Regius was evidently drafted by a canon lawyer (Henry VII's council identified him as Stillington) and included every possible canonical impediment to the Woodville marriage (and, yes, hinted also at flaws in Edward IV's own title), and yet I think Mancini and Crowland don't really mention any pretext for Edward V's deposition other than the precontract.
PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of poisoning people, not the Queen.
I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote: 
> ,snip>
> > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported. I find it hard to accept he came up with those words (even if he privately agreed Edward had been a naughty boy) <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Clearly, Richard wasn't the author of the petition that the Three Estates presented to him asking him to become king. (Probably Stillington was; he was almost certainly the author of Titulus Regius, anyway, and TR purports to quote the original petition.) Consequently, we can't blame him for the wording of the petition (and he was in no position to ask them to reword it--at that point, he had virtually no choice but to accept the offer whether he wanted to be king or not--and the "show of reluctance" may not have been a "show" at all).
>
> Rosemary Horrox theorizes that despite wording to the contrary, Titulus Regius adds a great deal to the "certain parchment roll" described by the Croyland Chronicler, which appears from his description to focus mostly or entirely on the precontract with Eleanor Butler. Horrox (who holds a moderate traditional view of Richard which I believe is too harsh) suggests that mentioning his mother's adultery was not in Richard's *interest* at that time--he wanted to appear as his brother's legitimate successor. She thinks that later, it was in his *interest* to find additional reasons.
>
> In my own view, she may be right about the roll of parchment, but for the wrong reasons. Richard and the Three Estates may have been solely concerned with the precontract at the time and may have asked him to be king for that reason only (though they would need to have brought in the Earl of Warwick's attainder as well), and Parliament (or Stillington) may have added some flourishes later to justify--in the fifteenth-century mind--Richard's deposition of his nephew and provide as many qualifications for him as possible even to the extent of denigrating the previous reign (with the implication that it would have continued into the next if Edward V had been crowned).
>
> Whether or not that theory is true, I agree with you that Richard himself would not have "written scathingly about a brother he loved" (or added that hint that Edward might also have been illegitimate, which would insult his mother), but *Richard was not the author of either the petition or Titulus Regius.*
>
> Just how much influence Buckingham had on the contents of the original petition is an interesting question. (He'd have had none on TR, of course.) The anti-Edward propaganda may have been at least partly his contribution. He certainly seems to have made some speeches promoting Richard's cause at the time. Whether he stepped out of line a bit, deliberately or accidentally making Richard seem to insult his own family, is impossible to say without the texts of the speeches.
>
> Then again, if Stillington is solely responsible for both the petition and Titulus Regius, the anti-Edward portions may reflect his feelings--or the disapproval of a licentious and lustful king felt by the clergy in general.
>
> Carol
>

Hi Marie,
 
I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
 
I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
 
It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
 
Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>  
> No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men

Hi Hilary,
I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
Marie

when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom

That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
Marie

and were not without personal ambition.
> I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.

If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
Marie

Can I ask a stupid question and I'm so sorry it's about Stillington? Am I right in thinking it was just Commines and Chapuys (who named him as the Bishop of Bath) who actually said Stillington claimed to be the witness to the EB pre-contract? I'm not asking for any covert reason, I just find it odd that he's only named by those two. The sources I consulted seem only to come up with them.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )

 

It's a fair point. Titulus Regius was evidently drafted by a canon lawyer (Henry VII's council identified him as Stillington) and included every possible canonical impediment to the Woodville marriage (and, yes, hinted also at flaws in Edward IV's own title), and yet I think Mancini and Crowland don't really mention any pretext for Edward V's deposition other than the precontract.
PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of poisoning people, not the Queen.
I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote: 
> ,snip>
> > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported. I find it hard to accept he came up with those words (even if he privately agreed Edward had been a naughty boy) <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Clearly, Richard wasn't the author of the petition that the Three Estates presented to him asking him to become king. (Probably Stillington was; he was almost certainly the author of Titulus Regius, anyway, and TR purports to quote the original petition.) Consequently, we can't blame him for the wording of the petition (and he was in no position to ask them to reword it--at that point, he had virtually no choice but to accept the offer whether he wanted to be king or not--and the "show of reluctance" may not have been a "show" at all).
>
> Rosemary Horrox theorizes that despite wording to the contrary, Titulus Regius adds a great deal to the "certain parchment roll" described by the Croyland Chronicler, which appears from his description to focus mostly or entirely on the precontract with Eleanor Butler. Horrox (who holds a moderate traditional view of Richard which I believe is too harsh) suggests that mentioning his mother's adultery was not in Richard's *interest* at that time--he wanted to appear as his brother's legitimate successor. She thinks that later, it was in his *interest* to find additional reasons.
>
> In my own view, she may be right about the roll of parchment, but for the wrong reasons. Richard and the Three Estates may have been solely concerned with the precontract at the time and may have asked him to be king for that reason only (though they would need to have brought in the Earl of Warwick's attainder as well), and Parliament (or Stillington) may have added some flourishes later to justify--in the fifteenth-century mind--Richard's deposition of his nephew and provide as many qualifications for him as possible even to the extent of denigrating the previous reign (with the implication that it would have continued into the next if Edward V had been crowned).
>
> Whether or not that theory is true, I agree with you that Richard himself would not have "written scathingly about a brother he loved" (or added that hint that Edward might also have been illegitimate, which would insult his mother), but *Richard was not the author of either the petition or Titulus Regius.*
>
> Just how much influence Buckingham had on the contents of the original petition is an interesting question. (He'd have had none on TR, of course.) The anti-Edward propaganda may have been at least partly his contribution. He certainly seems to have made some speeches promoting Richard's cause at the time. Whether he stepped out of line a bit, deliberately or accidentally making Richard seem to insult his own family, is impossible to say without the texts of the speeches.
>
> Then again, if Stillington is solely responsible for both the petition and Titulus Regius, the anti-Edward portions may reflect his feelings--or the disapproval of a licentious and lustful king felt by the clergy in general.
>
> Carol
>

Thank you all for this.

I've always had a problem with the assumptions that Richard a) was the prime mover behind the petition and TR because b) upon his brother Edward's death somehow a switch flipped inside of him and he decided, going against his lifelong behavior up to that point, to become an evil usurping nephew-killer.

The thing is that he must have known his brother was in a hard case ever since Christmas, and if he really had designs on the throne at that point he would have found reasons to stick close to London. Instead, he's about as far away from London as he could be and still be in England (and at times actually wasn't in England).

Tamara



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's a fair point. Titulus Regius was evidently drafted by a canon lawyer (Henry VII's council identified him as Stillington) and included every possible canonical impediment to the Woodville marriage (and, yes, hinted also at flaws in Edward IV's own title), and yet I think Mancini and Crowland don't really mention any pretext for Edward V's deposition other than the precontract.
> PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of poisoning people, not the Queen.
> I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary wrote: 
> > ,snip>
> > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported. I find it hard to accept he came up with those words (even if he privately agreed Edward had been a naughty boy) <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Clearly, Richard wasn't the author of the petition that the Three Estates presented to him asking him to become king. (Probably Stillington was; he was almost certainly the author of Titulus Regius, anyway, and TR purports to quote the original petition.) Consequently, we can't blame him for the wording of the petition (and he was in no position to ask them to reword it--at that point, he had virtually no choice but to accept the offer whether he wanted to be king or not--and the "show of reluctance" may not have been a "show" at all).
> >
> > Rosemary Horrox theorizes that despite wording to the contrary, Titulus Regius adds a great deal to the "certain parchment roll" described by the Croyland Chronicler, which appears from his description to focus mostly or entirely on the precontract with Eleanor Butler. Horrox (who holds a moderate traditional view of Richard which I believe is too harsh) suggests that mentioning his mother's adultery was not in Richard's *interest* at that time--he wanted to appear as his brother's legitimate successor. She thinks that later, it was in his *interest* to find additional reasons.
> >
> > In my own view, she may be right about the roll of parchment, but for the wrong reasons. Richard and the Three Estates may have been solely concerned with the precontract at the time and may have asked him to be king for that reason only (though they would need to have brought in the Earl of Warwick's attainder as well), and Parliament (or Stillington) may have added some flourishes later to justify--in the fifteenth-century mind--Richard's deposition of his nephew and provide as many qualifications for him as possible even to the extent of denigrating the previous reign (with the implication that it would have continued into the next if Edward V had been crowned).
> >
> > Whether or not that theory is true, I agree with you that Richard himself would not have "written scathingly about a brother he loved" (or added that hint that Edward might also have been illegitimate, which would insult his mother), but *Richard was not the author of either the petition or Titulus Regius.*
> >
> > Just how much influence Buckingham had on the contents of the original petition is an interesting question. (He'd have had none on TR, of course.) The anti-Edward propaganda may have been at least partly his contribution. He certainly seems to have made some speeches promoting Richard's cause at the time. Whether he stepped out of line a bit, deliberately or accidentally making Richard seem to insult his own family, is impossible to say without the texts of the speeches.
> >
> > Then again, if Stillington is solely responsible for both the petition and Titulus Regius, the anti-Edward portions may reflect his feelings--or the disapproval of a licentious and lustful king felt by the clergy in general.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question and I'm so sorry it's about Stillington? Am I right in thinking it was just Commines and Chapuys (who named him as the Bishop of Bath) who actually said Stillington claimed to be the witness to the EB pre-contract? I'm not asking for any covert reason, I just find it odd that he's only named by those two. The sources I consulted seem only to come up with them.

Carol responds:

Tudor's Parliament seems to have viewed Stillington as the author of Titulus Regius, as did Henry, who arrested him immediately after Bosworth. But since Henry wouldn't let him testify before Parliament (he simply ordered all copies of Titulus Regius burned unread), Henry's Parliament couldn't know (as Richard's would have) whether he was a witness or not or what evidence he presented to the Three Estates and Richard's Parliament that convinced them of the truth of the Edward IV/Eleanor Butler marriage. He certainly presented something to persuade not only the Three Estates but the subsequent Parliament that the precontract was a valid marriage.

Here is the relevant passage from Titulus Regius (probably identical to the one in the petition from the Three Estates):

"And here also we consider how that the said pretensed marriage was made privately and secretly, with edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church, after the laws of God’s church, but contrary thereunto, and the laudable custom of the Church of England. And how also, that at the time of the contract of the same pretensed marriage, and before and long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and troth plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the said King Edward had made a precontract of matrimony, long time before he made the said pretensed marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in manner and form aforesaid. Which premises being true, as in very truth they been true, it appears and follows evidently, that the said King Edward during his life, and the said Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, against the law of God and his Church; and therefore no marvel that the sovereign Lord and head of this Land, being of such ungodly disposition, and provoking the ire and indignation of our Lord God, such heinous mischiefs and inconveniences, as is above remembered, were used and committed in the Realm amongst the subjects. Also it appears evidently and follows that all the issue and children of the said King, been (being) bastards, and unable to inherit or to claim anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England."

"We," of course, refers to the Three Estates/Parliament, not to Richard, who, as I said, is the recipient of the petition, not its author.

Croyland summarizes the petition of the Three Estates: "It was set forth, by way of prayer, in and address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of King Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; added to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on [the] part of the lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights." (He mentions nothing about the other objections made to Edward and his rule in TR itself, which seems to justify Horrox's speculation that Titulus Regius expanded on the original petition--if not the inferences that she draws about Richard based on this assumption.)

Croyland is not helpful regarding the authorship, claiming that the petition was rumored to have been "got up in the north" and apparently implying that these "seditious and disgraceful proceedings" were the work of the Duke of Buckingham. I think we can trust his memory of the contents of the parchment roll, but his speculations and inferences result from his view of Richard's assumption as a usurpation.

Marie may be able to add more information, especially about Henry's Parliament. At least one person, Lord Stanley, probably attended both Parliaments but would certainly have kept his mouth shut at Henry's, knowing full well that Richard had been legally elected king but not about to risk life or liberty by saying so.

Carol

Hi Hilary,

No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
>  
> I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
>  
> I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
>  
> It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
>  
> Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Doug,
> >  
> > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
>
> Hi Hilary,
> I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> Marie
>
> when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
>
> That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> Marie
>
> and were not without personal ambition.
> > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
>
> If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote: <snip>
> > As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Just Richard's luck that Sixtus IV, the pope to whom Edward IV had written praising Richard as the victor in the Scottish campaign (and who may have approved of Richard as king, especially if Langton had a chance to influence him) should suddenly die in August 1484, leaving the way open for Morton to slither into the new pope's good graces! Too bad Langton apparently didn't tell Innocent about *Richard's* desire to drive back the Turks! (But I don't think that Innocent would have shared Richard's apparent tolerance of Lollardy or that Richard would have approved of the Inquisition.)
>
> Can you elaborate on the scales falling from the Pope's eyes? did it have anything to do with Henry's reluctance to lead his own troops into battle? Or did he come to realize, too late, that Tudor had no real claim to the throne?
>
> Carol
>

Hi Carol,
I got all this from CSL Davies' article "Bishop Morton and the Holy See" (EHR, vol 102, 1987 - copy in the Barton Library, of course). Unfortunately, Morton reached Rome before Langton and had already wormed his way into Pope Innocent's confidence. Morton even succeeded in recruiting the man Richard sent to Rome to offer him a pardon.
What the Pope seems to have been promised was better support under Henry and Morton for his plans for a crusade - whether actually sending a force or, more importantly, sending more money to Rome. The Pope was, in the event, disappointed, although Morton kept him strung along for about 4 years. The penny seems to have dropped in 1489, and in that year Morton was passed over for the cardinal's hat he had expected. But in the meantime Morton and Henry had got what they wanted - a ratification of the non-forced nature of the marriage to Elizabeth of York issued without Elizabeth herself even being interviewed; automatic excommunication of anyone rebelling against Henry VII; and the presentation to Henry in late 1488 of the coveted papal cap and sword.
I think there may also be a suggestion that the "infirmation" that Richard had murdered the Princes, which continentals derived from Mancini's report, also reached Rome either just before or after Morton.
I think it's ironic. Yes, Richard owned a copy of Wyclyffe's New Testament; no, he didn't in his two years as king go on about suppressing heresy, but he also showed himself to be a loyal son of the Church, and totally respected its rights (unlike Henry VII, who in the very first year of his reign forced his justices to rule that it was legal to drag traitors out of sanctuary because the King, not the Pope, had ultimate jurisdiction in England).
Marie

Marie wrote:

> Hi Carol,
> I got all this from CSL Davies' article "Bishop Morton and the Holy See" (EHR, vol 102, 1987 - copy in the Barton Library, of course). Unfortunately, Morton reached Rome before Langton and had already wormed his way into Pope Innocent's confidence. Morton even succeeded in recruiting the man Richard sent to Rome to offer him a pardon.
> What the Pope seems to have been promised was better support under Henry and Morton for his plans for a crusade - whether actually sending a force or, more importantly, sending more money to Rome. The Pope was, in the event, disappointed, although Morton kept him strung along for about 4 years. The penny seems to have dropped in 1489, and in that year Morton was passed over for the cardinal's hat he had expected. But in the meantime Morton and Henry had got what they wanted - a ratification of the non-forced nature of the marriage to Elizabeth of York issued without Elizabeth herself even being interviewed; automatic excommunication of anyone rebelling against Henry VII; and the presentation to Henry in late 1488 of the coveted papal cap and sword.
> I think there may also be a suggestion that the "infirmation" that Richard had murdered the Princes, which continentals derived from Mancini's report, also reached Rome either just before or after Morton.
> I think it's ironic. Yes, Richard owned a copy of Wyclyffe's New Testament; no, he didn't in his two years as king go on about suppressing heresy, but he also showed himself to be a loyal son of the Church, and totally respected its rights (unlike Henry VII, who in the very first year of his reign forced his justices to rule that it was legal to drag traitors out of sanctuary because the King, not the Pope, had ultimate jurisdiction in England).
> Marie
>
Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I've bookmarked this post for future reference. Poor Richard--every circumstance against him, even a new pope willing to listen to that insidious bag of poison, Bishop Morton.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morton even succeeded in recruiting the man Richard sent to Rome to offer him a pardon." Do you mean Langton or someone else? And do you mean a papal pardon for treason against Richard? Sorry to be so confused.

If only Richard had kept Morton in the Tower and never handed him into Buckingham's custody!

Carol

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"...the colorless Morton who shows no signs of shrewd, manipulative
intelligence..."

Just a thought, but perhaps that's how Morton got away with so much?
Doug

I wonder how Richard reconciled his brother's bigamy He couldn't blame the Woodvilles for that, and there was no accusation of witchcraft when it came to Eleanor Butler.

