Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?

The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might – and I admit this is wildly speculative – have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493 – The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned for the same reason.
St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
Who was it who said history is written by the winners?

I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. Richard, as you say, was a pious, dutiful man and would undoubtedly have believed a bishop. So I don't think for one moment that he would have made it up or indeed even that he wished to be king; he was already 'king' in his own beloved Palatinate. The thing in favour of there having been a Pre-contract is that the person it names is also someone from a noble background (far more so than EW) with a reputation for piety. Why choose her instead of the wife of a City merchant who could have been 'paid off'? So to me it's more of a dilemma as to why then? Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?
 
I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H. 


________________________________
From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 0:57
Subject: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 

This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?

The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might  and I admit this is wildly speculative  have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493  The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned
for the same reason.
St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
Who was it who said history is written by the winners?

I think we are looking for conspiracies where there are none here:
Edward was close to Lady Eleanor in Norfolk during 1460-1 at a time that Canon Stillington could easily have been around.
Stillington testified to the quasi-Parliament in 1483 and the findings of this inquiry formed Titulus Regius which, uniquely, declares two people to have been validly married.
Medieval canon law recognised the secret marriage in two forms, neither of which required a witness and Edward's second "marriage" was to another older, Lancastrian widow - revealed under pressure.
Studying Stillington's non-promotions until spring 1464, his imprisonment in 1478, his non-reward by Richard and his imprisonment by Henry "Tudor" together with Catesby's execution and the suppression of Titulus Regius, the only reasonable conclusion is that Edward contracted a valid marriage to Lady Eleanor, then sought to pretend it hadn't happened. He was lucky that she died relatively quickly but unlucky to predecease Stillington, older by at least twenty years.
----- Original Message -----
From: merriannmclain
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:57 AM
Subject: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?

The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might - and I admit this is wildly speculative - have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493 - The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned for the same reason.
St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
Who was it who said history is written by the winners?

The question isn't whether Richard believed it but whether the regency council and quasi-Parliament believed it. Both, as we have seen, contained many other clergymen who would understand the issues inside out and probably have similar experiences.
The quasi-Parliament believed it and offered Richard the throne.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. Richard, as you say, was a pious, dutiful man and would undoubtedly have believed a bishop. So I don't think for one moment that he would have made it up or indeed even that he wished to be king; he was already 'king' in his own beloved Palatinate. The thing in favour of there having been a Pre-contract is that the person it names is also someone from a noble background (far more so than EW) with a reputation for piety. Why choose her instead of the wife of a City merchant who could have been 'paid off'? So to me it's more of a dilemma as to why then? Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?

I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H.


________________________________
From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 0:57
Subject: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?

The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might  and I admit this is wildly speculative  have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493  The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned
for the same reason.
St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
Who was it who said history is written by the winners?

Exactly Stephen. I think Richard would have at first thought it possible
because of Edward's track record. Only after consultation with the lords
and bishops would he have taken it seriously. Then the soul searching
began for him and the problems of not taking the crown in terms of his
and his family's personal security.
Paul



On 10/08/2013 09:32, Stephen Lark wrote:
> The question isn't whether Richard believed it but whether the regency council and quasi-Parliament believed it. Both, as we have seen, contained many other clergymen who would understand the issues inside out and probably have similar experiences.
> The quasi-Parliament believed it and offered Richard the throne.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
>
>
>
> I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. Richard, as you say, was a pious, dutiful man and would undoubtedly have believed a bishop. So I don't think for one moment that he would have made it up or indeed even that he wished to be king; he was already 'king' in his own beloved Palatinate. The thing in favour of there having been a Pre-contract is that the person it names is also someone from a noble background (far more so than EW) with a reputation for piety. Why choose her instead of the wife of a City merchant who could have been 'paid off'? So to me it's more of a dilemma as to why then? Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
> the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?
>
> I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 0:57
> Subject: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
>
>
>
> This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?
>
> The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
> Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might  and I admit this is wildly speculative  have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493  The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned
> for the same reason.
> St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
> Who was it who said history is written by the winners?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Good points Stephen. I guess Edward would have assumed that naturally he would outlive Stillington..and thus this solve this problem which no doubt niggled at him.....Wrong! Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly Stephen. I think Richard would have at first thought it possible
> because of Edward's track record. Only after consultation with the lords
> and bishops would he have taken it seriously. Then the soul searching
> began for him and the problems of not taking the crown in terms of his
> and his family's personal security.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2013 09:32, Stephen Lark wrote:
> > The question isn't whether Richard believed it but whether the regency council and quasi-Parliament believed it. Both, as we have seen, contained many other clergymen who would understand the issues inside out and probably have similar experiences.
> > The quasi-Parliament believed it and offered Richard the throne.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:37 AM
> > Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
> >
> >
> >
> > I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. Richard, as you say, was a pious, dutiful man and would undoubtedly have believed a bishop. So I don't think for one moment that he would have made it up or indeed even that he wished to be king; he was already 'king' in his own beloved Palatinate. The thing in favour of there having been a Pre-contract is that the person it names is also someone from a noble background (far more so than EW) with a reputation for piety. Why choose her instead of the wife of a City merchant who could have been 'paid off'? So to me it's more of a dilemma as to why then? Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
> > the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?
> >
> > I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 0:57
> > Subject: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?
> >
> > The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
> > Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might – and I admit this is wildly speculative – have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493 – The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned
> > for the same reason.
> > St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
> > Who was it who said history is written by the winners?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. <snip>
> I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H. 

Carol responds:

To me, the timing--however convenient for those who preferred the highly competent Richard to a boy king whose reign would be a breeding ground for civil war--makes perfect sense. Stillington had no need to raise the issue of the precontract while Edward was alive. His previous marriage had no effect on *his* right to rule. Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known. (Unless, of course, he revealed it earlier to George, who already considered himself the rightful king and would also, given the existence of the precontract, have been the rightful heir.)

The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).

I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Carol responds:
>
Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known.

Exactly.....as for Stillington procastinating....we have to take the human factor into consideration....and maybe he was in a quandary, nervous whatever...it was certainly massive.....of course we shall never know what was going through Stillingtons mind at that time ..but I find it perfectly plausible that he may have struggled with what was the best thing to do at that time...
>
> The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).
>
> I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")
>
> Carol
>

Carol earlier:
> >
> Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known.

Eileen responded:
> Exactly.....as for Stillington procastinating....we have to take the human factor into consideration....and maybe he was in a quandary, nervous whatever...it was certainly massive.....of course we shall never know what was going through Stillingtons mind at that time ..but I find it perfectly plausible that he may have struggled with what was the best thing to do at that time...

Carol again:

I just wanted to make clear who said what here. Also, I need to clarify the pronoun references in my sentence. That should be, "Only when *Edward IV* was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did *Stillington* need to make the precontract known.

Sorry about that. I think it was clear in context, but out of context, the "he's" seem to refer to the same person and make nonsense out of the sentence.

Carol

No problems Carol...I knew exactly what you meant probably because I have thought and said the same very thing on here....
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >
> > Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known.
>
> Eileen responded:
> > Exactly.....as for Stillington procastinating....we have to take the human factor into consideration....and maybe he was in a quandary, nervous whatever...it was certainly massive.....of course we shall never know what was going through Stillingtons mind at that time ..but I find it perfectly plausible that he may have struggled with what was the best thing to do at that time...
>
> Carol again:
>
> I just wanted to make clear who said what here. Also, I need to clarify the pronoun references in my sentence. That should be, "Only when *Edward IV* was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did *Stillington* need to make the precontract known.
>
> Sorry about that. I think it was clear in context, but out of context, the "he's" seem to refer to the same person and make nonsense out of the sentence.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
> the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?
>


Perhaps it wasn't so much an attack of the conscience - perhaps the truth was already about to come out from (possibly many) different directions, and Stillington had precious little choice about the matter? I don't for one minute believe he was the only one to know about it.

I think the timing makes perfect sense: the Woodvilles were effectively neutralised, so it was safe to speak out. If the Woodvilles knew all along, it would also explain their rushed attempt to secure power. Traditionalist sources tend to explain this so that the Woodvilles were 'afraid' of Richard, but what if they were afraid of the truth coming out instead - and had to act swiftly because of it?

In 1911, a journalist accused George V of bigamy and was tried for criminal libel, being imprisoned for a year.
I don't think Edward IV was nearly so tolerant.
----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
> the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?
>

Perhaps it wasn't so much an attack of the conscience - perhaps the truth was already about to come out from (possibly many) different directions, and Stillington had precious little choice about the matter? I don't for one minute believe he was the only one to know about it.

I think the timing makes perfect sense: the Woodvilles were effectively neutralised, so it was safe to speak out. If the Woodvilles knew all along, it would also explain their rushed attempt to secure power. Traditionalist sources tend to explain this so that the Woodvilles were 'afraid' of Richard, but what if they were afraid of the truth coming out instead - and had to act swiftly because of it?

Don't worry you aren't turning in to Hilary Mantel (much as I loved Wolf Hall)



Liz


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 
Carol again:

I just wanted to make clear who said what here. Also, I need to clarify the pronoun references in my sentence. That should be, "Only when *Edward IV* was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did *Stillington* need to make the precontract known.

Sorry about that. I think it was clear in context, but out of context, the "he's" seem to refer to the same person and make nonsense out of the sentence.

Carol

IMHO Stillington can hardly be blamed for keeping gob shut while Edward lived and the Woodvilles were flying high....unless of course he had suicidal tendencies or fancied taking a swim in a butt of Malmesy...
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> In 1911, a journalist accused George V of bigamy and was tried for criminal libel, being imprisoned for a year.
> I don't think Edward IV was nearly so tolerant.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> >Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
> > the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?
> >
>
> Perhaps it wasn't so much an attack of the conscience - perhaps the truth was already about to come out from (possibly many) different directions, and Stillington had precious little choice about the matter? I don't for one minute believe he was the only one to know about it.
>
> I think the timing makes perfect sense: the Woodvilles were effectively neutralised, so it was safe to speak out. If the Woodvilles knew all along, it would also explain their rushed attempt to secure power. Traditionalist sources tend to explain this so that the Woodvilles were 'afraid' of Richard, but what if they were afraid of the truth coming out instead - and had to act swiftly because of it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think one of the most compelling reasons to believe the Stillington assertion that Edward had married Lady Eleanor is that this is exactly the same behavior we see in his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. The difference is that it became politic for Edward to use the Woodville marriage to rein in the Earl of Warwick, who was negotiating for a French alliance.

I can't see Elizabeth allowing herself to be shuffled off to the side as Eleanor did, though. Bought off, maybe, but not discarded without protest.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Don't worry you aren't turning in to Hilary Mantel (much as I loved Wolf Hall)
>
>
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 17:31
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
>
>  
> Carol again:
>
> I just wanted to make clear who said what here. Also, I need to clarify the pronoun references in my sentence. That should be, "Only when *Edward IV* was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did *Stillington* need to make the precontract known.
>
> Sorry about that. I think it was clear in context, but out of context, the "he's" seem to refer to the same person and make nonsense out of the sentence.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

//snip//
Stillington had no need to raise the issue of the precontract while Edward
was alive. His previous marriage had no effect on *his* right to rule. Only
when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son
did he need to make the precontract known."
//snip//

Doug here:
Note also that, except for the period of the Re-Adeption, the *only*
occurrences of anyone trying to cast doubts on Edward IV's legitimacy were
made *after* Stillington's briefing of the Council.
It's only my opinion, but I believe Richard objected to Dr. Shaa's speech at
St. Paul's, not because it called his *brother's* legitimacy into question,
but because the Council hadn't yet decided how to proceed. After all, if all
the "T"s were to be crossed, the Church would have to rule on the validity
of Edward and EW's marriage, and that could take quite a bit of time.
It's also my opinion that, after the speech was made, a verbal report was
made to those who opposed Richard's assumption of the crown and in that
report it was mentioned that some of those hearing Shaa's speech confused
Edward (V) with Edward IV.
The rest, as they say, is "history."
Doug

Stillington may of course have waited on events to see how the
transition went. When the Woodvilles behaviour and plotting came to
light he decided to intervene with his news? Possible.
Paul