I know that morality was left to the church, while manners were left to the masters who taught the pages. Morals and manners had nothing in common, and Kings weren't expected to be saints, but in Edward's case it sometimes seems like every seed for the ultimate death of the York dynasty can be laid at his lustful feet.


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
> Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
> Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
> If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie,
> >  
> > I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
> >  
> > I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
> >  
> > It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
> >  
> > Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Doug,
> > >  
> > > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> > I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> > Marie
> >
> > when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
> >
> > That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> > Marie
> >
> > and were not without personal ambition.
> > > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
> >
> > If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> > I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Hi Carol,
> > I got all this from CSL Davies' article "Bishop Morton and the Holy See" (EHR, vol 102, 1987 - copy in the Barton Library, of course). Unfortunately, Morton reached Rome before Langton and had already wormed his way into Pope Innocent's confidence. Morton even succeeded in recruiting the man Richard sent to Rome to offer him a pardon.
> > What the Pope seems to have been promised was better support under Henry and Morton for his plans for a crusade - whether actually sending a force or, more importantly, sending more money to Rome. The Pope was, in the event, disappointed, although Morton kept him strung along for about 4 years. The penny seems to have dropped in 1489, and in that year Morton was passed over for the cardinal's hat he had expected. But in the meantime Morton and Henry had got what they wanted - a ratification of the non-forced nature of the marriage to Elizabeth of York issued without Elizabeth herself even being interviewed; automatic excommunication of anyone rebelling against Henry VII; and the presentation to Henry in late 1488 of the coveted papal cap and sword.
> > I think there may also be a suggestion that the "infirmation" that Richard had murdered the Princes, which continentals derived from Mancini's report, also reached Rome either just before or after Morton.
> > I think it's ironic. Yes, Richard owned a copy of Wyclyffe's New Testament; no, he didn't in his two years as king go on about suppressing heresy, but he also showed himself to be a loyal son of the Church, and totally respected its rights (unlike Henry VII, who in the very first year of his reign forced his justices to rule that it was legal to drag traitors out of sanctuary because the King, not the Pope, had ultimate jurisdiction in England).
> > Marie
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Marie. I've bookmarked this post for future reference. Poor Richard--every circumstance against him, even a new pope willing to listen to that insidious bag of poison, Bishop Morton.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Morton even succeeded in recruiting the man Richard sent to Rome to offer him a pardon." Do you mean Langton or someone else? And do you mean a papal pardon for treason against Richard? Sorry to be so confused.

Marie replies:
No, not your fault - it's me trying to be brief. No, Richard had actually granted Morton a pardon on 11 December 1484, and sent a man called Richard Arnold over to the continent to find him and give it to him. Evidently Richard trusted Arnold, but he was an old friend of Morton's, and instead of Arnold persuading Morton to accept Richard's peace offering, Morton persuaded Arnold to come over to Tudor.
I think Morton must have had a lot of charisma, and been a very persuasive talker.
Marie

Actually, you make a wise point, Doug. "Fly on the wall," and all that. Exactly how some of these people got others to trust'em. 

Of course, I never got beyond Episode Four, but maybe I should. Maxwell did a pretty credible H, as I remember. Eof Y was a bit of a hippie chick (her frock looked like it came from Gunne Sax, a '70s manufacturer of women's wear, for those unfamiliar with the brand, and all she needed was a beaded headband). But seriously, I did like "Lincoln"...but "Humphrey Stafford" was too young. And I wish "Lovell" had been blond...don't know why, but I've always pictured him fair-haired. And they drowned him, right? Too bad (though quicker than starving).

Judy


 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Reliable sources and "Shadow of the Tower (Was: Edward IV's Council . . .)



 

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"...the colorless Morton who shows no signs of shrewd, manipulative
intelligence..."

Just a thought, but perhaps that's how Morton got away with so much?
Doug

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how Richard reconciled his brother's bigamy He couldn't blame the Woodvilles for that, and there was no accusation of witchcraft when it came to Eleanor Butler.

It's a fair point. Perhaps he liked to imagine that without EW's wiles Edward would eventually have had the courage to acknowledge Eleanor. But really Richard knew what his brother was like. I think his feelings about him must have been really conflicted.
Marie


>
> I know that morality was left to the church, while manners were left to the masters who taught the pages. Morals and manners had nothing in common, and Kings weren't expected to be saints, but in Edward's case it sometimes seems like every seed for the ultimate death of the York dynasty can be laid at his lustful feet.
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
> > Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
> > Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
> > If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >  
> > > I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
> > >  
> > > I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
> > >  
> > > It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
> > >  
> > > Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Doug,
> > > >  
> > > > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > > I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
> > >
> > > That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > and were not without personal ambition.
> > > > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > > > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
> > >
> > > If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> > > I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Charles Ross' biography of Edward IV holds Edward responsible for the York dynasty's downfall in its last pages.

Apparently Ross changed his opinion of Richard between the years when he published "Edward IV" and "Richard III," because he's much less critical of Ricard in "Edward IV" than he is in "Richard III." I learned a lot about Richard from "Edward IV," but I recommend borrowing it before buying.

Marion


--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how Richard reconciled his brother's bigamy He couldn't blame the Woodvilles for that, and there was no accusation of witchcraft when it came to Eleanor Butler.
>
> I know that morality was left to the church, while manners were left to the masters who taught the pages. Morals and manners had nothing in common, and Kings weren't expected to be saints, but in Edward's case it sometimes seems like every seed for the ultimate death of the York dynasty can be laid at his lustful feet.
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
> > Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
> > Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
> > If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >  
> > > I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
> > >  
> > > I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
> > >  
> > > It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
> > >  
> > > Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Doug,
> > > >  
> > > > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > > I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
> > >
> > > That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > and were not without personal ambition.
> > > > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > > > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
> > >
> > > If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> > > I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie wrote:
> No, not your fault - it's me trying to be brief. No, Richard had actually granted Morton a pardon on 11 December 1484, and sent a man called Richard Arnold over to the continent to find him and give it to him. Evidently Richard trusted Arnold, but he was an old friend of Morton's, and instead of Arnold persuading Morton to accept Richard's peace offering, Morton persuaded Arnold to come over to Tudor.
> I think Morton must have had a lot of charisma, and been a very persuasive talker.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I know I keep saying this, but poor Richard! I'm beginning to believe that someone *did* curse him! If only he'd sent someone whose loyalty was ironclad.

It hurts me to think of how many things went wrong for him, small and large, in the last two years of his short life.

Carol

And considering how much Richard admired Edward, he must have felt nearly as betrayed when he found out about Eleanor Talbot as did the Kingmaker when he found out about Lizzie Wydeville.

I wonder -- what would Warwick have done if Edward had 'fessed up to marrying Eleanor Talbot and actually publicly took her to wife? She, at least, was noble as all get out. Could Warwick have been resigned to it somehow? Or would he still have decided that Ned did too much of his thinking below the waist, unlike his far more sensible father (and youngest brother, who was much more like his father than Edward would be)?

Tamara

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how Richard reconciled his brother's bigamy He couldn't blame the Woodvilles for that, and there was no accusation of witchcraft when it came to Eleanor Butler.
>
> I know that morality was left to the church, while manners were left to the masters who taught the pages. Morals and manners had nothing in common, and Kings weren't expected to be saints, but in Edward's case it sometimes seems like every seed for the ultimate death of the York dynasty can be laid at his lustful feet.
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
> > Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
> > Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
> > If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >  
> > > I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
> > >  
> > > I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
> > >  
> > > It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
> > >  
> > > Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Doug,
> > > >  
> > > > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > > I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
> > >
> > > That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > and were not without personal ambition.
> > > > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > > > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
> > >
> > > If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> > > I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Thanks Marie. It almost brings us full circle to the Hastings thing. He too must have grown disappointed with Edward after he refused to help Margaret. As you know, Hastings got into trouble for helping her secretly from Calais. I have a soft spot for Hastings, despite the reputed wenching. He remained loyal to Edward for a very long time. I just somehow can't see him joining up with the Woodvilles in a plot against Richard, particularly as he and Dorset seem to have beeen (literally) at daggers drawn over Leics lands. It is all very strange. I wonder who 'got at him' or encouraged him to plot.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 12:09
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

Hi Hilary,

No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth
and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie,
>  
> I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
>  
> I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
>  
> It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
>  
> Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Doug,
> > à
> > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
>
> Hi Hilary,
> I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> Marie
>
> when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
>
> That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> Marie
>
> and were not without personal ambition.
> > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
>
> If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

I woul.d echo that. It is immensely useful and well-researched on a variety of things.



________________________________
From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 23:03
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

Charles Ross' biography of Edward IV holds Edward responsible for the York dynasty's downfall in its last pages.

Apparently Ross changed his opinion of Richard between the years when he published "Edward IV" and "Richard III," because he's much less critical of Ricard in "Edward IV" than he is in "Richard III." I learned a lot about Richard from "Edward IV," but I recommend borrowing it before buying.

Marion

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how Richard reconciled his brother's bigamy He couldn't blame the Woodvilles for that, and there was no accusation of witchcraft when it came to Eleanor Butler.
>
> I know that morality was left to the church, while manners were left to the masters who taught the pages. Morals and manners had nothing in common, and Kings weren't expected to be saints, but in Edward's case it sometimes seems like every seed for the ultimate death of the York dynasty can be laid at his lustful feet.
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at
Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
> > Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
> > Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
> > If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marie,
> > >  
> > > I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
> > >  
> > > I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
> > >  
> > > It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
> > >  
> > > Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Doug,
> > > > à
> > > > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > > I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
> > >
> > > That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > and were not without personal ambition.
> > > > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > > > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
> > >
> > > If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> > > I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Hilary Jones wrote"


"Hi Doug,
No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly
about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from
their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was
that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as
though they were good, holy, innocent old men when in fact they probably had
the sharpest minds in the kingdom and were not without personal ambition."

Doug here:
I quite agree with the "personal ambition", but with the caveat that while
such ambition may not always go hand-in-hand with *royal*
policies/personages, neither did it with any *Church* policies.

"I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian
kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious
men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?"

Doug here:
Well, possibly it was some of that "conservatism"? They'd been born and
raised under Lancastrian kings and, to them, that *was* the natural order?

"I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it
might have suited them to agree to do so?"

Doug:
I know that in disputed successions, members of the Church heirarchy often
took sides, but even Henry didn't get Papal backing/support until *after*
he'd been on the throne for some time. Nor, presuming it followed its own
rules, could the Church, as a united organization, back Tudor *before*
Bosworth. While "Lancastrian" blood may have flowed in his veins, it was due
to two illegitimate unions and, unlike in math, two negatives don't make a
positive!

"I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about
a brother he loved and had loyally supported. I find it hard to accept he
came up with those words (even if he privately agreed Edward had been a
naughty boy)"

Doug:
Marie mentioned in one of her posts about how grieving people react
differently and that may certainly have been the case here. Personally, I've
always looked at Richard's reaction to the discovery of Edward's marriage to
EB as Richard feeling betrayed, personally and politically, especially the
former. Edward, knowing full well he was married to EB, went ahead and
"married" EW (for whatever reasons) and then tried to pass his illegitimate
children off as his legal heirs. That would have been bad enough as a
private citizen, but as the King!
And we all know how Richard reacted to betrayals!
I don't think, by the time of Edward's death, that Richard had his brother
up on any pedestal (if he ever did), but he *did* expect much better from
Edward, so I staggered through a re-reading of TR and found, as Marie also
noted, that the blame for Edward's actions was laid at the feet of the
Woodvilles in their providing bad "advice" to the King and in the use of
witchcraft in placing the Woodvilles where they could provide that advice.
While it didn't let Edward completely off the hook, perhaps that was the
best that could be done?

"And finally the Bourchier/George thing. I only mentioned it because when
Warwick announced to his citizens in Coventry that Isabel was to marry
George this was regarded as an act of treason (either Kendall or Ross). So
had Bourchier granted the licence first or didn't he realise the potential
implication of what he'd done? I'm not accusing him of anything (in fact
it's thought Cis supported the marriage). I'd just like to know why, and how
he got away with it without a murmur.

Doug here:
As, at that point George was next in line to the throne, George's marrying
without Edward's approval was definitely risky (it's never wise to anger a
King!), if looked at from a medieval perspective (or as close to one as I
can get!), where familial relationships usually meant more than just sending
a card at Christmas, I can easily see why the Duchess of York might have
supported it and why Bourchier issued the licence.
After Edward, Warwick was the most powerful person in England and anything
that could tie Warwick's interests more closely to Edward's could be looked
on, and seemingly was, as good. That events took a different turn that those
involved anticipated is just another example of "the best laid plans" going
astray.
I *think* I asked in a previous post whether any licence Bourchier issued
would have a "use by" date? If it wouldn't have, then perhaps *that's* why
Bourchier suffered no (known) reprimand? Bourchier issued the licence so
that it would be available *immediately* upon Edward's agreeing to the
marriage?
However, once the licence was in hand, Warwick announces the marriage, the
Duchess thinks the marriage a good idea and goes along with it, George wants
the marriage and Bourchier can't complain about anything because he should
have anticipated at least the possibility the marriage would go ahead
without Edward's approval and Edward, recognizing Warwick as the prime
mover, doesn't hold Bourchier responsible. Or completely, anyway.
How's that?

Doug

Marie wrote:

//snip//
PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked
with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was
specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's
consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used
earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor
Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch
cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even
Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of
poisoning people, not the Queen.
I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they
were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their
talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking
like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity."

Would you then put the witchcraft mentioned in More and later chroniclers,
as more likely being due to the era and not necessarily anyone having access
to TR?
I only ask because when I read the above part of your post, the very first
thing that came to mind was More and the Tower scene.
Doug
(sorry about the delay, I wanted to ensure I phrased my question properly as
it's about an opinion)

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked
> with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was
> specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's
> consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used
> earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor
> Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch
> cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even
> Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of
> poisoning people, not the Queen.
> I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they
> were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their
> talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking
> like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity."
>
> Would you then put the witchcraft mentioned in More and later chroniclers,
> as more likely being due to the era and not necessarily anyone having access
> to TR?


> I only ask because when I read the above part of your post, the very first
> thing that came to mind was More and the Tower scene.
> Doug
> (sorry about the delay, I wanted to ensure I phrased my question properly as
> it's about an opinion)
>

Marie replies:

I don't think More would necessarily have needed access to TR to have had the idea that Elizabeth had been accused of witchcraft, because according to TR it was "the common opinion and the public voice" that she and her mother had used witchcraft to entrap the king. And, although witchcraft was getting to be a more fashionable concern by the early 1500s, that alone may not be the explanation for More's Tower scene. What the Tudor machine does, between the suppression of TR and the emergence of the Tudor histories c. 1510 onwards (it seems to me), is to recast in a less threatening form elements of Richard's claim that evidently wouldn't go away. Lady Lucy is substituted for Eleanor Butler. The accusation of witchcraft brought against Elizabeth Woodville that June shifts from the genuine one relating to her marriage to EIV (which would have annulled it) to a fictitious and clearly unbelievable charge with no wider consequences, ie her withering of Richard's already withered arm. (Yes, okay, it wasn't withered, he just had thin arms, but that in itself is testimony to how the facts had mutated.)

In a way it's surprising that, given that Warwick had first linked the royal marriage to witchcraft as far back as 1469, there weren't more rumours linking the Queen with the black arts. But there aren't, none that have come down to us, at any rate. Perhaps Elizabeth's studiously pious patronage of religious institutions and the cult of the Guardian Angel prevented that. One single dramatic, and devastating act, carried out many years before under her mother's influence.

It's a contrast to the case of Eleanor Cobham, who was simultaneously accused of witchcraft in order to entrap Duke Humphrey into marriage, and of more recent witchcraft in order to hasten Henry VI's death. The former accusation was tried by a church court, which annulled the marriage, and the second by a secular court with the consequences that we all know. Anyway, on that basis you might have expected Richard to accuse the queen of using sorcery against him in 1483, but if he did there's no record of it (More doesn't count, in my view).

Anyway, that's my current opinion based on what I can recall of the sources. It would be a good subject for discussion, though.

I. Am. Gfoing. Ro nyt. Dads fr ave toii die. I kove hiu Skk vjut nrrd myt dwasd
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Sender:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:08:58
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked
> with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was
> specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's
> consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used
> earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor
> Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch
> cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even
> Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of
> poisoning people, not the Queen.
> I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they
> were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their
> talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking
> like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity."
>
> Would you then put the witchcraft mentioned in More and later chroniclers,
> as more likely being due to the era and not necessarily anyone having access
> to TR?


> I only ask because when I read the above part of your post, the very first
> thing that came to mind was More and the Tower scene.
> Doug
> (sorry about the delay, I wanted to ensure I phrased my question properly as
> it's about an opinion)
>

Marie replies:

I don't think More would necessarily have needed access to TR to have had the idea that Elizabeth had been accused of witchcraft, because according to TR it was "the common opinion and the public voice" that she and her mother had used witchcraft to entrap the king. And, although witchcraft was getting to be a more fashionable concern by the early 1500s, that alone may not be the explanation for More's Tower scene. What the Tudor machine does, between the suppression of TR and the emergence of the Tudor histories c. 1510 onwards (it seems to me), is to recast in a less threatening form elements of Richard's claim that evidently wouldn't go away. Lady Lucy is substituted for Eleanor Butler. The accusation of witchcraft brought against Elizabeth Woodville that June shifts from the genuine one relating to her marriage to EIV (which would have annulled it) to a fictitious and clearly unbelievable charge with no wider consequences, ie her withering of Richard's already withered arm. (Yes, okay, it wasn't withered, he just had thin arms, but that in itself is testimony to how the facts had mutated.)

In a way it's surprising that, given that Warwick had first linked the royal marriage to witchcraft as far back as 1469, there weren't more rumours linking the Queen with the black arts. But there aren't, none that have come down to us, at any rate. Perhaps Elizabeth's studiously pious patronage of religious institutions and the cult of the Guardian Angel prevented that. One single dramatic, and devastating act, carried out many years before under her mother's influence.

It's a contrast to the case of Eleanor Cobham, who was simultaneously accused of witchcraft in order to entrap Duke Humphrey into marriage, and of more recent witchcraft in order to hasten Henry VI's death. The former accusation was tried by a church court, which annulled the marriage, and the second by a secular court with the consequences that we all know. Anyway, on that basis you might have expected Richard to accuse the queen of using sorcery against him in 1483, but if he did there's no record of it (More doesn't count, in my view).

Anyway, that's my current opinion based on what I can recall of the sources. It would be a good subject for discussion, though.

This is why I avoid small keypads...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: "c.nelson1@..." <c.nelson1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )


I. Am. Gfoing. Ro nyt. Dads fr ave toii die. I kove hiu Skk vjut nrrd myt dwasd
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Sender:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:08:58
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect  Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked
> with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was
> specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's
> consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used
> earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor
> Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch
> cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even
> Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of
> poisoning people, not the Queen.
> I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they
> were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their
> talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking
> like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity."
>
> Would you then put the witchcraft mentioned in More and later chroniclers,
> as more likely being due to the era and not necessarily anyone having access
> to TR?


> I only ask because when I read the above part of your post, the very first
> thing that came to mind was More and the Tower scene.
> Doug
> (sorry about the delay, I wanted to ensure I phrased my question properly as
> it's about an opinion)
>

Marie replies:

I don't think More would necessarily have needed access to TR  to have had the idea that Elizabeth had been accused of witchcraft, because according to TR it was "the common opinion and the public voice" that she and her mother had used witchcraft to entrap the king. And, although witchcraft was getting to be a more fashionable concern by the early 1500s, that alone may not be the explanation for More's Tower scene.  What the Tudor machine does, between the suppression of TR and the emergence of the Tudor histories c. 1510 onwards (it seems to me), is to recast in a less threatening form elements of Richard's claim that evidently wouldn't go away. Lady Lucy is substituted for Eleanor Butler. The accusation of witchcraft brought against Elizabeth Woodville that June shifts from the genuine one relating to her marriage to EIV (which would have annulled it) to a fictitious and clearly unbelievable charge with no wider consequences, ie her withering of
Richard's already withered arm. (Yes, okay, it wasn't withered, he just had thin arms, but that in itself is testimony to how the facts had mutated.)

In a way it's surprising that, given that Warwick had first linked the royal marriage to witchcraft as far back as 1469, there weren't more rumours linking the Queen with the black arts. But there aren't, none that have come down to us, at any rate. Perhaps Elizabeth's studiously pious patronage of religious institutions and the cult of the Guardian Angel prevented that. One single dramatic, and devastating act, carried out many years before under her mother's influence.

It's a contrast to the case of Eleanor Cobham, who was simultaneously accused of witchcraft in order to entrap Duke Humphrey into marriage, and of more recent witchcraft in order to hasten Henry VI's death. The former accusation was tried by a church court, which annulled the marriage, and the second by a secular court with the consequences that we all know. Anyway, on that basis you might have expected Richard to accuse the queen of using sorcery against him in 1483, but if he did there's no record of it (More doesn't count, in my view).

Anyway, that's my current opinion based on what I can recall of the sources. It would be a good subject for discussion, though.












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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Google Translate has failed me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )



This is why I avoid small keypads...

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: "c.nelson1@..." <c.nelson1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )


I. Am. Gfoing. Ro nyt. Dads fr ave toii die. I kove hiu Skk vjut nrrd myt dwasd
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Sender:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:08:58
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: How far did Titulus Regius reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever linked
> with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was
> specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's
> consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used
> earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to Eleanor
> Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch
> cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery. Even
> Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of
> poisoning people, not the Queen.
> I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though they
> were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with their
> talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard looking
> like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his paternity."
>
> Would you then put the witchcraft mentioned in More and later chroniclers,
> as more likely being due to the era and not necessarily anyone having access
> to TR?

> I only ask because when I read the above part of your post, the very first
> thing that came to mind was More and the Tower scene.
> Doug
> (sorry about the delay, I wanted to ensure I phrased my question properly as
> it's about an opinion)
>

Marie replies:

I don't think More would necessarily have needed access to TR to have had the idea that Elizabeth had been accused of witchcraft, because according to TR it was "the common opinion and the public voice" that she and her mother had used witchcraft to entrap the king. And, although witchcraft was getting to be a more fashionable concern by the early 1500s, that alone may not be the explanation for More's Tower scene. What the Tudor machine does, between the suppression of TR and the emergence of the Tudor histories c. 1510 onwards (it seems to me), is to recast in a less threatening form elements of Richard's claim that evidently wouldn't go away. Lady Lucy is substituted for Eleanor Butler. The accusation of witchcraft brought against Elizabeth Woodville that June shifts from the genuine one relating to her marriage to EIV (which would have annulled it) to a fictitious and clearly unbelievable charge with no wider consequences, ie her withering of
Richard's already withered arm. (Yes, okay, it wasn't withered, he just had thin arms, but that in itself is testimony to how the facts had mutated.)

In a way it's surprising that, given that Warwick had first linked the royal marriage to witchcraft as far back as 1469, there weren't more rumours linking the Queen with the black arts. But there aren't, none that have come down to us, at any rate. Perhaps Elizabeth's studiously pious patronage of religious institutions and the cult of the Guardian Angel prevented that. One single dramatic, and devastating act, carried out many years before under her mother's influence.

It's a contrast to the case of Eleanor Cobham, who was simultaneously accused of witchcraft in order to entrap Duke Humphrey into marriage, and of more recent witchcraft in order to hasten Henry VI's death. The former accusation was tried by a church court, which annulled the marriage, and the second by a secular court with the consequences that we all know. Anyway, on that basis you might have expected Richard to accuse the queen of using sorcery against him in 1483, but if he did there's no record of it (More doesn't count, in my view).

Anyway, that's my current opinion based on what I can recall of the sources. It would be a good subject for discussion, though.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hah, it does look like a dumbphone doesn't it. Or perhaps someone's been
hacked?

A J


On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> This is why I avoid small keypads...
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: "c.nelson1@..." <c.nelson1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 4:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: How far did Titulus Regius
> reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )
>
>
> I. Am. Gfoing. Ro nyt. Dads fr ave toii die. I kove hiu Skk vjut nrrd myt
> dwasd
> Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Sender:
> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:08:58
> To: <>
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: How far did Titulus Regius
> reflect Richard's views? (Was: Edward IV's Council )
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > PG and More notwithstanding, of course, the Woodvilles were only ever
> linked
> > with witchcraft in the context of the royal marriage, and that was
> > specifically because the use of witchcraft would have negated Edward's
> > consent and rendered the marriage void. The same tactic had been used
> > earlier in the century to annul the duke of Gloucester's marriage to
> Eleanor
> > Cobham. There is no contemporary notion of Elizabeth Woodville the Witch
> > cursing everybody, or of Richard III accusing her of random sorcery.
> Even
> > Clarence, according to the information we have, accused the King of
> > poisoning people, not the Queen.
> > I think, actually, the extra items in Titulus Regius do look as though
> they
> > were more probably there by the wish of enthusiastic supporters, with
> their
> > talk of the witchcraft being a matter of common fame, and Richard
> looking
> > like the Duke of York so they could be more confident about his
> paternity."
> >
> > Would you then put the witchcraft mentioned in More and later
> chroniclers,
> > as more likely being due to the era and not necessarily anyone having
> access
> > to TR?
>
> > I only ask because when I read the above part of your post, the very
> first
> > thing that came to mind was More and the Tower scene.
> > Doug
> > (sorry about the delay, I wanted to ensure I phrased my question
> properly as
> > it's about an opinion)
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> I don't think More would necessarily have needed access to TR to have had
> the idea that Elizabeth had been accused of witchcraft, because according
> to TR it was "the common opinion and the public voice" that she and her
> mother had used witchcraft to entrap the king. And, although witchcraft was
> getting to be a more fashionable concern by the early 1500s, that alone may
> not be the explanation for More's Tower scene. What the Tudor machine
> does, between the suppression of TR and the emergence of the Tudor
> histories c. 1510 onwards (it seems to me), is to recast in a less
> threatening form elements of Richard's claim that evidently wouldn't go
> away. Lady Lucy is substituted for Eleanor Butler. The accusation of
> witchcraft brought against Elizabeth Woodville that June shifts from the
> genuine one relating to her marriage to EIV (which would have annulled it)
> to a fictitious and clearly unbelievable charge with no wider consequences,
> ie her withering of
> Richard's already withered arm. (Yes, okay, it wasn't withered, he just
> had thin arms, but that in itself is testimony to how the facts had
> mutated.)
>
> In a way it's surprising that, given that Warwick had first linked the
> royal marriage to witchcraft as far back as 1469, there weren't more
> rumours linking the Queen with the black arts. But there aren't, none that
> have come down to us, at any rate. Perhaps Elizabeth's studiously pious
> patronage of religious institutions and the cult of the Guardian Angel
> prevented that. One single dramatic, and devastating act, carried out many
> years before under her mother's influence.
>
> It's a contrast to the case of Eleanor Cobham, who was simultaneously
> accused of witchcraft in order to entrap Duke Humphrey into marriage, and
> of more recent witchcraft in order to hasten Henry VI's death. The former
> accusation was tried by a church court, which annulled the marriage, and
> the second by a secular court with the consequences that we all know.
> Anyway, on that basis you might have expected Richard to accuse the queen
> of using sorcery against him in 1483, but if he did there's no record of it
> (More doesn't count, in my view).
>
> Anyway, that's my current opinion based on what I can recall of the
> sources. It would be a good subject for discussion, though.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Part of the grieving cycle is anger--and this sometimes means anger at the deceased. Certainly Richard might have experienced anger, however unconscious it may have been, at Edward for dying when he did and leaving Richard to clean up the dynastic mess he'd made.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> No problem. I think the key to understanding everything is to really dig into the mindset, culture and rules of the day. Titulus Regius shouldn't be read as a random tantrum against Edward IV. It was an extremely carefully crafted and targeted document addressing all the legal impediments, known and suspected, to Edward V's title to the throne, and was drafted for submission to Richard rather than by Richard. Edward IV's reputation was, if you like, collateral damage, but there was no personal attack against him, no name calling or censure of Edward personally. Rather, it is claimed that he made this dreadful marriage whilst under the influence of witchcraft. The Woodville marriage is also blamed for the oppressive rule of Edward's later years. Thus, the logic is, his half-Woodville, Woodville-raised son would be a disaster for the realm - and, as the marriage was invalid anyway they don't have to accept him. The finger is very much pointed at Elizabeth and her family rather than Edward IV. In fact, it's typical of the way people in pre-democratic societies voiced their criticisms of a regime - always blame the King's evil ministers, never the King himself!
> Yes, it was an extreme document, but this was an extreme crisis. Titulus Regius not only sets out Richard's title to the throne, it also lets him know the sort of changes people are hoping to see under his rule.
> Yet we do need to be up front and accept that Richard assented to the enactment of the whole document, just as it stands. He could have insisted on some passages being scrubbed, but he didn't. I think that in the summer of 1483, with the kingdom in crisis and his own life on the line, years of anger against Edward's selfish and often brutal decisions may have burst to the surface. Grief is an odd thing, particularly in the first months once the initial shock has passed. It's not all genteel sadness - strong feelings can surface as the brain drags up and works through all that shared past, less like memory and more like intense reliving. Edward had died before his time, and thanks to a decision he had taken five years previously, under Woodville influence as Richard and others believed, this was now his last surviving brother gone.
> If you read TR as a condemnation of the Woodvilles for leading Edward down this path, then it's absolutely like Richard. There are other documents from his reign angrily blaming Dorset for the corruption of his lifestyle that led to his premature death, and of the Woodvilles for the deaths of Clarence and the Earl of Desmond.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie,
> >  
> > I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating by email; if we were all sitting round a table we could say 'I didn't mean that, I meant this' and we'd all say 'Oh yes'. I do know Michael Jones's Bosworth, I love it on Cis. I also agree about Richard's disillusionment with Edward which probably started during the French campaign and as you say couldn't have been helped by his failure to help Margaret and the execution of George. I just find it hard that he would issue such a public scathing attack, it's not like him. So did someone persuade him to do it?
> >  
> > I honestly don't have any grand theories about anything, including 'the Church' but it is interesting to investigate the differing interests of key players. The higher clergy, as I think we all agree, were in the main bright men but I doubt they all got on, just as the nobility didn't always agree to put it mildly. We know Beckynton and Kempe didn't get on for example and there could well have been tension between those who got there by wealth and influence and those who got there by talent (but we don't know). So a Church plot could be somewhat difficult to engineer. Look at all those who fell out under H8.
> >  
> > It's easy to conjure conspiracy theories because we are so lacking in information. As I said when I joined this forum my guess is that fate more than conspiracy led to the events of 1483-85; I doubt MI5 could have engineered all those events. But I also doubt we'll ever stop theorising (and it is for fun until we decide we're PG). 
> >  
> > Now what about the Hastings/Dorset quarrel that went on for another hundred years?  :)  See what I mean? With sincere goodwill. H. 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 20:13
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Doug,
> > >  
> > > No I don't mind and I don't think we're a million miles apart, particularly about the abilities of the some of the upper clerics (we know this from their Oxbridge record). See my 'correspondence' with Weds about this. it was that, just occasionally, in conversations on here it comes across a bit as though they were good, holy, innocent old men
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> > I know I said I'd gone, but I must clarify. I have not got this impression from anyone else's posts and have certainly never expressed that view myself. I don't know that any writer ever has (bar perhaps the Catholic Encyclopaedia), and it has always been recognised that Stillington was venal.
> > Marie
> >
> > when in fact they probably had the sharpest minds in the kingdom
> >
> > That's a point that I and others have already made. I do agree with Doug that you may have misunderstood what others have written on occasions and so are - unintentionally I am sure - setting up straw men.
> > Marie
> >
> > and were not without personal ambition.
> > > I agree with what you say about the political aspects of the Lancastrian kings and Lollardy and I wonder if this is the reason that several religious men or religious houses continued to support and fund HT from 1461 onwards?
> > > I don't think Richard looked to the Church to put him on the throne, but it might have suited them to agree to do so?
> > > I still find it hard to accept that Richard would write so scathingly about a brother he loved and had loyally supported.
> >
> > If the cap fits.... I don't know if you've read Mike Jones Bosworth 1485, but I think there is a lot to be said for his view that Richard stopped admiring Edward early in 1477 when he refused to help their sister protect Burgundy, and her own dower lands, against Louis for fear of losing the French pension and marriage. Clarence's death put the last nail in the coffin. But for both these things he blamed the Woodvilles most of all - Edward had been led astray. But Jones believed Richard could only make sense of this behaviour by doming to believe the tales that Edward was not York's son. Who knows, there is a hint of it in Titulus Regius but he certainly did not denounce his mother as a whore.
> > I agree with Doug that Church politics did not exist in the form you put forward - ie all bishops sharing a common view about who would burn more Lollards. Edward IV actually had gone all religiously conservative in his 30s, and John Goos was burned in London in the 1470s; Edward also included lollardies in many commissions of oyer and terminer for his second reign, but so far as I can see none of the commissions dealt with any cases, though, so it can't have been a popular move. As Archbishop of Canterbury Morton presided over a fresh persecution of lollards, including the burning of an 80-year-old woman in London.
> > But I don't think there was a co-ordinated political policy in the English church, and the Bishop of St Davids was certainly a great enthusiastfor Richard.
> > There is far greater evidence of church (ie Morton + Vatican) involvement in English politics vis a vis supporting the Tudor takeover, and that had most to do with Innocent VIII's burning enthusiasm for a crusade to drive back the Turks - Morton went to the Vatican, as I'm sure you know, after he had fled England and he seems to have convinced Innocent that Henry Tudor would definitely sign up for said crusade. It took several years for the scales to fall from the Pope's eyes.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "nanyeha" <nanyeha@...> wrote:
>
> Part of the grieving cycle is anger--and this sometimes means anger at the deceased. Certainly Richard might have experienced anger, however unconscious it may have been, at Edward for dying when he did and leaving Richard to clean up the dynastic mess he'd made.