On 10/08/2013 17:13, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> Carol responds:
>>
> Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known.
>
> Exactly.....as for Stillington procastinating....we have to take the human factor into consideration....and maybe he was in a quandary, nervous whatever...it was certainly massive.....of course we shall never know what was going through Stillingtons mind at that time ..but I find it perfectly plausible that he may have struggled with what was the best thing to do at that time...
>> The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).
>>
>> I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Of course.....a myriad of possible reasons which could have caused Stillington to delay for a short while. Who has not come across that kind of predicament in our own lives at some time of the other...what to do for the best... And Stillington faced an enormous quandary...one that could result in loss of lives...civil war even...I keep banging on about it...the human factor in history. Nothing back or white...and everybody concerned having their own personal feelings, fears, doubts, indecision etc., etc., which colour peoples decision making. Of course in this particular case there will be some who think it rather fishy Stillington coming forward at a very opportune time and thus the truthfulness of the Titulus Regius and I guess we will all have to make our own minds up about that one. Personally I have never doubted it....

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Stillington may of course have waited on events to see how the
> transition went. When the Woodvilles behaviour and plotting came to
> light he decided to intervene with his news? Possible.
> Paul
>
>
> On 10/08/2013 17:13, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> > Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known.
> >
> > Exactly.....as for Stillington procastinating....we have to take the human factor into consideration....and maybe he was in a quandary, nervous whatever...it was certainly massive.....of course we shall never know what was going through Stillingtons mind at that time ..but I find it perfectly plausible that he may have struggled with what was the best thing to do at that time...
> >> The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).
> >>
> >> I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

It may have suited them to believe it - the realm was obviously in chaos and order is preferable to that, particularly for those in nice positions in the Church. There's no indication that they beat up Stillington for keeping this secret for twenty-two years. A churchman can break the confessional to a higher churchman, so he could have 'confessed' or shared this much earlier with Bourchier. Why didn't he? Why speak at this point? I'm not saying that the Pre-contract is a lie, I'm hypothesising that someone who actually did the deed or knew someone who did (the equvalent of a Dr Eborall), could have persuaded someone who would be believed - a bishop - to reveal it to those who mattered.
BTW this doesn't mean that Stillington (if indeed it was he and we have only Commines to go on) was a covert Lancastrian. If he had been he could have 'sold' his story years' before to the Lancastrian camp and may indeed have told our George.
It just means that he might have been persuaded, for whatever reason, to let the Council know about the Pre-Contract at a time when the Yorkist regime was particularly vulnerable and the choice between a child (and he was only just a child, remember how Edward III grew up quickly and siezed power) and a relatively unknown (to the City of London and that's what mattered) northerner. An even more astute mind might have persuaded him he was doing it for the common good; knowing that Richard would be regarded with suspicion by London and the South.
 
As I said in my earlier post, it's all about the timing. Hilary  
 
PS (to everyone not just you Stephen) do we really know that Richard and the Woodvilles didn't get on before Stony Stratford? It's a point that Susan Higginbotham makes ( I think quite validly). We know they probably wouldn't have got on with George because of Warwick and Rivers senior, but Richard? I'd have thought he would have got on quite well with Anthony. Is it another legend like the 'silver gilt hair'? 

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 9:32
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?


 

The question isn't whether Richard believed it but whether the regency council and quasi-Parliament believed it. Both, as we have seen, contained many other clergymen who would understand the issues inside out and probably have similar experiences.
The quasi-Parliament believed it and offered Richard the throne.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. Richard, as you say, was a pious, dutiful man and would undoubtedly have believed a bishop. So I don't think for one moment that he would have made it up or indeed even that he wished to be king; he was already 'king' in his own beloved Palatinate. The thing in favour of there having been a Pre-contract is that the person it names is also someone from a noble background (far more so than EW) with a reputation for piety. Why choose her instead of the wife of a City merchant who could have been 'paid off'? So to me it's more of a dilemma as to why then? Why did our bishop (and only Commines names him originally) wait twenty two years to have an attack of conscience when the Yorkist monarchy was at its weakest through untimely death and internal faction? What would he have done if Edward had not died for another four or five years and
the new young king had been able to take matters into his own hands? Would his conscience have pricked so much then?

I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H.

________________________________
From: merriannmclain <mailto:merriannmclain%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 0:57
Subject: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

This is a response to an instructor's query about Edward's precontract/marriage to Lady Eleanor. I am wondering who else has had this thought?

The primary sources (and many Ricardians) are more concerned with Edward's marriage and/or betrothal (in Medieval usage quite the same as marriage) to Lady Eleanor Butler, who died in 1468. The marriage was revealed by Bishop Stillington during a Council meeting soon after Edward's death. I am wondering, now, whether this was a 'put-up' job, the marriage would have been invalid but would divert attention from the Wydville marriage. The Queen would be perceived as the King's mistress and, therefore, subject to Church law which was barbarous.
Considering what is known of his character (pious and dutiful, an effective and conscientious administrator and, if not brilliant, certainly an able military man), his main objectives would have been to ensure the Yorkist line continue and spare his nephews and sister-in-law (she was on friendly terms with him after his coronation which is very telling.) He might  and I admit this is wildly speculative  have determined to transfer odium onto himself. If that was his goal, he succeed beyond anything he might have imagined. "The most compelling reason for rejecting the story of Edward IV's precontract is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. It was based on a series of assertion, almost certainly invented..." (Giles St. Aubyn. 1493  The Year of 3 Kings") Documents may have been removed by Richard and those loyal to the Yorkist cause to cover the real story; conversely, they might have been removed once Henry VII was crowned
for the same reason.
St. Aubyn points out that Edward V's 'supporters' were in jail, exile or dead, he fails to mention that most of them were caught in armed rebellion. He also fails to mention that within 20 years of Bosworth Field, there was not a single Yorkist pretender remaining.
Who was it who said history is written by the winners?

Carol, I agree with what you say from para 2 onwards. As I said in another post, how did he know how the Council would react? His fellow clergy could have asked why he concealed this for so long (albeit from fear of the Woodvilles); why not tell his 'boss' Bourchier? And how did he think Richard might react - he could have been furious, after all it wasn't the first scandal to touch the York family? Like you, I don't think Stillington was a covert Lancastrian. But was he manipulated in some way which made him confess at that point and his manipulator hoped it would split the kingdom even more?
 
I honestly don't know, but I find it hard to reconcile the bright lawyer Stillington (and his case law is still quoted) and the rashness of this revelation just because of 'conscience'. Hilary 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 16:34
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. <snip>
> I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H. 

Carol responds:

To me, the timing--however convenient for those who preferred the highly competent Richard to a boy king whose reign would be a breeding ground for civil war--makes perfect sense. Stillington had no need to raise the issue of the precontract while Edward was alive. His previous marriage had no effect on *his* right to rule. Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known. (Unless, of course, he revealed it earlier to George, who already considered himself the rightful king and would also, given the existence of the precontract, have been the rightful heir.)

The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).

I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")

Carol

Or possibly Stillington wasn't the person who revealed the Precontract at all. The only early - and English - reference we have to his role comes from the Year Book for 1 Henry VII, which states that he was the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been asked to draft it because he was skilled in canon law, rather than because he had witnessed the Eleanor Butler marriage - after all, most of Titulus Regius is concerned with other matters, all with canonical implications.
so may be we ought also to be asking the question: Who else is likely to have known about the marriage?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I agree with what you say from para 2 onwards. As I said in another post, how did he know how the Council would react? His fellow clergy could have asked why he concealed this for so long (albeit from fear of the Woodvilles); why not tell his 'boss' Bourchier? And how did he think Richard might react - he could have been furious, after all it wasn't the first scandal to touch the York family? Like you, I don't think Stillington was a covert Lancastrian. But was he manipulated in some way which made him confess at that point and his manipulator hoped it would split the kingdom even more?
>  
> I honestly don't know, but I find it hard to reconcile the bright lawyer Stillington (and his case law is still quoted) and the rashness of this revelation just because of 'conscience'. Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 16:34
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
>
>  
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. <snip>
> > I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H. 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> To me, the timing--however convenient for those who preferred the highly competent Richard to a boy king whose reign would be a breeding ground for civil war--makes perfect sense. Stillington had no need to raise the issue of the precontract while Edward was alive. His previous marriage had no effect on *his* right to rule. Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known. (Unless, of course, he revealed it earlier to George, who already considered himself the rightful king and would also, given the existence of the precontract, have been the rightful heir.)
>
> The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).
>
> I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I agree with what you say from para 2 onwards. As I said in another post, how did he know how the Council would react? His fellow clergy could have asked why he concealed this for so long (albeit from fear of the Woodvilles); why not tell his 'boss' Bourchier? And how did he think Richard might react - he could have been furious, after all it wasn't the first scandal to touch the York family? Like you, I don't think Stillington was a covert Lancastrian. But was he manipulated in some way which made him confess at that point and his manipulator hoped it would split the kingdom even more?
>  
> I honestly don't know, but I find it hard to reconcile the bright lawyer Stillington (and his case law is still quoted) and the rashness of this revelation just because of 'conscience'. Hilary 

Carol responds:

According to Annette Carson, the City of London was solidly behind Richard and remained so throughout his reign. So, as we know, were the Three Estates (with the exception of a very few discontented nobles, at least one of whom, the Earl of Oxford, was a diehard Lancastrian).

Morton, I think, would have been delighted by the revelation and used it to stir up trouble, but I suspect that Stillington came forward on his own (perhaps with encouragement from Catesby if Hancock is right about his connections with Eleanor Butler's family).

If Stillington, like Richard, believed in the importance of legitimacy to the Yorkist line, his action would have been a matter of conscience.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:

//snip//
"As I said in my earlier post, it's all about the timing."
//snip//

Doug here:
Was any "timing", in the sense of planning and forethought, really ever
involved, though?
Edward IV was recognized as the legitimate King of England, basing his right
to the throne on that of his father's, Richard, Duke of York. The whole
raison d'etre of the Yorkist cause was that *they* represented the
legitimate line of descent from Edward III. And they did; until Edward IV
died and his son from an illegal liaison stood to inherit the throne.
While Edward IV lived England had a legitimate king who acknowledged his
children as being legitimate. An attempt by any person to bring up the
matter *before* Edward IV died would undoubtedly result in a treason charge,
imprisonment and, most likely, execution. The only possible way to raise the
matter while Edward was alive would have been to unite the Church, with all
its bishops and abbots, to all, or almost all, of the nobility (good luck
with that!), and also gain the support of the merchant classes, if only to
prevent Edward from receiving aid from them. Only such a completely united
front could protect the participants from Edward's anger. And how was
secrecy to be manitained until the conspiracy, which is exactly how Edward
would view it, was far-ranging enough to have any results?
Similar objections apply to Stillington informing anyone else *before*
Edward died. Other than ensuring the knowledge would still be available if
anything happened to Stillington, what was gained? Either Stillington's
evidence was valid or it wasn't, but in either case nothing *could* be done
until Edward died and the Council could be informed and make its judgement
on the validity of the evidence. Which is exactly what *did* happen.
For what it's worth, it's my view that it was to maintain the legitimacy
that the Yorkists stood for that led Stillington to present his evidence,
whether first-hand or provided to him, about Edward's marriage with EB to
the Council. That it took over a month for him to do so indicates, to me
anyway, that he fully recognized that the effects of his revelation might be
unsettling, to say the least!
Doug

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Or possibly Stillington wasn't the person who revealed the Precontract at all. The only early - and English - reference we have to his role comes from the Year Book for 1 Henry VII, which states that he was the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been asked to draft it because he was skilled in canon law, rather than because he had witnessed the Eleanor Butler marriage - after all, most of Titulus Regius is concerned with other matters, all with canonical implications.
> so may be we ought also to be asking the question: Who else is likely to have known about the marriage?
> Marie

Carol responds:

One person who would almost certainly know was Edward's confessor. Do we know who that was, and would he have been allowed to by canon law to reveal a king's confession in this instance?

As for Cardinal Bourchier, maybe Stillington (or Richard's confessor) did go to him before going to Richard. He wasn't a member of the council, was he? If Bourchier supported Stillington (or the other priest), Richard would have had no choice but to put the matter before the council.