Marie:
I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little narcissist?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "nanyeha" <nanyeha@> wrote:
> >
> > Part of the grieving cycle is anger--and this sometimes means anger at the deceased. Certainly Richard might have experienced anger, however unconscious it may have been, at Edward for dying when he did and leaving Richard to clean up the dynastic mess he'd made.
>
>
>
> Marie:
> I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little narcissist?
>


I keep looking at the "Three Signatures" document that Claire uploaded back in March -- the one with EV's, Richard's and Buckingham's signatures on it, and it's obvious that Richard is in charge, and not just in the sense that he was named Protector by his late brother the king.

The young EV's signature is shaky and stiff -- as one might expect of a teenaged, half-trained, perhaps not temperamentally ready or suited crown prince who was forced into kingship a good decade before anyone thought it would happen; he no doubt was still grieving his father and wondering what would happen next. He's trying really hard -- the stiffness of his signature shows that -- but he's not quite up to the task, and is only now discovering how much he doesn't know.

But his signature is a model of firmness and clarity compared to Buckingham's signature and motto. Was the man drunk when he wrote this? Or crazy? Or both? Ever see pictures of Hitler's signature towards the end -- the deterioration that matched Hitler's own? I thought of that when I saw Buckingham's sprawling, incoherent scrawl. No wonder Morton would later play him like a harp.

In between those two, we have the hand and motto of Richard Gloucestre.

Firm, neat, in control despite everything, because his late brother the king needed and needs him so yet. He can't indulge in the luxury of falling apart -- he has a young king to shepherd and the Wydevilles to beat back, and Buckingham to try and sober up, or at least prop up. He is a man both comfortable with, experienced with, and expert at wielding a pen as well as running a sizable portion of England. A man with a high opinion of himself, but one that was eminently justified.

Or so my amateur and biased graphology would have me believe. ;-p


Tamara

It is interesting to compare this fragment of young Edward with the writing of Edward VI of a similar age less than a century later. Does this in fact mean that Edward (V) had been poorly trained, or that Edward VI was incredibly cleverer? We know that the three Tudor children were clever, of course, but I would have thought that in things like handwriting skills there would not have been that much difference between the teaching given to either Edwards, given the prominence of their position? So was he not very bright, or before someone says it, not very well? 


________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 2:20
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 



--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "nanyeha" <nanyeha@> wrote:
> >
> > Part of the grieving cycle is anger--and this sometimes means anger at the deceased. Certainly Richard might have experienced anger, however unconscious it may have been, at Edward for dying when he did and leaving Richard to clean up the dynastic mess he'd made.
>
>
>
> Marie:
> I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little narcissist?
>

I keep looking at the "Three Signatures" document that Claire uploaded back in March -- the one with EV's, Richard's and Buckingham's signatures on it, and it's obvious that Richard is in charge, and not just in the sense that he was named Protector by his late brother the king.

The young EV's signature is shaky and stiff -- as one might expect of a teenaged, half-trained, perhaps not temperamentally ready or suited crown prince who was forced into kingship a good decade before anyone thought it would happen; he no doubt was still grieving his father and wondering what would happen next. He's trying really hard -- the stiffness of his signature shows that -- but he's not quite up to the task, and is only now discovering how much he doesn't know.

But his signature is a model of firmness and clarity compared to Buckingham's signature and motto. Was the man drunk when he wrote this? Or crazy? Or both? Ever see pictures of Hitler's signature towards the end -- the deterioration that matched Hitler's own? I thought of that when I saw Buckingham's sprawling, incoherent scrawl. No wonder Morton would later play him like a harp.

In between those two, we have the hand and motto of Richard Gloucestre.

Firm, neat, in control despite everything, because his late brother the king needed and needs him so yet. He can't indulge in the luxury of falling apart -- he has a young king to shepherd and the Wydevilles to beat back, and Buckingham to try and sober up, or at least prop up. He is a man both comfortable with, experienced with, and expert at wielding a pen as well as running a sizable portion of England. A man with a high opinion of himself, but one that was eminently justified.

Or so my amateur and biased graphology would have me believe. ;-p

Tamara

Marie wrote:

"I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
narcissist?"

Doug here:
Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
for carrying out.
Doug
(who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")

Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.

People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  

(My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 

Marie wrote:

"I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
narcissist?"

Doug here:
Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
for carrying out.
Doug
(who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")

I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.

Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
Marie



--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
>
> People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  
>
> (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> narcissist?"
>
> Doug here:
> Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> for carrying out.
> Doug
> (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry. Went back to the doc. He says it's a very primeval feeling - we seem wired that way. The thing is, it's not necessarily obvious from the outside. In some cultures, the "bereaved" go out and slaughter some beast. Or they sacrifice something. In certain ancient societies, they killed other people. They would justify this (the dead person needs companions in the afterlife), but it was based upon a very basic urge. 

We nowadays tend to internalize and redirect (i.e., displacement) our negative feelings. It's not personal, and even when a very old person dies in his bed, we experience this. It may be fleeting, of course, or prolonged - in that sense bereavements do differ widely. But anyone who grieves goes through a sequence of feelings. Anger is just one of these, as is denial. And anger isn't the same as "guilt," which is not automatic. Guilt requires a feeling of responsibility, even if this feeling is baseless. But people sometimes confuse these, since guilt can generate anger.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 
I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.

Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
Marie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
>
> People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  
>
> (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> narcissist?"
>
> Doug here:
> Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> for carrying out.
> Doug
> (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Judy,
I still think we're at cross purposes. As I understood your original email, you were arguing that grief involves not just anger (which I am not disputing) but specifically anger at the deceased for having died; if this is what psychiatrists believe is going on in all cases, and that all anger expressed by bereaved people towards the living is rechannelled anger against the deceased for popping off, then then I would dispute it (I am not a psychiatrist, but do have some experience of bereavement of different kinds, and have watched it play out with others). I think your doc is probably closer to what is going on when talking simply about "negative feelings": when someone dies there are all sorts of genuine reasons for negative feelings which may have nothing to do with anger at the deceased *for dying*. For instance, I would take some persuading that, when my friend, after losing her two-year-old son, went through a lot of anger against the doctor who had told her "there is nothing wrong with that child", and delayed diagnosis, this was redirected anger against the dead child, I really would.

There are many many real causes for anger after someone has died. Grievances against the deceased that cannot now ever be resolved and stand in the way of "moving on"; lack of sensitivity from some of those with whom you have to deal; missed opportunities by doctors; affairs to be sorted (one family member may shoulder an unfair share of the burden and feel used); resentment against other people with seemingly charmed lives. And over and above all that there is simple undirected anger at the fact that life sucks and that something precious has been lost that can never, ever be regained. Anger is, on one level, simply a release of stress, and is certainly a normal part of the grieving process, but to psychoanalyse it as anger against the deceased for dying is unconvincing to me. If this is a primeval response, then we may well have brought it with us from evolutionary states in which clever things like apportioning of blame, even subconsciously, were probably way beyond our tiny brains. Our real feelings towards the deceased surely surface in our dreams, if we are the dreaming sort, and on no occasion have my dreams about the deceased involved any feelings of anger towards them at all - mainly a deep raw pity, in fact - and I'm not saying that just to look PC.
And I'm not convinced that sacrifice of a person's servants to look after them beyond the grave can be simply explained as redirected anger against the deceased.
I'm afraid to admit that I have had the scales pulled from my eyes over the past years about psychology/ psychiatry, having contracted ME: not real science, and all to willing to claim it has proved things for which there is no proof. It's best when simply describing what happens, and worst when trying to attribute deep and unprovable motives, which tend to be off target and, to the extent that they grossly over simplify, merely trite.
Sorry about this, but I do feel quite strongly about it.
Marie


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry. Went back to the doc. He says it's a very primeval feeling - we seem wired that way. The thing is, it's not necessarily obvious from the outside. In some cultures, the "bereaved" go out and slaughter some beast. Or they sacrifice something. In certain ancient societies, they killed other people. They would justify this (the dead person needs companions in the afterlife), but it was based upon a very basic urge. 
>
> We nowadays tend to internalize and redirect (i.e., displacement) our negative feelings. It's not personal, and even when a very old person dies in his bed, we experience this. It may be fleeting, of course, or prolonged - in that sense bereavements do differ widely. But anyone who grieves goes through a sequence of feelings. Anger is just one of these, as is denial. And anger isn't the same as "guilt," which is not automatic. Guilt requires a feeling of responsibility, even if this feeling is baseless. But people sometimes confuse these, since guilt can generate anger.
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
> I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
>
> Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> >
> > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  
> >
> > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> >
> > Judy
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > narcissist?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > for carrying out.
> > Doug
> > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.

Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
>
> People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  
>
> (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> narcissist?"
>
> Doug here:
> Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> for carrying out.
> Doug
> (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Hilary,

I dunno. I'm not that happy with the idea of "The Church" as a single political entity in England at this time. Since there had been no convocation, and only a very few bishops were in the capital, there could have been no possibility of a vote. So it only begs the question, what do you mean in this instance by the Church? Bishop Morton and Archbishop Rotherham, two of the most senior clerics in London at the time, clearly weren't voting for Richard on any basis. So are you thinking of Archbishop Bourchier taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Church? I just don't think the English church operated as a political force, I'm afraid, although individual churchmen clearly did.
This is just an opinion, but this is how I see it: I really think the condemnation of Dorset's sexual predations and the malign influence of himself and others on Edward IV was coming straight from Richard and says more about his own grieving processes than it does about any considered policy(in fact, Richard wrote a letter to the clergy a bit later, didn't he, telling them off for their own lax lifestyles). The Dorset, etc, had seduced Edward into the over-indulgent lifestyle that (so Richard believed) had shortened his life. Richard must also have recognised on some level that Edward had been a grown man and could not wholly be absolved of blame for his own actions, but he may not have been able to face that fully at this early stage.

To Carol:
I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. He would probably have felt just the normal anger at fate and the human condition (as Simone de Beauvoir observed, death always comes as an outrage no matter how old the person is).
I wonder how much of the madness of the months immediately after Edward IV's death can be explained by the fact that you had a sudden constitutional crisis in which all the main people involved were temporarily screwed up by grief?
Also, having left behind in my early teens the idea of a personal God who decides our fates, I can no longer quite grasp the difference that belief in such a deity would make to the grief process. To a medieval person, when someone died it was because God had taken them; but you must submit to the will of God, which was all for the best. It was quite unacceptable to be angry with God. But how does that really work? Okay, Edward's abuse of his body may have left God with no option other than an actual miracle, but how would Richard and Anne have made sense of the death - apparently sudden - of their only child? On the other hand, they would have had absolute faith that the souls of the departed lived for ever, and could be helped through their trials in the Next World by the prayers of the living. That helps (although the belief in Purgatory itself obviously doesn't). I still find masses for the souls of deceased family member are a really healing thing.

Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
>
> Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> >
> > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  
> >
> > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> >
> > Judy
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > narcissist?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > for carrying out.
> > Doug
> > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, I wasn't really talking about the Church as a body politic, just that it might have been an opportunity for some (and of course it could have been those other than churchmen as well) to re-inforce the need for higher morality on the part of the monarch - and of course in doing that to have a go at the Woodvilles too. I suppose I'm trying to make excuses for Richard :) BTW as you know, Archbishops of Canterbury have not been unknown to 'speak for all', particularly if they have their eye on a Cardinal's hat. 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 12:13
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

Hi Hilary,

I dunno. I'm not that happy with the idea of "The Church" as a single political entity in England at this time. Since there had been no convocation, and only a very few bishops were in the capital, there could have been no possibility of a vote. So it only begs the question, what do you mean in this instance by the Church? Bishop Morton and Archbishop Rotherham, two of the most senior clerics in London at the time, clearly weren't voting for Richard on any basis. So are you thinking of Archbishop Bourchier taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Church? I just don't think the English church operated as a political force, I'm afraid, although individual churchmen clearly did.
This is just an opinion, but this is how I see it: I really think the condemnation of Dorset's sexual predations and the malign influence of himself and others on Edward IV was coming straight from Richard and says more about his own grieving processes than it does about any considered policy(in fact, Richard wrote a letter to the clergy a bit later, didn't he, telling them off for their own lax lifestyles). The Dorset, etc, had seduced Edward into the over-indulgent lifestyle that (so Richard believed) had shortened his life. Richard must also have recognised on some level that Edward had been a grown man and could not wholly be absolved of blame for his own actions, but he may not have been able to face that fully at this early stage.

To Carol:
I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. He would probably have felt just the normal anger at fate and the human condition (as Simone de Beauvoir observed, death always comes as an outrage no matter how old the person is).
I wonder how much of the madness of the months immediately after Edward IV's death can be explained by the fact that you had a sudden constitutional crisis in which all the main people involved were temporarily screwed up by grief?
Also, having left behind in my early teens the idea of a personal God who decides our fates, I can no longer quite grasp the difference that belief in such a deity would make to the grief process. To a medieval person, when someone died it was because God had taken them; but you must submit to the will of God, which was all for the best. It was quite unacceptable to be angry with God. But how does that really work? Okay, Edward's abuse of his body may have left God with no option other than an actual miracle, but how would Richard and Anne have made sense of the death - apparently sudden - of their only child? On the other hand, they would have had absolute faith that the souls of the departed lived for ever, and could be helped through their trials in the Next World by the prayers of the living. That helps (although the belief in Purgatory itself obviously doesn't). I still find masses for the souls of deceased family member are a really healing thing.

Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
>
> Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person. àChildren, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> >
> > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it... à
> >
> > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> >
> > Judy
> > à
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > narcissist?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > for carrying out.
> > Doug
> > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry he was already a Cardinal; but did he have a direct line to the Pope? Indeed do we know what the Pope thought of Edward? H.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 12:13
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

Hi Hilary,

I dunno. I'm not that happy with the idea of "The Church" as a single political entity in England at this time. Since there had been no convocation, and only a very few bishops were in the capital, there could have been no possibility of a vote. So it only begs the question, what do you mean in this instance by the Church? Bishop Morton and Archbishop Rotherham, two of the most senior clerics in London at the time, clearly weren't voting for Richard on any basis. So are you thinking of Archbishop Bourchier taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Church? I just don't think the English church operated as a political force, I'm afraid, although individual churchmen clearly did.
This is just an opinion, but this is how I see it: I really think the condemnation of Dorset's sexual predations and the malign influence of himself and others on Edward IV was coming straight from Richard and says more about his own grieving processes than it does about any considered policy(in fact, Richard wrote a letter to the clergy a bit later, didn't he, telling them off for their own lax lifestyles). The Dorset, etc, had seduced Edward into the over-indulgent lifestyle that (so Richard believed) had shortened his life. Richard must also have recognised on some level that Edward had been a grown man and could not wholly be absolved of blame for his own actions, but he may not have been able to face that fully at this early stage.

To Carol:
I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. He would probably have felt just the normal anger at fate and the human condition (as Simone de Beauvoir observed, death always comes as an outrage no matter how old the person is).
I wonder how much of the madness of the months immediately after Edward IV's death can be explained by the fact that you had a sudden constitutional crisis in which all the main people involved were temporarily screwed up by grief?
Also, having left behind in my early teens the idea of a personal God who decides our fates, I can no longer quite grasp the difference that belief in such a deity would make to the grief process. To a medieval person, when someone died it was because God had taken them; but you must submit to the will of God, which was all for the best. It was quite unacceptable to be angry with God. But how does that really work? Okay, Edward's abuse of his body may have left God with no option other than an actual miracle, but how would Richard and Anne have made sense of the death - apparently sudden - of their only child? On the other hand, they would have had absolute faith that the souls of the departed lived for ever, and could be helped through their trials in the Next World by the prayers of the living. That helps (although the belief in Purgatory itself obviously doesn't). I still find masses for the souls of deceased family member are a really healing thing.

Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
>
> Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person. àChildren, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> >
> > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it... à
> >
> > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> >
> > Judy
> > à
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > narcissist?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > for carrying out.
> > Doug
> > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know Archbishop Bourchier was a cardinal, but I was thinking of him in his role as Archbishop of Canterbury, ie primate of England. A direct line to the Pope would still only be a messenger who would take weeks to travel to Rome and back. To be honest, a lot of the clergy at all levels lived in glass houses and couldn't afford to throw moral stones in any direction. Did Richard actually make pronouncements against Dorset's morality as early as this, anyway?

I'm not sure how interpreting Richard's denouncement of Dorset's morality as a deal done with churchmen in order to get their backing for his claim would tend to exonerate Richard from blame, unless that is you are talking about blame for something other than his proclamations against Dorset et al. We shift from him having a go at Dorset for seducing respectable wives and maidens to having him basically offering "the Church" a bribe to help him on to the throne? But I've got a feeling maybe I've not understood what you're getting at.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry he was already a Cardinal; but did he have a direct line to the Pope? Indeed do we know what the Pope thought of Edward? H.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 12:13
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> I dunno. I'm not that happy with the idea of "The Church" as a single political entity in England at this time. Since there had been no convocation, and only a very few bishops were in the capital, there could have been no possibility of a vote. So it only begs the question, what do you mean in this instance by the Church? Bishop Morton and Archbishop Rotherham, two of the most senior clerics in London at the time, clearly weren't voting for Richard on any basis. So are you thinking of Archbishop Bourchier taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Church? I just don't think the English church operated as a political force, I'm afraid, although individual churchmen clearly did.
> This is just an opinion, but this is how I see it: I really think the condemnation of Dorset's sexual predations and the malign influence of himself and others on Edward IV was coming straight from Richard and says more about his own grieving processes than it does about any considered policy(in fact, Richard wrote a letter to the clergy a bit later, didn't he, telling them off for their own lax lifestyles). The Dorset, etc, had seduced Edward into the over-indulgent lifestyle that (so Richard believed) had shortened his life. Richard must also have recognised on some level that Edward had been a grown man and could not wholly be absolved of blame for his own actions, but he may not have been able to face that fully at this early stage.
>
> To Carol:
> I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. He would probably have felt just the normal anger at fate and the human condition (as Simone de Beauvoir observed, death always comes as an outrage no matter how old the person is).
> I wonder how much of the madness of the months immediately after Edward IV's death can be explained by the fact that you had a sudden constitutional crisis in which all the main people involved were temporarily screwed up by grief?
> Also, having left behind in my early teens the idea of a personal God who decides our fates, I can no longer quite grasp the difference that belief in such a deity would make to the grief process. To a medieval person, when someone died it was because God had taken them; but you must submit to the will of God, which was all for the best. It was quite unacceptable to be angry with God. But how does that really work? Okay, Edward's abuse of his body may have left God with no option other than an actual miracle, but how would Richard and Anne have made sense of the death - apparently sudden - of their only child? On the other hand, they would have had absolute faith that the souls of the departed lived for ever, and could be helped through their trials in the Next World by the prayers of the living. That helps (although the belief in Purgatory itself obviously doesn't). I still find masses for the souls of deceased family member are a really healing thing.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> > As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
> >
> > Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person.  Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> > >
> > > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it...  
> > >
> > > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >  
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > > narcissist?"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > > for carrying out.
> > > Doug
> > > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was apologising for my former email. I think you read this first.
 
I think you may have translated my view as more sophisticated than it was. What I'm saying is
 
1. someone (could be Stillington) came out with the Pre-contract story (true or not - I think true for what it's worth)
2. that would provide the chance to rightfully have an adult (Richard) rather than a child on the throne
3. as part of Parliament's declaration of support for Richard they would seize the chance to denounce the lack of morality of Edward IV/Woodvilles and if Richard wanted/believed he should be king he would sign up to that. Otherwise they could withdraw their  support. That's why he allowed it; believing that he could do a better job than his brother.
In other words, the douncement was their words, not his, and a small price to pay for putting England on the right path again.
 
Unless it's like this, I continue to have a problem with Richard condoning the denouncement of the morality of his brother. He himself had at least two bastard children whom he publicly acknowledged. His associations could have gone on after his dynastic marriage and there is at least one rumour of his having had a lover whilst on the Scottish campaign. So why take the high moral ground?
I know some may find this unpleasant to countenance but it doesn't dimish him in my view. What doesn't ring true, grief or not, is the denoucement of a brother he'd supported all his life and the betrayal of a motto he'd adopted. H.
 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

I know Archbishop Bourchier was a cardinal, but I was thinking of him in his role as Archbishop of Canterbury, ie primate of England. A direct line to the Pope would still only be a messenger who would take weeks to travel to Rome and back. To be honest, a lot of the clergy at all levels lived in glass houses and couldn't afford to throw moral stones in any direction. Did Richard actually make pronouncements against Dorset's morality as early as this, anyway?

I'm not sure how interpreting Richard's denouncement of Dorset's morality as a deal done with churchmen in order to get their backing for his claim would tend to exonerate Richard from blame, unless that is you are talking about blame for something other than his proclamations against Dorset et al. We shift from him having a go at Dorset for seducing respectable wives and maidens to having him basically offering "the Church" a bribe to help him on to the throne? But I've got a feeling maybe I've not understood what you're getting at.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry he was already a Cardinal; but did he have a direct line to the Pope? Indeed do we know what the Pope thought of Edward? H.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 12:13
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> I dunno. I'm not that happy with the idea of "The Church" as a single political entity in England at this time. Since there had been no convocation, and only a very few bishops were in the capital, there could have been no possibility of a vote. So it only begs the question, what do you mean in this instance by the Church? Bishop Morton and Archbishop Rotherham, two of the most senior clerics in London at the time, clearly weren't voting for Richard on any basis. So are you thinking of Archbishop Bourchier taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Church? I just don't think the English church operated as a political force, I'm afraid, although individual churchmen clearly did.
> This is just an opinion, but this is how I see it: I really think the condemnation of Dorset's sexual predations and the malign influence of himself and others on Edward IV was coming straight from Richard and says more about his own grieving processes than it does about any considered policy(in fact, Richard wrote a letter to the clergy a bit later, didn't he, telling them off for their own lax lifestyles). The Dorset, etc, had seduced Edward into the over-indulgent lifestyle that (so Richard believed) had shortened his life. Richard must also have recognised on some level that Edward had been a grown man and could not wholly be absolved of blame for his own actions, but he may not have been able to face that fully at this early stage.
>
> To Carol:
> I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. He would probably have felt just the normal anger at fate and the human condition (as Simone de Beauvoir observed, death always comes as an outrage no matter how old the person is).
> I wonder how much of the madness of the months immediately after Edward IV's death can be explained by the fact that you had a sudden constitutional crisis in which all the main people involved were temporarily screwed up by grief?
> Also, having left behind in my early teens the idea of a personal God who decides our fates, I can no longer quite grasp the difference that belief in such a deity would make to the grief process. To a medieval person, when someone died it was because God had taken them; but you must submit to the will of God, which was all for the best. It was quite unacceptable to be angry with God. But how does that really work? Okay, Edward's abuse of his body may have left God with no option other than an actual miracle, but how would Richard and Anne have made sense of the death - apparently sudden - of their only child? On the other hand, they would have had absolute faith that the souls of the departed lived for ever, and could be helped through their trials in the Next World by the prayers of the living. That helps (although the belief in Purgatory itself obviously doesn't). I still find masses for the souls of deceased family member are a really healing
thing.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> > As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyleàwas included?à It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen)àsaid it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H.à
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
> >
> > Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person. Ã’â¬aàChildren, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> > >
> > > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it... Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > > narcissist?"
> > >
> > > Doug here:
> > > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > > for carrying out.
> > > Doug
> > > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I was apologising for my former email. I think you read this first.
>  
> I think you may have translated my view as more sophisticated than it was. What I'm saying is
>  
> 1. someone (could be Stillington) came out with the Pre-contract story (true or not - I think true for what it's worth)
> 2. that would provide the chance to rightfully have an adult (Richard) rather than a child on the throne
> 3. as part of Parliament's declaration of support for Richard they would seize the chance to denounce the lack of morality of Edward IV/Woodvilles and if Richard wanted/believed he should be king he would sign up to that. Otherwise they could withdraw their  support. That's why he allowed it; believing that he could do a better job than his brother.
> In other words, the douncement was their words, not his, and a small price to pay for putting England on the right path again.
>  
> Unless it's like this, I continue to have a problem with Richard condoning the denouncement of the morality of his brother. He himself had at least two bastard children whom he publicly acknowledged. His associations could have gone on after his dynastic marriage and there is at least one rumour of his having had a lover whilst on the Scottish campaign. So why take the high moral ground?
> I know some may find this unpleasant to countenance but it doesn't dimish him in my view. What doesn't ring true, grief or not, is the denoucement of a brother he'd supported all his life and the betrayal of a motto he'd adopted. H.
>  
>

So we're talking specifically about Titulus Regius, and not Richard's later proclamations against Dorset, etc? I've just had a skim through, and it seems to me to stop a little short of blaming Edward personally for the bad rule and the renewed outbreak of the wars in 1470-71, linking it instead with the Woodville marriage:-
"such as had the rule and governaunce of this land [Edward? but not named], deliting in adulation and flattery and lede by sensuality and concupiscence, followed the counsaill of persons insolent, vicious, and of inordinate avarice..."
"..the ordre of all politeque rule was perverted, the laws of God and of Gode's church, and also the lawes of nature, and of England, and also the laudable customes and liberties of the same, wherein every Englishman is inheritor, broken, subverted, and contempned, against all reason and justice, so that this land was ruled by self-will and pleasure, feare and drede, all manner of equite and lawes layd apart and despised, whereof ensued many inconvenients and mischiefs, as murdres, estortions, and oppressions, namely of pooe and impotent people, so that no man was sure of his lif, land, ne lyuvelode, ne of his wif, doughter, no servannt, every good maiden and woman standing in drede to be ravished and defouled. And besides this, what discords, inward battailes, effusion of Christian men's blode, and namely, by the destruction of the noble blode of this lond, was had and comitted within the same, it is evident and notarie through all this reaume unto the grete sorrowe and heavynesse of all true Englishmen."
I've cut and pasted from the Foundation website. The gist is clear. It's a damning indictment of Edward's rule but one that fails to name Edward outright as the culprit, instead suggesting that it only happened because the witchcraft that had caused him to marry Elizabeth Woodville had placed falsehood and corruption at the heart of his kingship; this evil shadow would of course extend to the children of that pretensed marriage, particularly with Edward V having been raised by the Woodvilles at Ludlow, cut off from other influences.
Yes, I agree that Richard almost certainly didn't write it, at least not the version presented to him in June 1483. You wouldn't write a petition to yourself, would you? not unless you were desperate. I think some of Richard's top supporters, such as Buckingham and Catesby, would have been helping to steer things in the right direction, but I tend to agree that what we have in TR is an outpouring of frustrations shared by the parliamentary reps. But Richard assented to it, and I don't think the MPs are likely to have said: "It's this wording or nothing." Personally I think Richard was as frustrated as any, and TR surely echoes his own anger and griefs. The sorrow caused by the civil war, with the loss of Warwick and others at Barnet and Tewkesbury, and the losses of many northern families as a result of Edward's great victory at Towton, had touched him deeply as we know by the prayers he endowed for his servants killed at Barnet and Tewkesbury and by his foundation of a chapel for the dead of Towton. And, of course, Clarence's execution loomed very very large. Some of the other accusations are uncannily echoed in his later proclamations against Dorset.
Edward had also raised a lot of taxes on the pretext of wars he never fought, and spent the money on lavish royal building projects and his private art collection. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was not a single piece of reforming legislation in the entire 20 years of Edward' reign.
Unlike you, I don't feel that squeamish about TR's indictment of Edward's rule. I don't see Richard's association with it as cynical but rather as the breaking of a huge dam.
So I think we're really agreed. A third party drafted TR. Richard accepted it at least in part because he really did feel strongly about putting right the wrongs set out in the petition.
Marie


> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 14:27
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>  
>
> I know Archbishop Bourchier was a cardinal, but I was thinking of him in his role as Archbishop of Canterbury, ie primate of England. A direct line to the Pope would still only be a messenger who would take weeks to travel to Rome and back. To be honest, a lot of the clergy at all levels lived in glass houses and couldn't afford to throw moral stones in any direction. Did Richard actually make pronouncements against Dorset's morality as early as this, anyway?
>
> I'm not sure how interpreting Richard's denouncement of Dorset's morality as a deal done with churchmen in order to get their backing for his claim would tend to exonerate Richard from blame, unless that is you are talking about blame for something other than his proclamations against Dorset et al. We shift from him having a go at Dorset for seducing respectable wives and maidens to having him basically offering "the Church" a bribe to help him on to the throne? But I've got a feeling maybe I've not understood what you're getting at.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry he was already a Cardinal; but did he have a direct line to the Pope? Indeed do we know what the Pope thought of Edward? H.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 12:13
> > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> >
> > I dunno. I'm not that happy with the idea of "The Church" as a single political entity in England at this time. Since there had been no convocation, and only a very few bishops were in the capital, there could have been no possibility of a vote. So it only begs the question, what do you mean in this instance by the Church? Bishop Morton and Archbishop Rotherham, two of the most senior clerics in London at the time, clearly weren't voting for Richard on any basis. So are you thinking of Archbishop Bourchier taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Church? I just don't think the English church operated as a political force, I'm afraid, although individual churchmen clearly did.
> > This is just an opinion, but this is how I see it: I really think the condemnation of Dorset's sexual predations and the malign influence of himself and others on Edward IV was coming straight from Richard and says more about his own grieving processes than it does about any considered policy(in fact, Richard wrote a letter to the clergy a bit later, didn't he, telling them off for their own lax lifestyles). The Dorset, etc, had seduced Edward into the over-indulgent lifestyle that (so Richard believed) had shortened his life. Richard must also have recognised on some level that Edward had been a grown man and could not wholly be absolved of blame for his own actions, but he may not have been able to face that fully at this early stage.
> >
> > To Carol:
> > I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. He would probably have felt just the normal anger at fate and the human condition (as Simone de Beauvoir observed, death always comes as an outrage no matter how old the person is).
> > I wonder how much of the madness of the months immediately after Edward IV's death can be explained by the fact that you had a sudden constitutional crisis in which all the main people involved were temporarily screwed up by grief?
> > Also, having left behind in my early teens the idea of a personal God who decides our fates, I can no longer quite grasp the difference that belief in such a deity would make to the grief process. To a medieval person, when someone died it was because God had taken them; but you must submit to the will of God, which was all for the best. It was quite unacceptable to be angry with God. But how does that really work? Okay, Edward's abuse of his body may have left God with no option other than an actual miracle, but how would Richard and Anne have made sense of the death - apparently sudden - of their only child? On the other hand, they would have had absolute faith that the souls of the departed lived for ever, and could be helped through their trials in the Next World by the prayers of the living. That helps (although the belief in Purgatory itself obviously doesn't). I still find masses for the souls of deceased family member are a really healing
> thing.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> > > As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 22:10
> > > Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
> > >
> > > Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person. ÃÆ'‚ Children, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> > > >
> > > > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it... ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > > > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > > > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > > > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > > > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > > > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > > > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > > > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > > > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > > > narcissist?"
> > > >
> > > > Doug here:
> > > > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > > > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > > > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > > > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > > > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > > > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > > > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > > > for carrying out.
> > > > Doug
> > > > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > > > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > > > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > > > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 

Carol responds:

Forgive me for interjecting a comment here. Hastings was executed on June 13 (or June 20 if you accept Hanham's arguments). The Three Estates presented their petition to Richard on June 25. Whatever Hastings's motives for conspiracy against Richard (and I firmly believe that the conspiracy is real), it can't have been prompted by the wording of the petition.