Carol

You know I was thinking last night (as one does in the small hours :) ) there was another chance we tend to forget about. Edward V was born during the Re-adeption. His mother was in sanctuary and his father (officially no longer King) in exile. Now if you 'had the knowledge' wouldn't that have been the time to make the announcement - 'and you know what, Edward's son is illegitimate as well, so we're better off with Prince Edward of L and then George of C as heir'. Now, as many have said, Edward, on regaining the throne (and no-one knew at that point that he would) could have married and had a 'proper' heir and divorced EW. He would have to do that. But it's strange, the more you think, that no-one mentioned it. Unless Stillington (were it he) was so loyal to York that he kept stum. But Edward didn't reward him very well for silence post 1471 did he? Yet another dog that didn't bark. I don't know, I don't know.  Hilary



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 17:43
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

//snip//
"As I said in my earlier post, it's all about the timing."
//snip//

Doug here:
Was any "timing", in the sense of planning and forethought, really ever
involved, though?
Edward IV was recognized as the legitimate King of England, basing his right
to the throne on that of his father's, Richard, Duke of York. The whole
raison d'etre of the Yorkist cause was that *they* represented the
legitimate line of descent from Edward III. And they did; until Edward IV
died and his son from an illegal liaison stood to inherit the throne.
While Edward IV lived England had a legitimate king who acknowledged his
children as being legitimate. An attempt by any person to bring up the
matter *before* Edward IV died would undoubtedly result in a treason charge,
imprisonment and, most likely, execution. The only possible way to raise the
matter while Edward was alive would have been to unite the Church, with all
its bishops and abbots, to all, or almost all, of the nobility (good luck
with that!), and also gain the support of the merchant classes, if only to
prevent Edward from receiving aid from them. Only such a completely united
front could protect the participants from Edward's anger. And how was
secrecy to be manitained until the conspiracy, which is exactly how Edward
would view it, was far-ranging enough to have any results?
Similar objections apply to Stillington informing anyone else *before*
Edward died. Other than ensuring the knowledge would still be available if
anything happened to Stillington, what was gained? Either Stillington's
evidence was valid or it wasn't, but in either case nothing *could* be done
until Edward died and the Council could be informed and make its judgement
on the validity of the evidence. Which is exactly what *did* happen.
For what it's worth, it's my view that it was to maintain the legitimacy
that the Yorkists stood for that led Stillington to present his evidence,
whether first-hand or provided to him, about Edward's marriage with EB to
the Council. That it took over a month for him to do so indicates, to me
anyway, that he fully recognized that the effects of his revelation might be
unsettling, to say the least!
Doug

Yes, yes Marie! Carol we know a favourite confessor of Edward and Elizabeth from the late 1470s was Prior Ingleby - the father-in-law of Stillington's niece. He witnessed EW's will. Under canon law he could break the confessional to a superior - a bishop.
 
BTW this was really Meriam's question; I just gave one answer. I don't want to deflect stuff from her original.  Hilary
 
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 16:46
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 



mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Or possibly Stillington wasn't the person who revealed the Precontract at all. The only early - and English - reference we have to his role comes from the Year Book for 1 Henry VII, which states that he was the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been asked to draft it because he was skilled in canon law, rather than because he had witnessed the Eleanor Butler marriage - after all, most of Titulus Regius is concerned with other matters, all with canonical implications.
> so may be we ought also to be asking the question: Who else is likely to have known about the marriage?
> Marie

Carol responds:

One person who would almost certainly know was Edward's confessor. Do we know who that was, and would he have been allowed to by canon law to reveal a king's confession in this instance?

As for Cardinal Bourchier, maybe Stillington (or Richard's confessor) did go to him before going to Richard. He wasn't a member of the council, was he? If Bourchier supported Stillington (or the other priest), Richard would have had no choice but to put the matter before the council.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You know I was thinking last night (as one does in the small hours :) ) there was another chance we tend to forget about. Edward V was born during the Re-adeption. His mother was in sanctuary and his father (officially no longer King) in exile. Now if you 'had the knowledge' wouldn't that have been the time to make the announcement - 'and you know what, Edward's son is illegitimate as well, so we're better off with Prince Edward of L and then George of C as heir'. Now, as many have said, Edward, on regaining the throne (and no-one knew at that point that he would) could have married and had a 'proper' heir and divorced EW. He would have to do that. But it's strange, the more you think, that no-one mentioned it. Unless Stillington (were it he) was so loyal to York that he kept stum. But Edward didn't reward him very well for silence post 1471 did he? Yet another dog that didn't bark. I don't know, I don't know. Hilary

Carol responds:

*If* Stillington knew, his silence certainly indicates that he *was* a Yorkist--as does his behavior in general. But, of course, it was E IV's claim that mattered at the time, not his infant son's.

It just occurred to me that Edward's son Edward wasn't officially a prince when he was born, the Prince of Wales being that other Edward of doubtful legitimacy, Edward of Lancaster.

Carol

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You know I was thinking last night (as one does in the small hours :) ) there was another chance we tend to forget about. Edward V was born during the Re-adeption. His mother was in sanctuary and his father (officially no longer King) in exile. Now if you 'had the knowledge' wouldn't that have been the time to make the announcement - 'and you know what, Edward's son is illegitimate as well, so we're better off with Prince Edward of L and then George of C as heir'. Now, as many have said, Edward, on regaining the throne (and no-one knew at that point that he would) could have married and had a 'proper' heir and divorced EW. He would have to do that. But it's strange, the more you think, that no-one mentioned it. Unless Stillington (were it he) was so loyal to York that he kept stum. But Edward didn't reward him very well for silence post 1471 did he? Yet another dog that didn't bark. I don't know, I don't know.  Hilary
>

Isn't it also possible that the people who had first-hand knowledge of Edward's marriage to Eleanor were dead by the Re-adeption? Perhaps the secret was 'sleeping', so to speak. It hadn't reached the right ears (or eyes), so was thought to be forgotten?

I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's. E.g. Richard Scrope, Bishop of Carlisle, who died just about a month before Eleanor. Wasn't his mother Cecily's sister? One wonders just how close he was to his cousin Edward at some point?

Although, I must confess I don't know what motive someone might have to sit on such explosive information during the Re-adeption - whether it was second-hand or first-hand, and whether it was Stillington or someone else. Unless, of course, that someone decided to watch and wait for the right moment because they wanted to use it as leverage to their own ends? After all, it was pretty useless as leverage (or, to use an uglier term, for blackmail) during the Re-adeption: if Edward wasn't the legitimate King, it scarcely mattered whether his heir was legitimate or not.

Or perhaps that someone simply didn't know what to do with it? They were perturbed by it, but were sufficiently Yorkist (or anti-Lancastrian) not to want it to be used to support the Lancastrian regime?

Perhaps it was someone Yorkist but anti-Woodville and playing a long waiting game was the plan all along?

Or perhaps it only existed on paper and that paper hadn't reached the right eyes yet.

Or something else. The whole thing is such a muddle! Thinking outside the Stillington box only serves to confuse me. Sigh.

Pansy

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You know I was thinking last night (as one does in the small hours :) ) there was another chance we tend to forget about. Edward V was born during the Re-adeption. His mother was in sanctuary and his father (officially no longer King) in exile. Now if you 'had the knowledge' wouldn't that have been the time to make the announcement - 'and you know what, Edward's son is illegitimate as well, so we're better off with Prince Edward of L and then George of C as heir'. Now, as many have said, Edward, on regaining the throne (and no-one knew at that point that he would) could have married and had a 'proper' heir and divorced EW. He would have to do that. But it's strange, the more you think, that no-one mentioned it. Unless Stillington (were it he) was so loyal to York that he kept stum. But Edward didn't reward him very well for silence post 1471 did he? Yet another dog that didn't bark. I don't know, I don't know.  Hilary
>

Hi Hilary,
There's no need for us to tie ourselves up in knots over this, I think. Stillington was a Yorkist, no doubt of it, and spent the Readeption in sanctuary - so there was absolutely no likelihood of him
informing Henry VI's government about Eleanor Butler, even if he knew about her.
As for who else would have known - Edward's confessor at the time (probably - who knows how Edward explained it away to himself?); very possibly Eleanor's sister the Duchess of Norfolk;maybe her husband as well. Very, very few, I should have thought.
Marie




>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 17:43
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
>
>  
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "As I said in my earlier post, it's all about the timing."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Was any "timing", in the sense of planning and forethought, really ever
> involved, though?
> Edward IV was recognized as the legitimate King of England, basing his right
> to the throne on that of his father's, Richard, Duke of York. The whole
> raison d'etre of the Yorkist cause was that *they* represented the
> legitimate line of descent from Edward III. And they did; until Edward IV
> died and his son from an illegal liaison stood to inherit the throne.
> While Edward IV lived England had a legitimate king who acknowledged his
> children as being legitimate. An attempt by any person to bring up the
> matter *before* Edward IV died would undoubtedly result in a treason charge,
> imprisonment and, most likely, execution. The only possible way to raise the
> matter while Edward was alive would have been to unite the Church, with all
> its bishops and abbots, to all, or almost all, of the nobility (good luck
> with that!), and also gain the support of the merchant classes, if only to
> prevent Edward from receiving aid from them. Only such a completely united
> front could protect the participants from Edward's anger. And how was
> secrecy to be manitained until the conspiracy, which is exactly how Edward
> would view it, was far-ranging enough to have any results?
> Similar objections apply to Stillington informing anyone else *before*
> Edward died. Other than ensuring the knowledge would still be available if
> anything happened to Stillington, what was gained? Either Stillington's
> evidence was valid or it wasn't, but in either case nothing *could* be done
> until Edward died and the Council could be informed and make its judgement
> on the validity of the evidence. Which is exactly what *did* happen.
> For what it's worth, it's my view that it was to maintain the legitimacy
> that the Yorkists stood for that led Stillington to present his evidence,
> whether first-hand or provided to him, about Edward's marriage with EB to
> the Council. That it took over a month for him to do so indicates, to me
> anyway, that he fully recognized that the effects of his revelation might be
> unsettling, to say the least!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, yes Marie! Carol we know a favourite confessor of Edward and Elizabeth from the late 1470s was Prior Ingleby - the father-in-law of Stillington's niece. He witnessed EW's will. Under canon law he could break the confessional to a superior - a bishop.
>


Forgive my ignorance, but was it common for chaplains and confessors to be separate people? I always thought that the chaplain was usually also the confessor.

I've been wondering how much the priests closest to Edward would have known (and whether one of them might even have officiated the marriage) and tried to look up as many of Edward IV's chaplains as I could - from different time periods in his reign, mentioned in different sources:

- Walter Westley/Wesley (early on)
- Thomas St Just (also early on; died in 1467)
- Thomas Rotherham
- John Gunthorpe (appointed in 1466)
- Benedict Burgh (in 1470)
- John Arundell - when?
- Richard Fitzjames - when?
- Thomas Langton (ca. 1476)
- Dr Field (who? in the '19th year' of Edward's reign)

The icing on the cake is that some books say Edward's chaplain and confessor at the time of his death was... wait for it... RALPH SHAW/SHAA. Does anyone know if this is really true? Because, if so, it's quite... wow. (Other sources say he was Richard's chaplain, but surely that can't be? Richard's chaplain in 1483 is said to have been John Dogget.)

I also wonder about the likes of John Booth, Bishop of Exeter, who was Edward's secretary circa 1461-65 and conveniently (?) died in 1478.

I still like to think there might have been a secret network of priests who told each other - which made the secret ultimately unmanageable, no matter who was silenced and how.

Pansy

Pansy wrote: I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.


Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanor's death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of York's wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.

The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as they've gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.

Oops, it should read and ELIZABETH and Humphrey would surely not have left at all... =^..^=

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 7:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?


Pansy wrote: I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.

Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanor's death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of York's wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.

The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as they've gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.

The ultimate power, knowledge, and among clergy/cronies.

On Aug 12, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, yes Marie! Carol we know a favourite confessor of Edward and Elizabeth from the late 1470sý was Prior Ingleby - the father-in-law of Stillington's niece. He witnessed EW's will. Under canon law he could break the confessional to a superior - a bishop.
>

Forgive my ignorance, but was it common for chaplains and confessors to be separate people? I always thought that the chaplain was usually also the confessor.