Regarding Richard's disapproval of adultery, which you mentioned in another post and which surfaces primarily in his attacks on "bawds and adulterers" (meaning Dorset) in a later proclamation, I think it's important to distinguish, as medieval Catholics did, between the venial sin of fornication before marriage and the deadly sin of adultery, which involved the breaking of the sacred marriage vows. From the (late) medieval perspective, it was not hypocritical to condone fornication (as long as the children of such unions were acknowledged and properly provided for) while condemning adultery. They were not equivalent sins. (Given the views that Richard frequently expressed, I can't see him having any affairs or liaisons after his marriage. He can't have approved of Edward's conduct--or that of Hastings and Dorset. OTOH, it's absurd to call him, as several historians have done, a proto-Puritan. He was simply a pious and observant Catholic who believed in terrible punishments for deadly sins--which would also, as I said in another thread, have served as a powerful deterrent to murdering his nephews!)

I do think that Richard disapproved of Edward's conduct and may have blamed his lifestyle for his early death (and all the complications and dangers it presented for Richard and everyone else) but at the same time, he grieved for his brother despite his faults and may have mourned especially the good and great king that Edward might have been but wasn't. But Marie's point that TR blames the Woodvilles (and perhaps indirectly Hastings) for any immorality in Edward's court rather than Edward himself is well taken.

Carol

Marie wrote:

>
> To Carol:
> I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. <snip>

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. Can you pinpoint which post of mine you're referring to here? I don't recall addressing this question (though I did mention the deterrent effect that Richard's belief in eternal damnation would have had on any temptation to murder his nephews).

Thanks,
Carol

Dear Marie,

What I describe does not in any way preclude anger at other causes, such as bad medical treatment or the knowledge other family members were less than good to the deceased. But I must admit, I have seem these little sparks of otherwise inexplicable anger played out by too many grieving people in my long life. My husband admits these feelings, as do I. They are usually not prolonged (and they are most profound when we feel the deceased could of/should of done something that might have prevented the death). It's also probable people with genuine causes to be angry just slide into their "justified" feelings without noticing the initial spark.

Psychiatry is becoming less art and more neuroscience every day. Geoff, as it turns out, has done CTs and MRIs on the brains of many persons; he has a Ph.D. in Neurology as well as Psychiatry and an earlier Masters in Grief and End-of-Life Counseling. and teaches at a prestigious institution. Certain areas of our brains "light up" as we experience intense emotions, and these seem to vary depending upon the feeling. Pleasure, sorrow, etc., produce distinctive  "foot prints" on the scans. While scanning, patients are asked: "What are you feeling?" When it's anger, that too shows up, even when people say, "Oh, no, I'm not really angry at so-and-so, just wish they hadn't left me," but their brains tell another tale.

Taking all this back to Richard, he had plenty of justification to be angry - at Edward for his poor judgement, at the queen's family et al.. I'm not suggesting any of this was displacement. But among his initial emotions, he would have known at least a moment's anger based upon nothing in particular. With so many real causes to be enraged, this no doubt quickly segued into righteous indignation.

Judy 


 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 
Hi Judy,
I still think we're at cross purposes. As I understood your original email, you were arguing that grief involves not just anger (which I am not disputing) but specifically anger at the deceased for having died; if this is what psychiatrists believe is going on in all cases, and that all anger expressed by bereaved people towards the living is rechannelled anger against the deceased for popping off, then then I would dispute it (I am not a psychiatrist, but do have some experience of bereavement of different kinds, and have watched it play out with others). I think your doc is probably closer to what is going on when talking simply about "negative feelings": when someone dies there are all sorts of genuine reasons for negative feelings which may have nothing to do with anger at the deceased *for dying*. For instance, I would take some persuading that, when my friend, after losing her two-year-old son, went through a lot of anger against the doctor who had
told her "there is nothing wrong with that child", and delayed diagnosis, this was redirected anger against the dead child, I really would.

There are many many real causes for anger after someone has died. Grievances against the deceased that cannot now ever be resolved and stand in the way of "moving on"; lack of sensitivity from some of those with whom you have to deal; missed opportunities by doctors; affairs to be sorted (one family member may shoulder an unfair share of the burden and feel used); resentment against other people with seemingly charmed lives. And over and above all that there is simple undirected anger at the fact that life sucks and that something precious has been lost that can never, ever be regained. Anger is, on one level, simply a release of stress, and is certainly a normal part of the grieving process, but to psychoanalyse it as anger against the deceased for dying is unconvincing to me. If this is a primeval response, then we may well have brought it with us from evolutionary states in which clever things like apportioning of blame, even subconsciously, were
probably way beyond our tiny brains. Our real feelings towards the deceased surely surface in our dreams, if we are the dreaming sort, and on no occasion have my dreams about the deceased involved any feelings of anger towards them at all - mainly a deep raw pity, in fact - and I'm not saying that just to look PC.
And I'm not convinced that sacrifice of a person's servants to look after them beyond the grave can be simply explained as redirected anger against the deceased.
I'm afraid to admit that I have had the scales pulled from my eyes over the past years about psychology/ psychiatry, having contracted ME: not real science, and all to willing to claim it has proved things for which there is no proof. It's best when simply describing what happens, and worst when trying to attribute deep and unprovable motives, which tend to be off target and, to the extent that they grossly over simplify, merely trite.
Sorry about this, but I do feel quite strongly about it.
Marie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry. Went back to the doc. He says it's a very primeval feeling - we seem wired that way. The thing is, it's not necessarily obvious from the outside. In some cultures, the "bereaved" go out and slaughter some beast. Or they sacrifice something. In certain ancient societies, they killed other people. They would justify this (the dead person needs companions in the afterlife), but it was based upon a very basic urge. 
>
> We nowadays tend to internalize and redirect (i.e., displacement) our negative feelings. It's not personal, and even when a very old person dies in his bed, we experience this. It may be fleeting, of course, or prolonged - in that sense bereavements do differ widely. But anyone who grieves goes through a sequence of feelings. Anger is just one of these, as is denial. And anger isn't the same as "guilt," which is not automatic. Guilt requires a feeling of responsibility, even if this feeling is baseless. But people sometimes confuse these, since guilt can generate anger.
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
> I didn't say Richard wouldn't have been angry - I agreed that he would, and I'm not arguing that people grieving don't often feel angry with the deceased. But I think if you talk to your psychiatrist friend she may agree that this is not anger because the person has done what they couldn't help - ie dying (assuming they did not contribute to their own death in some way, that is)- but because of the hurts they caused in life, which can no longer be resolved. Anger with fate (why should this happen to me?) is also pretty common I would think. Children are not just more open, they have less understanding of death: it depends on their age, personality and level of development whether they blame the deceased for leaving them, or think it must be their own fault in some way.
>
> Richard must have felt anger towards Edward for messing things up in way that left the country, and Richard and his own family, so vulnerable, and I think he also expressed a belief that the king's lifestyle had hastened his end. But he diverted all the blame for that on to people like Dorset. Had Edward died at age 80 leaving everything hunky dory I doubt Richard wouldn't have been feeling anger. It's about the specifics of a particular bereavement, is what I'm saying.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Anger is a well-established (which is to say accepted among the psych profession) phase of the grieving process for adults. Often, however, grownups use "displacement" (meaning they may redirect this anger in part to other people or circumstances) because they feel ashamed, experiencing it toward the dead person. àChildren, on the other hand, act out this feeling with no filter, which may be why it's more visible with them. All this from a quick call to a psychiatrist friend. There's a manual - believe it's called the DSM - which might describe these things in greater detail. Denial is another stage of grief. In fact, the phases of grief are not all that unlike those experienced by a person who is dying. See the writings of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a complete list and the sequence in which they occur. Acceptance/peace is the final phase.
> >
> > People in 15th C. England may have had a different Gestalt than ours, but human nature hasn't changed. And if Richard felt anger, it doesn't mean he necessarily acted upon it... à
> >
> > (My cousin, a grief counselor, has talked to me in past about all this. Most of her clients are adults. But I wanted to check with Geoff to be sure I recalled rightly).
> >
> > Judy
> > à
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
> >
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I think the anger at the deceased for dying is largely something experience
> > by bereaved children at a certain stage of development, or adults bereaved
> > due to a suicide or death due to carelessness. In the normal way, adult
> > anger at the deceased is more likely to have to do with unresolved issues in
> > the relationship. I can believe Richard felt pretty angry at Edward for the
> > mess he'd made (and not least by having his son brought up by Woodvilles in
> > isolation at Ludlow), but not necessarily for dying when he did. In any
> > case, the longer he'd lived the worse the mess would have got.
> > Anybody else suspect hothoused young EV was probably a peevish little
> > narcissist?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > Edward was certainly of an age where what he'd experienced *so far* of being
> > next in line to the throne would have been the "nice" parts; people treating
> > him as special, his wishes catered to, etc. and I can't see that helping in
> > his development. Then add to that *who* was in charge of Edward (V) and his
> > familiy relationship to the king-to-be. I just can't envision Edward's
> > Woodville uncle drumming it into his charge's head that the perks Edward got
> > were to make up, if possible, for the duties he'd eventually be responsible
> > for carrying out.
> > Doug
> > (who looks on this as *possibly* an explanation of "Richard of Eastwell's"
> > actions, or non-actions, in regards to regaining the throne - he'd
> > discovered it wasn't all beer and skittles [which I really enjoyed playing]
> > and if that was the case, then "No, thank you!")
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> > As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be.

Hilary, you might like to check, but I think that as far as the first degree was concerned, only joint degrees in 'the two laws' (civil and canon) were on offer at the English universities, so if I'm right Stillington would have studied canon law.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> >
> > To Carol:
> > I do see, re-reading the post below, that I said Richard would not have felt anger if Edward had died in perfect circumstances. I accept that this is an exaggeration, and what I should have said is that he would not have felt the strong anger towards some of the late king's former associates that he displayed in 1483, nothing that would have been picked up in the historical record. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. Can you pinpoint which post of mine you're referring to here? I don't recall addressing this question (though I did mention the deterrent effect that Richard's belief in eternal damnation would have had on any temptation to murder his nephews).
>
> Thanks,
> Carol
>


Hi Carol, It was a previous post of my own I was referring to - not well worded on inspection.
Marie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Marie,
>
> What I describe does not in any way preclude anger at other causes, such as bad medical treatment or the knowledge other family members were less than good to the deceased. But I must admit, I have seem these little sparks of otherwise inexplicable anger played out by too many grieving people in my long life. My husband admits these feelings, as do I. They are usually not prolonged (and they are most profound when we feel the deceased could of/should of done something that might have prevented the death). It's also probable people with genuine causes to be angry just slide into their "justified" feelings without noticing the initial spark.

Marie:
Hi Carol, Again I have to repeat that I'm not denying anger as a universal symptom of grief, but I am questioning the idea that we can pronounce that the cause is universal unconscious anger with the deceased for dying. It's not "otherwise inexplicable". It's a way of releasing tension, railing at the unfairness of the world, etc. The blaming the deceased theory fits no better than any other.

">
> Psychiatry is becoming less art and more neuroscience every day. Geoff, as it turns out, has done CTs and MRIs on the brains of many persons; he has a Ph.D. in Neurology as well as Psychiatry and an earlier Masters in Grief and End-of-Life Counseling. and teaches at a prestigious institution. Certain areas of our brains "light up" as we experience intense emotions, and these seem to vary depending upon the feeling. Pleasure, sorrow, etc., produce distinctive  "foot prints" on the scans. While scanning, patients are asked: "What are you feeling?" When it's anger, that too shows up, even when people say, "Oh, no, I'm not really angry at so-and-so, just wish they hadn't left me," but their brains tell another tale."


Carol, I'm bemused I do have to say. I'm only too well aware of psychiatrists' attempt to move into neurology as a way of updating an increasingly outdated concept (ie that of the 'mind' as an entity separate from the body). Some rogue psychiatrists, at least, are however, abusing neurology and claiming that the brain changes are caused by the psychiatry rather than vice versa (the Wessely School in the UK are doing precisely that with M.E.). Also, we probably need to move beyond just looking at the brain, and start to look at more and more "psychiatric" conditions as properly organic - it is an odd fact, for instance, that people with chronic clinical depression commonly also present with digestive problems. Some of these "mental health" issues may well turn out to be caused by chronic infections.
I know there is anger, but it's not been AT the deceased in my own cases, perhaps because the people I've grieved for really did nothing at all to contribute to their own deaths. I am really not in denial about this, I'm sure. If I were, I'd know deep down and for sure my dreams would find me out (partly due to the M.E. I'm a constant and vivid dreamer, and almost hallucinatory dreaming has been the most intense part of the grieving process for me). You remarked in an earlier post, I think, that the stages of grief in bereavement are essentially the same as in other types of catastrophic loss - loss of health, one's own impending death, etc. I would concur. But doesn't that in itself show that the anger has to do with the "unfairness" of the loss, and is not personalised? Does the dying person feel angry with themselves?
Marie

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and we can agree to disagree, since my own experience and the experiences of so many people I happen to know seem so similar to mine. I used the word "inexplicable" for want of a better term to mean "a feeling with no obvious or reasonable cause within the context." I also emphasized the often "fleeting" nature of these feelings. But if you never recall these, I take you at your word. 

And properly recognizing the mind-body connection is something long overdue in medical practice.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Marie,
>
> What I describe does not in any way preclude anger at other causes, such as bad medical treatment or the knowledge other family members were less than good to the deceased. But I must admit, I have seem these little sparks of otherwise inexplicable anger played out by too many grieving people in my long life. My husband admits these feelings, as do I. They are usually not prolonged (and they are most profound when we feel the deceased could of/should of done something that might have prevented the death). It's also probable people with genuine causes to be angry just slide into their "justified" feelings without noticing the initial spark.

Marie:
Hi Carol, Again I have to repeat that I'm not denying anger as a universal symptom of grief, but I am questioning the idea that we can pronounce that the cause is universal unconscious anger with the deceased for dying. It's not "otherwise inexplicable". It's a way of releasing tension, railing at the unfairness of the world, etc. The blaming the deceased theory fits no better than any other.

">
> Psychiatry is becoming less art and more neuroscience every day. Geoff, as it turns out, has done CTs and MRIs on the brains of many persons; he has a Ph.D. in Neurology as well as Psychiatry and an earlier Masters in Grief and End-of-Life Counseling. and teaches at a prestigious institution. Certain areas of our brains "light up" as we experience intense emotions, and these seem to vary depending upon the feeling. Pleasure, sorrow, etc., produce distinctive  "foot prints" on the scans. While scanning, patients are asked: "What are you feeling?" When it's anger, that too shows up, even when people say, "Oh, no, I'm not really angry at so-and-so, just wish they hadn't left me," but their brains tell another tale."

Carol, I'm bemused I do have to say. I'm only too well aware of psychiatrists' attempt to move into neurology as a way of updating an increasingly outdated concept (ie that of the 'mind' as an entity separate from the body). Some rogue psychiatrists, at least, are however, abusing neurology and claiming that the brain changes are caused by the psychiatry rather than vice versa (the Wessely School in the UK are doing precisely that with M.E.). Also, we probably need to move beyond just looking at the brain, and start to look at more and more "psychiatric" conditions as properly organic - it is an odd fact, for instance, that people with chronic clinical depression commonly also present with digestive problems. Some of these "mental health" issues may well turn out to be caused by chronic infections.
I know there is anger, but it's not been AT the deceased in my own cases, perhaps because the people I've grieved for really did nothing at all to contribute to their own deaths. I am really not in denial about this, I'm sure. If I were, I'd know deep down and for sure my dreams would find me out (partly due to the M.E. I'm a constant and vivid dreamer, and almost hallucinatory dreaming has been the most intense part of the grieving process for me). You remarked in an earlier post, I think, that the stages of grief in bereavement are essentially the same as in other types of catastrophic loss - loss of health, one's own impending death, etc. I would concur. But doesn't that in itself show that the anger has to do with the "unfairness" of the loss, and is not personalised? Does the dying person feel angry with themselves?
Marie

Marie wrote:
> Hi Carol, Again I have to repeat that I'm not denying anger as a universal symptom of grief, but I am questioning the idea that we can pronounce that the cause is universal unconscious anger with the deceased for dying. It's not "otherwise inexplicable". It's a way of releasing tension, railing at the unfairness of the world, etc. The blaming the deceased theory fits no better than any other.
>
Carol responds:

I'm not sure why you think these posts are from me. They're from Judy.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Hi Carol, Again I have to repeat that I'm not denying anger as a universal symptom of grief, but I am questioning the idea that we can pronounce that the cause is universal unconscious anger with the deceased for dying. It's not "otherwise inexplicable". It's a way of releasing tension, railing at the unfairness of the world, etc. The blaming the deceased theory fits no better than any other.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm not sure why you think these posts are from me. They're from Judy.
>
> Carol
>

Marie:
Sorry Carol.