I've been wondering how much the priests closest to Edward would have known (and whether one of them might even have officiated the marriage) and tried to look up as many of Edward IV's chaplains as I could - from different time periods in his reign, mentioned in different sources:

- Walter Westley/Wesley (early on)
- Thomas St Just (also early on; died in 1467)
- Thomas Rotherham
- John Gunthorpe (appointed in 1466)
- Benedict Burgh (in 1470)
- John Arundell - when?
- Richard Fitzjames - when?
- Thomas Langton (ca. 1476)
- Dr Field (who? in the '19th year' of Edward's reign)

The icing on the cake is that some books say Edward's chaplain and confessor at the time of his death was... wait for it... RALPH SHAW/SHAA. Does anyone know if this is really true? Because, if so, it's quite... wow. (Other sources say he was Richard's chaplain, but surely that can't be? Richard's chaplain in 1483 is said to have been John Dogget.)

I also wonder about the likes of John Booth, Bishop of Exeter, who was Edward's secretary circa 1461-65 and conveniently (?) died in 1478.

I still like to think there might have been a secret network of priests who told each other - which made the secret ultimately unmanageable, no matter who was silenced and how.

Pansy

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote: “I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.”
>
>
> Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanor’s death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of York’s wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.
>
> The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury’s second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as they’ve gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.
>


Exactly how I feel, Sandra. And we all know Edward was perfectly willing to delegate some very dirty work (see: Tiptoft).

We're talking about a man who had his own brother killed when the latter became too much of an inconvenience. Why not Eleanor - and whoever else?

Pansy

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As for who else would have known - Edward's confessor at the time (probably - who knows how Edward explained it away to himself?); very possibly Eleanor's sister the Duchess of Norfolk;maybe her husband as well. Very, very few, I should have thought.
> Marie
>

Do we know who might have been Eleanor's confessor at the time of her death? Who was the chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk's household, or did Eleanor have her own? (I assume Thomas Cosyn wasn't the Duchess's chaplain quite yet?)

I'm also quite intrigued by John Vescey (or Vessey, or Vesey, or Vescy, or whatever), the Prior of Thetford from 1441 to (at least) 1479.*

The Prior seems to have been a very wealthy man in his own right, and the Priory of Thetford was not only close to Kenninghall, but also had very close ties to the Mowbray family: the 4th Duke was buried there, as were many others of his kin. (What's interesting is that the Priory of Thetford also had long-standing connections to the Bigod family - I wonder if it has come up in Hilary's genealogical investigations?)

What's *very* interesting is that the Prior of Thetford also seems to have been quite political - and a Lancastrian, at least in 1471. Among the Paston papers, there's that letter assumed to be from the Earl of Oxford to his wife after Barnet, and it says:

'Also ye shall send to the Prior of Thetford, and bid him send me the sum of gold that he said that I should have; also say to him by this token; that I showed him the first privy seal, &c.'

It's an interesting scenario: the Duke of Norfolk isn't a Lancastrian (not overtly, anyway) but the Prior of Thetford, who is after all closely associated with him, is so political that he's actually funding Lancastrians against Edward IV.

One wonders what exactly was going on behind the scenes… and where exactly the gold was coming from.

Pansy

*) The Priory confuses me, though, because the scanty online sources I can find make it sound like there were two Priories at Thetford... one Peter Oldman is mentioned as the Prior of Thetford in 1475. Hmm.

Being very cynical I really do wonder how many people (other than the two families who had spawned kings) really cared about the legitimacy of the blood line. Edward II and Richard II were legitimate kings by any measure but those who mattered supported their removal. What would surely be of the utmost importance to those with money and influence would be a government which enabled money to be made and land to be gained and retained within a lawful context. I doubt many were that altruistic that they put support of a family before their own interests, unless, like the Nevilles, they were so intertwined they were dragged into the quarrels. So they would support kings who appeared to them to be successful, like Edward III, Henry V or Edward IV, regardless of faction and regardless of the fact that we now see them with all their flaws.
 
Sorry I have such a Hobbesian view of life :)  Hilary 
 
PS Re London, I fear Annette may be over-confident in her views. They're certainly not echoed by Richard's biographers or by Horrox, for whom I have a great deal of respect regardless of her views on the fate of the princes. There's little evidence that Richard actively wooed the City of London in the way that Edward promoted and protected their views - albeit he didn't have much time to do so. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 16:36
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I agree with what you say from para 2 onwards. As I said in another post, how did he know how the Council would react? His fellow clergy could have asked why he concealed this for so long (albeit from fear of the Woodvilles); why not tell his 'boss' Bourchier? And how did he think Richard might react - he could have been furious, after all it wasn't the first scandal to touch the York family? Like you, I don't think Stillington was a covert Lancastrian. But was he manipulated in some way which made him confess at that point and his manipulator hoped it would split the kingdom even more?
>  
> I honestly don't know, but I find it hard to reconcile the bright lawyer Stillington (and his case law is still quoted) and the rashness of this revelation just because of 'conscience'. Hilary 

Carol responds:

According to Annette Carson, the City of London was solidly behind Richard and remained so throughout his reign. So, as we know, were the Three Estates (with the exception of a very few discontented nobles, at least one of whom, the Earl of Oxford, was a diehard Lancastrian).

Morton, I think, would have been delighted by the revelation and used it to stir up trouble, but I suspect that Stillington came forward on his own (perhaps with encouragement from Catesby if Hancock is right about his connections with Eleanor Butler's family).

If Stillington, like Richard, believed in the importance of legitimacy to the Yorkist line, his action would have been a matter of conscience.

Carol

Just a few scattered bits:
 
Cosyn was an academic centred on Christ's College Cambridge which the sisters endowed, so he was around most of the time.
 
To fuel your theories, John Mowbray (Norfolk) died suddenly and young - very much like Edward (but younger), here one day and happy, gone the next. Always thought that a bit odd, but then most of this translates into conspiracies very well.
 