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and we can agree to disagree, since my own experience and the experiences of so many people I happen to know seem so similar to mine. I used the word "inexplicable" for want of a better term to mean "a feeling with no obvious or reasonable cause within the context." I also emphasized the often "fleeting" nature of these feelings. But if you never recall these, I take you at your word. 

Marie replies:
Please do that, and don't say "never recall": if I'd had such feelings I'd certainly recall them. I'm really not kidding, or sliding into "justifiable anger" as a cover. Your feelings are perfectly valid, but they are your own, and mine are mine. It's not that I'm denying unworthy feelings (as you may have noticed). I've already acknowledged envy of the more fortunate, and can add that I have also had to wrestle with feelings of guilt. But I've never even had a twang of anger at abandonment by the dead person, and I can't be unique. I don't know your circumstances, whether there was anything the deceased might have done to look after themselves better that might have contributed to such feelings (common enough, surely), or whether your personality is simply different from mine - ie you perhaps have more of a deepseated sense of entitlement. In my cases, no. I've not experienced it. My father, who died when I was 13, had gone to the doctor month before only to be fobbed off with tranquilizers. My father-in-law, very fit, slim and active in his early 80s, died in late 2011 from a sudden cancer growing like the clappers. My mother died in spring 2012, aged 95, from everything just gradually packing in. I can't even begin to understand where anger against the deceased is supposed to come from in bereavements such as these; I'm not denying it because it's unworthy; I just don't get it. I am still going through the anger phase, but my feelings are currently of a strange identification with my mother, and anger at the things that other people did to ruin her life, eg medical neglect and incompetence that killed the two babies she had before me and who are buried close by her and my dad. My feeling is that the brain is running through, reliving and sorting all the memories and knowledge of the person, and it's bloody hard mental and emotional work and to reduce it to "five stages of grief" or identikit anger for every death is to trivialise the complexity of this task, which if it were not unique to each individual and each bereavement would surely have been hardwired by this stage of evolution into a quick simple operation.

This is relevant to Richard, because from the time of Edward's death until his own he was in a constant state of bereavement, just starting to get over one when hit with the next: and then the enemy invasion. And all those bereavements, it seems to me, would have been very very different from each other.
Marie



>
> And properly recognizing the mind-body connection is something long overdue in medical practice.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marie,
> >
> > What I describe does not in any way preclude anger at other causes, such as bad medical treatment or the knowledge other family members were less than good to the deceased. But I must admit, I have seem these little sparks of otherwise inexplicable anger played out by too many grieving people in my long life. My husband admits these feelings, as do I. They are usually not prolonged (and they are most profound when we feel the deceased could of/should of done something that might have prevented the death). It's also probable people with genuine causes to be angry just slide into their "justified" feelings without noticing the initial spark.
>
> Marie:
> Hi Carol, Again I have to repeat that I'm not denying anger as a universal symptom of grief, but I am questioning the idea that we can pronounce that the cause is universal unconscious anger with the deceased for dying. It's not "otherwise inexplicable". It's a way of releasing tension, railing at the unfairness of the world, etc. The blaming the deceased theory fits no better than any other.
>
> ">
> > Psychiatry is becoming less art and more neuroscience every day. Geoff, as it turns out, has done CTs and MRIs on the brains of many persons; he has a Ph.D. in Neurology as well as Psychiatry and an earlier Masters in Grief and End-of-Life Counseling. and teaches at a prestigious institution. Certain areas of our brains "light up" as we experience intense emotions, and these seem to vary depending upon the feeling. Pleasure, sorrow, etc., produce distinctive  "foot prints" on the scans. While scanning, patients are asked: "What are you feeling?" When it's anger, that too shows up, even when people say, "Oh, no, I'm not really angry at so-and-so, just wish they hadn't left me," but their brains tell another tale."
>
> Carol, I'm bemused I do have to say. I'm only too well aware of psychiatrists' attempt to move into neurology as a way of updating an increasingly outdated concept (ie that of the 'mind' as an entity separate from the body). Some rogue psychiatrists, at least, are however, abusing neurology and claiming that the brain changes are caused by the psychiatry rather than vice versa (the Wessely School in the UK are doing precisely that with M.E.). Also, we probably need to move beyond just looking at the brain, and start to look at more and more "psychiatric" conditions as properly organic - it is an odd fact, for instance, that people with chronic clinical depression commonly also present with digestive problems. Some of these "mental health" issues may well turn out to be caused by chronic infections.
> I know there is anger, but it's not been AT the deceased in my own cases, perhaps because the people I've grieved for really did nothing at all to contribute to their own deaths. I am really not in denial about this, I'm sure. If I were, I'd know deep down and for sure my dreams would find me out (partly due to the M.E. I'm a constant and vivid dreamer, and almost hallucinatory dreaming has been the most intense part of the grieving process for me). You remarked in an earlier post, I think, that the stages of grief in bereavement are essentially the same as in other types of catastrophic loss - loss of health, one's own impending death, etc. I would concur. But doesn't that in itself show that the anger has to do with the "unfairness" of the loss, and is not personalised? Does the dying person feel angry with themselves?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> >
> > I'm not sure why you think these posts are from me. They're from Judy.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> Marie:
> Sorry Carol.

Carol again:

No problem. I was just confused. If it matters, I agree with you on this question.

Carol

You have my sincere sympathies for your difficult situation, regardless of the cause. 

I wish you the best and hope you find some peace.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death



 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and we can agree to disagree, since my own experience and the experiences of so many people I happen to know seem so similar to mine. I used the word "inexplicable" for want of a better term to mean "a feeling with no obvious or reasonable cause within the context." I also emphasized the often "fleeting" nature of these feelings. But if you never recall these, I take you at your word. 

Marie replies:
Please do that, and don't say "never recall": if I'd had such feelings I'd certainly recall them. I'm really not kidding, or sliding into "justifiable anger" as a cover. Your feelings are perfectly valid, but they are your own, and mine are mine. It's not that I'm denying unworthy feelings (as you may have noticed). I've already acknowledged envy of the more fortunate, and can add that I have also had to wrestle with feelings of guilt. But I've never even had a twang of anger at abandonment by the dead person, and I can't be unique. I don't know your circumstances, whether there was anything the deceased might have done to look after themselves better that might have contributed to such feelings (common enough, surely), or whether your personality is simply different from mine - ie you perhaps have more of a deepseated sense of entitlement. In my cases, no. I've not experienced it. My father, who died when I was 13, had gone to the doctor month before
only to be fobbed off with tranquilizers. My father-in-law, very fit, slim and active in his early 80s, died in late 2011 from a sudden cancer growing like the clappers. My mother died in spring 2012, aged 95, from everything just gradually packing in. I can't even begin to understand where anger against the deceased is supposed to come from in bereavements such as these; I'm not denying it because it's unworthy; I just don't get it. I am still going through the anger phase, but my feelings are currently of a strange identification with my mother, and anger at the things that other people did to ruin her life, eg medical neglect and incompetence that killed the two babies she had before me and who are buried close by her and my dad. My feeling is that the brain is running through, reliving and sorting all the memories and knowledge of the person, and it's bloody hard mental and emotional work and to reduce it to "five stages of grief" or identikit anger
for every death is to trivialise the complexity of this task, which if it were not unique to each individual and each bereavement would surely have been hardwired by this stage of evolution into a quick simple operation.

This is relevant to Richard, because from the time of Edward's death until his own he was in a constant state of bereavement, just starting to get over one when hit with the next: and then the enemy invasion. And all those bereavements, it seems to me, would have been very very different from each other.
Marie

>
> And properly recognizing the mind-body connection is something long overdue in medical practice.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marie,
> >
> > What I describe does not in any way preclude anger at other causes, such as bad medical treatment or the knowledge other family members were less than good to the deceased. But I must admit, I have seem these little sparks of otherwise inexplicable anger played out by too many grieving people in my long life. My husband admits these feelings, as do I. They are usually not prolonged (and they are most profound when we feel the deceased could of/should of done something that might have prevented the death). It's also probable people with genuine causes to be angry just slide into their "justified" feelings without noticing the initial spark.
>
> Marie:
> Hi Carol, Again I have to repeat that I'm not denying anger as a universal symptom of grief, but I am questioning the idea that we can pronounce that the cause is universal unconscious anger with the deceased for dying. It's not "otherwise inexplicable". It's a way of releasing tension, railing at the unfairness of the world, etc. The blaming the deceased theory fits no better than any other.
>
> ">
> > Psychiatry is becoming less art and more neuroscience every day. Geoff, as it turns out, has done CTs and MRIs on the brains of many persons; he has a Ph.D. in Neurology as well as Psychiatry and an earlier Masters in Grief and End-of-Life Counseling. and teaches at a prestigious institution. Certain areas of our brains "light up" as we experience intense emotions, and these seem to vary depending upon the feeling. Pleasure, sorrow, etc., produce distinctive à"foot prints" on the scans. While scanning, patients are asked: "What are you feeling?" When it's anger, that too shows up, even when people say, "Oh, no, I'm not really angry at so-and-so, just wish they hadn't left me," but their brains tell another tale."
>
> Carol, I'm bemused I do have to say. I'm only too well aware of psychiatrists' attempt to move into neurology as a way of updating an increasingly outdated concept (ie that of the 'mind' as an entity separate from the body). Some rogue psychiatrists, at least, are however, abusing neurology and claiming that the brain changes are caused by the psychiatry rather than vice versa (the Wessely School in the UK are doing precisely that with M.E.). Also, we probably need to move beyond just looking at the brain, and start to look at more and more "psychiatric" conditions as properly organic - it is an odd fact, for instance, that people with chronic clinical depression commonly also present with digestive problems. Some of these "mental health" issues may well turn out to be caused by chronic infections.
> I know there is anger, but it's not been AT the deceased in my own cases, perhaps because the people I've grieved for really did nothing at all to contribute to their own deaths. I am really not in denial about this, I'm sure. If I were, I'd know deep down and for sure my dreams would find me out (partly due to the M.E. I'm a constant and vivid dreamer, and almost hallucinatory dreaming has been the most intense part of the grieving process for me). You remarked in an earlier post, I think, that the stages of grief in bereavement are essentially the same as in other types of catastrophic loss - loss of health, one's own impending death, etc. I would concur. But doesn't that in itself show that the anger has to do with the "unfairness" of the loss, and is not personalised? Does the dying person feel angry with themselves?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would only like to add a couple of things to what's being discussed
about anger and death and "getting over" it.

Some losses/deaths, one never gets over. One learns to live around
them. Everyone's mileage varies.

I also think there's a vast difference in the modern way a Freudian
therapist and a Jungian therapist addresses the emotions his patients
feel after the death of a loved one.

I also think something the psychologists call "projection" might be
looked at regarding Richard's anger toward...[fill in the blank] when
[fill in the blank] died. We might also look at our own habit as human
being of projecting things onto others as well. Are we projecting
things onto Richard and his circle? Who doesn't?

It might be argued that Richard projected the "blame" for and his
anger at Edward IV's death onto Hastings as well as the Woodvilles. It
might be that months later, in calmer times, he came to "blame" Edward
for his own death, if it ever occurred to Richard that ultimately
people are responsible for their own actions.

He might have "blamed" Anne's death on bad humours or himself if he
thought was unworthy of the kingship (God's wrath at his sins?). He
might have blamed any number of other things intrinsic to his century
and culture.

Anne may have blamed herself for Edward of Middleham's death because
she wasn't there to watch his every move or supervise his care. Or
perhaps she blamed herself for her weak body having given birth to a
weak child or....

We can't know what any of them felt then. We can only know how we feel now.

~Weds

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

You may be right but in the eclesiastical registers where quals are listed he is one of the few with a doctorate in Civil Law, not Canon Law. That doesn't of course mean he didn't study Canon Law as well but it's odd.  Beckynton, Morton etc have doctorates in Canon Law. Unfortunately, for some reason he's not listed in Oxford's alumni like some of the others, which is frustrating and odd.  Could it be that he set out to specialise in Civil Law but turned to the Church after sponsorship by Beckynton who held a prebendary in his home area? Perhaps he changed at the ant-Wycliffian Deep Hall? He does have at least one piece of Civil Law still quoted in our current Laws and seems to have enjoyed the Law more than some of his contemporaries. The circles he mixed with in the South West were certainly JPs. 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 19:35
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 



--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> > As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be.

Hilary, you might like to check, but I think that as far as the first degree was concerned, only joint degrees in 'the two laws' (civil and canon) were on offer at the English universities, so if I'm right Stillington would have studied canon law.
Marie

I certainly agree with the last sentence as said elsewhere
but
1. Just because the Petition didn't appear until after Hastings's death doesn't mean he didn't have a whiff of its 'draft' and what it was likely to say.
2. Like Wilkinson (sorry Paul) I don't buy Richard the monogamous loving husband. He married for money and who knows what personal relationships he had out of sight in the North? That doesn't make him a serial adulterer like Dorset, of course. He could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'. And one wonders what Cis made of it all, except to endorse the view of the Woodvilles. Having been the victim of scandal herself, she can't have enjoyed this new attack on her son.
So I think we agree to disagree.
H.  


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 17:03
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was me who semi-started this thread. Just one other point.
> As you've said Marie, Stillington probably drafted Titulus Regius even if he didn't witness the Pre-Contract and presumably, like Jefferson later, he drafted it on behalf of a bunch of people. Could it be that as part of the 'deal' for the Church's support of Richard, this condemnation of Edward and his lifestyle was included?  It also got the Church off the hook in any controversy around whether Richard would be the rightful king. Richard might not have liked it, but he'd have had little choice if something as powerful as the Church (and I don't necessarily mean Stillington here, who actually held a Doctorate in Civil, not Canon Law so that's why he was probably chosen) said it had to be. Take it a step further and you can see why Edward's old chum Hastings would be upset and probably blame Richard. H. 

Carol responds:

Forgive me for interjecting a comment here. Hastings was executed on June 13 (or June 20 if you accept Hanham's arguments). The Three Estates presented their petition to Richard on June 25. Whatever Hastings's motives for conspiracy against Richard (and I firmly believe that the conspiracy is real), it can't have been prompted by the wording of the petition.

Regarding Richard's disapproval of adultery, which you mentioned in another post and which surfaces primarily in his attacks on "bawds and adulterers" (meaning Dorset) in a later proclamation, I think it's important to distinguish, as medieval Catholics did, between the venial sin of fornication before marriage and the deadly sin of adultery, which involved the breaking of the sacred marriage vows. From the (late) medieval perspective, it was not hypocritical to condone fornication (as long as the children of such unions were acknowledged and properly provided for) while condemning adultery. They were not equivalent sins. (Given the views that Richard frequently expressed, I can't see him having any affairs or liaisons after his marriage. He can't have approved of Edward's conduct--or that of Hastings and Dorset. OTOH, it's absurd to call him, as several historians have done, a proto-Puritan. He was simply a pious and observant Catholic who believed in
terrible punishments for deadly sins--which would also, as I said in another thread, have served as a powerful deterrent to murdering his nephews!)

I do think that Richard disapproved of Edward's conduct and may have blamed his lifestyle for his early death (and all the complications and dangers it presented for Richard and everyone else) but at the same time, he grieved for his brother despite his faults and may have mourned especially the good and great king that Edward might have been but wasn't. But Marie's point that TR blames the Woodvilles (and perhaps indirectly Hastings) for any immorality in Edward's court rather than Edward himself is well taken.

Carol

Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?
 

Liz

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 
Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets. I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?
 

Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 
Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

They sure as heck wouldn't miss such a plum opportunity! So either he was very, very sneaky about it, or he was innocent. As with everything else about him, we'll never find out. For someone of whom we know so much, about whom so much has been written and who still stirs us all up today, he remains one one of the most frustratingly elusive monarchs in England's history. =^..^=


From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?


Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Absolutely.
 
I've just read Alistair's Titulus Regius and there are two things that jump out. The first is the absolute hatred of the Woodvilles (someone there really hated them and makes sure that hatred comes through; it's as though they're dictating it to Stillington)
And secondly, if Edward was such a dreadful monarch why was Clarence's treason and his children's rights dismissed in a couple of lines? You'd have thought they would have supported him - but perhaps they didn't want another kid, which says a lot!
 
The whole thing is, as you so rightly say, elusive and I feel will be forever argued over till we find that trunk in the attic. H. 

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

They sure as heck wouldn't miss such a plum opportunity! So either he was very, very sneaky about it, or he was innocent. As with everything else about him, we'll never find out. For someone of whom we know so much, about whom so much has been written and who still stirs us all up today, he remains one one of the most frustratingly elusive monarchs in England's history. =^..^=

From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:27 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?


Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Oh, I agree, Hilary. Although even today there are kiss-and-tells too. Not everyone in the North was staunch for York, nor even for Richard, who was undoubtedly greatly loved and respected. Lancastrians lurked up there as well. There's always one, as the saying goes. And even if he wanted to be a good boy, I doubt if the fair sex' would have allowed him. He was an attractive man in every sense of the word, handsome, powerful, intelligent, assured, and---I'm sure---charming. Women like all those attributes, and would have fancied him no end. Many would regard him as a challenge, and would angle to find out if he was up for grabs, so to speak. Pursuit would have been pretty constant, with totty always available, I imagine. How often might he have allowed himself a second glance? He was only human. Sooo, yes, he was as red-blooded as the next man, and could no doubt have had his pick. He was either astonishingly clever about it, or he might indeed have been Saint Richard after all. But we don't KNOW!

Incidentally, do we know if Henry Tudor dabbled outside his marriage? Apart from possibly begetting Roland de Velville before he married, Henry is another one who *seems* to have been a faithful husband. Unuxorious, but faithful. Or am I forgetting someone...? Don't tell me he and Richard had something else in common, other than Bosworth and the crown? They were both either incredibly discreet in matters of the flesh, or had nothing to be discreet about.

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets. I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death




And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?


Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Each to his (her) own I guess, but having a fair number of monogamous
individuals in my family, I have no problem accepting that Richard was
faithful to his wife while she lived.

A J


On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done
> discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets.
> I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't
> buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen
> how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the
> Time of His Death
>
>
>
>
> And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of
> him being a big hypocrite?
>
>
> Liz
>
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the
> Time of His Death
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
> ý[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a
> few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his
> mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most
> here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather
> than the 'proto-Puritan'.ý
> Sandra here:
> I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely
> *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret?
> Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester
> would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy
> then. Did Richard play with fire? I donýt know who such a woman could be,
> just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good
> thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this
> possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk
> around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering
> imagination again. =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would think, watching his brother, he would be more prone to the fidelity side!

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Timeof His Death

Each to his (her) own I guess, but having a fair number of monogamous
individuals in my family, I have no problem accepting that Richard was
faithful to his wife while she lived.

A J


On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done
> discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets.
> I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't
> buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen
> how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the
> Time of His Death
>
>
>
>
> And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of
> him being a big hypocrite?
>
>
> Liz
>
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
> Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the
> Time of His Death
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
> "[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a
> few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his
> mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most
> here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather
> than the 'proto-Puritan'."
> Sandra here:
> I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely
> *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret?
> Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester
> would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy
> then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be,
> just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good
> thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this
> possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk
> around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering
> imagination again. =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Another trail of investigation in your second paragraph!:)
 
Ten years' ago I probably wouldn't have written this but then I learned that Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistress - now Nelson and the ladies yes, but Wellington .....! And going back to Richard we now know that the Countess of Desmond was right about him. Oh how I wish we could do an Edward IV facial reconstruction and compare. H. 


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 15:15
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

Oh, I agree, Hilary. Although even today there are kiss-and-tells too. Not everyone in the North was staunch for York, nor even for Richard, who was undoubtedly greatly loved and respected. Lancastrians lurked up there as well. There's always one, as the saying goes. And even if he wanted to be a good boy, I doubt if the fair sex' would have allowed him. He was an attractive man in every sense of the word, handsome, powerful, intelligent, assured, and---I'm sure---charming. Women like all those attributes, and would have fancied him no end. Many would regard him as a challenge, and would angle to find out if he was up for grabs, so to speak. Pursuit would have been pretty constant, with totty always available, I imagine. How often might he have allowed himself a second glance? He was only human. Sooo, yes, he was as red-blooded as the next man, and could no doubt have had his pick. He was either astonishingly clever about it, or he might indeed
have been Saint Richard after all. But we don't KNOW!

Incidentally, do we know if Henry Tudor dabbled outside his marriage? Apart from possibly begetting Roland de Velville before he married, Henry is another one who *seems* to have been a faithful husband. Unuxorious, but faithful. Or am I forgetting someone...? Don't tell me he and Richard had something else in common, other than Bosworth and the crown? They were both either incredibly discreet in matters of the flesh, or had nothing to be discreet about.

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets. I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?


Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Something I wonder aboutMost people seem to accept that
George was faithful to Isabel and it seems the Duke of York was faithful to
Cicely.  Yet if is often questioned
whether Richard was faithful to Anne.  I
think being a faithful husband was the common thing with this family and Edward
was the odd one!
Vickie
 

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

Oh, I agree, Hilary. Although even today there are kiss-and-tells too. Not everyone in the North was staunch for York, nor even for Richard, who was undoubtedly greatly loved and respected. Lancastrians lurked up there as well. There's always one, as the saying goes. And even if he wanted to be a good boy, I doubt if the fair sex' would have allowed him. He was an attractive man in every sense of the word, handsome, powerful, intelligent, assured, and---I'm sure---charming. Women like all those attributes, and would have fancied him no end. Many would regard him as a challenge, and would angle to find out if he was up for grabs, so to speak. Pursuit would have been pretty constant, with totty always available, I imagine. How often might he have allowed himself a second glance? He was only human. Sooo, yes, he was as red-blooded as the next man, and could no doubt have had his pick. He was either astonishingly clever about it, or he might indeed
have been Saint Richard after all. But we don't KNOW!

Incidentally, do we know if Henry Tudor dabbled outside his marriage? Apart from possibly begetting Roland de Velville before he married, Henry is another one who *seems* to have been a faithful husband. Unuxorious, but faithful. Or am I forgetting someone...? Don't tell me he and Richard had something else in common, other than Bosworth and the crown? They were both either incredibly discreet in matters of the flesh, or had nothing to be discreet about.

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets. I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?


Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Wellington was a bit of a lad, courted scandal and had lots of mistresses. I don't know where he found the time to fight Bonaparte!

Re more facial reconstructions. Oh, yes, I'd *love* to see reconstructions of almost all the old monarchs and their queens. But it ain't going to happen. Just with Richard, and he's the most important of the lot. When I first became interested in him when I was in my twenties (thanks to Tey) I could not ever, in my wildest dreams, have expected to witness the events of this year. To actually find him, and for there to be skill, knowledge and techniques to show us what he really did look like. I haven't recovered from the shock of it yet. Now, if only those techniques and his DNA would enable us to construct the rest of him as well. No, that magnitude of shock would probably finish me off.

Still, if I pass through the Pearly Gates to the afterlife, perhaps I'll get to meet the real thing!

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


Another trail of investigation in your second paragraph!:)

Ten years' ago I probably wouldn't have written this but then I learned that Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistress - now Nelson and the ladies yes, but Wellington .....! And going back to Richard we now know that the Countess of Desmond was right about him. Oh how I wish we could do an Edward IV facial reconstruction and compare. H.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 15:15
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death




Oh, I agree, Hilary. Although even today there are kiss-and-tells too. Not everyone in the North was staunch for York, nor even for Richard, who was undoubtedly greatly loved and respected. Lancastrians lurked up there as well. There's always one, as the saying goes. And even if he wanted to be a good boy, I doubt if the fair sex' would have allowed him. He was an attractive man in every sense of the word, handsome, powerful, intelligent, assured, and---I'm sure---charming. Women like all those attributes, and would have fancied him no end. Many would regard him as a challenge, and would angle to find out if he was up for grabs, so to speak. Pursuit would have been pretty constant, with totty always available, I imagine. How often might he have allowed himself a second glance? He was only human. Sooo, yes, he was as red-blooded as the next man, and could no doubt have had his pick. He was either astonishingly clever about it, or he might indeed
have been Saint Richard after all. But we don't KNOW!

Incidentally, do we know if Henry Tudor dabbled outside his marriage? Apart from possibly begetting Roland de Velville before he married, Henry is another one who *seems* to have been a faithful husband. Unuxorious, but faithful. Or am I forgetting someone...? Don't tell me he and Richard had something else in common, other than Bosworth and the crown? They were both either incredibly discreet in matters of the flesh, or had nothing to be discreet about.

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets. I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?

Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I certainly agree with the last sentence as said elsewhere
> but
> 1. Just because the Petition didn't appear until after Hastings's death doesn't mean he didn't have a whiff of its 'draft' and what it was likely to say.
> 2. Like Wilkinson (sorry Paul) I don't buy Richard the monogamous loving husband. He married for money and who knows what personal relationships he had out of sight in the North? That doesn't make him a serial adulterer like Dorset, of course. He could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'. And one wonders what Cis made of it all, except to endorse the view of the Woodvilles. Having been the victim of scandal herself, she can't have enjoyed this new attack on her son.
> So I think we agree to disagree.
> H.  


Carol responds:

Considering that I can't conceive of Richard as a hypocritical adulterer ranting at others for sins that he shared, yes, absolutely, we must agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I think that Richard regarded himself as God's anointed whose duty was to help free England from its sins as well as the difficulties faced by the commons. I realize that it's hard to understand that mindset today, and some people consider it sanctimonious, but numerous documents after Richard was king seem to indicate that he was a reformer of men's morals as well as a reformer of oppressive laws. I consider it highly unlikely that a man who ordered the (as yet unnamed) future husbands of his nieces "lovingly to love" their wives and treat them well or suffer his displeasure married for money (though the marriage was to their mutual advantage) and did not love his wife, and even more unlikely that Richard, whose private life not even Mancini questioned and whose genuine piety is well established, was an adulterer. Sorry. I meant only to say that I can never agree with your position, so, yes, let's agree to disagree. In a friendly way, of course.

One more thing, unrelated to Richard. I'm confused as to why you think that Cecily endorsed the view of the Woodvilles (whom it seems clear to me that she despised). She appears, from the little evidence we have, to have endorsed Richard's position and supported his kingship. Or possibly I'm misunderstanding that sentence.

Carol

I agree. Now the gloss of the discovery has died off I still find it incredible that I'm alive to have seen it, given that people like Buck, Markham, Potter, even Tey aren't. We argue/debate but we are so very, very lucky!  



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 16:02
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death


 

Wellington was a bit of a lad, courted scandal and had lots of mistresses. I don't know where he found the time to fight Bonaparte!

Re more facial reconstructions. Oh, yes, I'd *love* to see reconstructions of almost all the old monarchs and their queens. But it ain't going to happen. Just with Richard, and he's the most important of the lot. When I first became interested in him when I was in my twenties (thanks to Tey) I could not ever, in my wildest dreams, have expected to witness the events of this year. To actually find him, and for there to be skill, knowledge and techniques to show us what he really did look like. I haven't recovered from the shock of it yet. Now, if only those techniques and his DNA would enable us to construct the rest of him as well. No, that magnitude of shock would probably finish me off.

Still, if I pass through the Pearly Gates to the afterlife, perhaps I'll get to meet the real thing!

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:38 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Another trail of investigation in your second paragraph!:)

Ten years' ago I probably wouldn't have written this but then I learned that Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistress - now Nelson and the ladies yes, but Wellington .....! And going back to Richard we now know that the Countess of Desmond was right about him. Oh how I wish we could do an Edward IV facial reconstruction and compare. H.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 15:15
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Oh, I agree, Hilary. Although even today there are kiss-and-tells too. Not everyone in the North was staunch for York, nor even for Richard, who was undoubtedly greatly loved and respected. Lancastrians lurked up there as well. There's always one, as the saying goes. And even if he wanted to be a good boy, I doubt if the fair sex' would have allowed him. He was an attractive man in every sense of the word, handsome, powerful, intelligent, assured, and---I'm sure---charming. Women like all those attributes, and would have fancied him no end. Many would regard him as a challenge, and would angle to find out if he was up for grabs, so to speak. Pursuit would have been pretty constant, with totty always available, I imagine. How often might he have allowed himself a second glance? He was only human. Sooo, yes, he was as red-blooded as the next man, and could no doubt have had his pick. He was either astonishingly clever about it, or he might indeed
have been Saint Richard after all. But we don't KNOW!

Incidentally, do we know if Henry Tudor dabbled outside his marriage? Apart from possibly begetting Roland de Velville before he married, Henry is another one who *seems* to have been a faithful husband. Unuxorious, but faithful. Or am I forgetting someone...? Don't tell me he and Richard had something else in common, other than Bosworth and the crown? They were both either incredibly discreet in matters of the flesh, or had nothing to be discreet about.

=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

But would Northerners blab on Richard, particularly if it had been done discreetly? Even today there are those close to royals who keep secrets. I'm not saying he was off to the brothels like Dorset, but sorry, I don't buy Richard the pious saintly husband, particularly after we've now seen how handsome he really was. I knew it would upset many here .... :)

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 14:27
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

And if Richard's enemies had know, they would surely have made hay out of him being a big hypocrite?

Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 12:06
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

Hilary wrote:
[Richard] could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'.
Sandra here:
I agree, Hilary, but if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don't know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

> Sandra wrote:
> <snip> if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I don’t know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Carol responds:

I agree, Sandra. If Richard as a married man and especially as king had had a mistress, either Mancini, the Croyland chronicler, or Rous would have mentioned it and had a field day with his hypocrisy. That none of them did is a good indication that he was faithful to Anne and that his illegitimate children were born (or at least conceived) before his marriage.

Carol

I think you have misunderstood my point about Cis - what I was saying was she couldn't have enjoyed the condemnation of Edward but might have approved of the condemnation of the Woodvilles, had they not been associated with him.
 
To take a mistress doesn't mean you don't love and care for your wife - think of Edward III and Edward VII, their mistresses actually got on with their wives. I'm not at all saying he was a Hastings or a Dorset, but that he could have had a mistress because his wife was a political necessity, not a lvoe match.
 
We shall agree to disagree - but in a friendly way I hope. H
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 16:10
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I certainly agree with the last sentence as said elsewhere
> but
> 1. Just because the Petition didn't appear until after Hastings's death doesn't mean he didn't have a whiff of its 'draft' and what it was likely to say.
> 2. Like Wilkinson (sorry Paul) I don't buy Richard the monogamous loving husband. He married for money and who knows what personal relationships he had out of sight in the North? That doesn't make him a serial adulterer like Dorset, of course. He could well have had the same mistress for years (like quite a few of the clergy) and been faithful to her and his wife. After all, his mentor Warwick was no saint. I know this goes against the grain with most here but I actually think it makes him a more interesting character rather than the 'proto-Puritan'. And one wonders what Cis made of it all, except to endorse the view of the Woodvilles. Having been the victim of scandal herself, she can't have enjoyed this new attack on her son.
> So I think we agree to disagree.
> H.  

Carol responds:

Considering that I can't conceive of Richard as a hypocritical adulterer ranting at others for sins that he shared, yes, absolutely, we must agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I think that Richard regarded himself as God's anointed whose duty was to help free England from its sins as well as the difficulties faced by the commons. I realize that it's hard to understand that mindset today, and some people consider it sanctimonious, but numerous documents after Richard was king seem to indicate that he was a reformer of men's morals as well as a reformer of oppressive laws. I consider it highly unlikely that a man who ordered the (as yet unnamed) future husbands of his nieces "lovingly to love" their wives and treat them well or suffer his displeasure married for money (though the marriage was to their mutual advantage) and did not love his wife, and even more unlikely that Richard, whose private life not even Mancini questioned and whose genuine piety
is well established, was an adulterer. Sorry. I meant only to say that I can never agree with your position, so, yes, let's agree to disagree. In a friendly way, of course.

One more thing, unrelated to Richard. I'm confused as to why you think that Cecily endorsed the view of the Woodvilles (whom it seems clear to me that she despised). She appears, from the little evidence we have, to have endorsed Richard's position and supported his kingship. Or possibly I'm misunderstanding that sentence.

Carol

But.... he might not have continued the liaison after he became king and left her in the North.
 
Sorry to be provocative.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 16:16
Subject: Re: Edward IV's Council at the Time of His Death

 

> Sandra wrote:
> <snip> if he did have such a long-term mistress, surely *someone* would have known? How on earth could it have been kept so secret? Unless, of course, she was the wife of someone even the Duke of Gloucester would rather did not find out? I can see the need for complete secrecy then. Did Richard play with fire? I donâ¬"t know who such a woman could be, just hazarding her existence. And given that it was not considered a good thing for a married man to have illegitimate children, what if this possible mistress did have a child/children by him? Might there be folk around now who definitely are descended from Richard? Meandering imagination again. =^..^=

Carol responds:

I agree, Sandra. If Richard as a married man and especially as king had had a mistress, either Mancini, the Croyland chronicler, or Rous would have mentioned it and had a field day with his hypocrisy. That none of them did is a good indication that he was faithful to Anne and that his illegitimate children were born (or at least conceived) before his marriage.

Carol