And brother Humphrey Talbot seems to have kept very quiet. He died, I seem to recall, on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.  Hilary


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As for who else would have known - Edward's confessor at the time (probably - who knows how Edward explained it away to himself?); very possibly Eleanor's sister the Duchess of Norfolk;maybe her husband as well. Very, very few, I should have thought.
> Marie
>

Do we know who might have been Eleanor's confessor at the time of her death? Who was the chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk's household, or did Eleanor have her own? (I assume Thomas Cosyn wasn't the Duchess's chaplain quite yet?)

I'm also quite intrigued by John Vescey (or Vessey, or Vesey, or Vescy, or whatever), the Prior of Thetford from 1441 to (at least) 1479.*

The Prior seems to have been a very wealthy man in his own right, and the Priory of Thetford was not only close to Kenninghall, but also had very close ties to the Mowbray family: the 4th Duke was buried there, as were many others of his kin. (What's interesting is that the Priory of Thetford also had long-standing connections to the Bigod family - I wonder if it has come up in Hilary's genealogical investigations?)

What's *very* interesting is that the Prior of Thetford also seems to have been quite political - and a Lancastrian, at least in 1471. Among the Paston papers, there's that letter assumed to be from the Earl of Oxford to his wife after Barnet, and it says:

'Also ye shall send to the Prior of Thetford, and bid him send me the sum of gold that he said that I should have; also say to him by this token; that I showed him the first privy seal, &c.'

It's an interesting scenario: the Duke of Norfolk isn't a Lancastrian (not overtly, anyway) but the Prior of Thetford, who is after all closely associated with him, is so political that he's actually funding Lancastrians against Edward IV.

One wonders what exactly was going on behind the scenes& and where exactly the gold was coming from.

Pansy

*) The Priory confuses me, though, because the scanty online sources I can find make it sound like there were two Priories at Thetford... one Peter Oldman is mentioned as the Prior of Thetford in 1475. Hmm.

John Mowbray - see my other post? Did Eliabeth confide in him? His death left the way for Edward to acquire the Mowbray lands through the marriage of Richard of Salisbury; very convenient. But why would Edward wait until 1468 to dispose of Eleanor unless he'd got wind that Warwick was getting edgy? Warwick was after all married to Eleanor's aunt who had probably met Elizabeth and Eleanor at her sister's funeral in 1467. All this is rife for conspiracy as our friend Leslau found out.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 19:48
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote: â¬SI tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.â¬
>
>
> Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanorâ¬"s death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of Yorkâ¬"s wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.
>
> The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsburyâ¬"s second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as theyâ¬"ve gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.
>

Exactly how I feel, Sandra. And we all know Edward was perfectly willing to delegate some very dirty work (see: Tiptoft).

We're talking about a man who had his own brother killed when the latter became too much of an inconvenience. Why not Eleanor - and whoever else?

Pansy

Well, none of happened in the Library, as a result of a spanner. 

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



 
Just a few scattered bits:
 
Cosyn was an academic centred on Christ's College Cambridge which the sisters endowed, so he was around most of the time.
 
To fuel your theories, John Mowbray (Norfolk) died suddenly and young - very much like Edward (but younger), here one day and happy, gone the next. Always thought that a bit odd, but then most of this translates into conspiracies very well.
 
And brother Humphrey Talbot seems to have kept very quiet. He died, I seem to recall, on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.  Hilary


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As for who else would have known - Edward's confessor at the time (probably - who knows how Edward explained it away to himself?); very possibly Eleanor's sister the Duchess of Norfolk;maybe her husband as well. Very, very few, I should have thought.
> Marie
>

Do we know who might have been Eleanor's confessor at the time of her death? Who was the chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk's household, or did Eleanor have her own? (I assume Thomas Cosyn wasn't the Duchess's chaplain quite yet?)

I'm also quite intrigued by John Vescey (or Vessey, or Vesey, or Vescy, or whatever), the Prior of Thetford from 1441 to (at least) 1479.*

The Prior seems to have been a very wealthy man in his own right, and the Priory of Thetford was not only close to Kenninghall, but also had very close ties to the Mowbray family: the 4th Duke was buried there, as were many others of his kin. (What's interesting is that the Priory of Thetford also had long-standing connections to the Bigod family - I wonder if it has come up in Hilary's genealogical investigations?)

What's *very* interesting is that the Prior of Thetford also seems to have been quite political - and a Lancastrian, at least in 1471. Among the Paston papers, there's that letter assumed to be from the Earl of Oxford to his wife after Barnet, and it says:

'Also ye shall send to the Prior of Thetford, and bid him send me the sum of gold that he said that I should have; also say to him by this token; that I showed him the first privy seal, &c.'

It's an interesting scenario: the Duke of Norfolk isn't a Lancastrian (not overtly, anyway) but the Prior of Thetford, who is after all closely associated with him, is so political that he's actually funding Lancastrians against Edward IV.

One wonders what exactly was going on behind the scenes& and where exactly the gold was coming from.

Pansy

*) The Priory confuses me, though, because the scanty online sources I can find make it sound like there were two Priories at Thetford... one Peter Oldman is mentioned as the Prior of Thetford in 1475. Hmm.

Hastings would probably have known being Edward's " boon companion".


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Or possibly Stillington wasn't the person who revealed the Precontract at all. The only early - and English - reference we have to his role comes from the Year Book for 1 Henry VII, which states that he was the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been asked to draft it because he was skilled in canon law, rather than because he had witnessed the Eleanor Butler marriage - after all, most of Titulus Regius is concerned with other matters, all with canonical implications.
> so may be we ought also to be asking the question: Who else is likely to have known about the marriage?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, I agree with what you say from para 2 onwards. As I said in another post, how did he know how the Council would react? His fellow clergy could have asked why he concealed this for so long (albeit from fear of the Woodvilles); why not tell his 'boss' Bourchier? And how did he think Richard might react - he could have been furious, after all it wasn't the first scandal to touch the York family? Like you, I don't think Stillington was a covert Lancastrian. But was he manipulated in some way which made him confess at that point and his manipulator hoped it would split the kingdom even more?
> >  
> > I honestly don't know, but I find it hard to reconcile the bright lawyer Stillington (and his case law is still quoted) and the rashness of this revelation just because of 'conscience'. Hilary 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 16:34
> > Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. <snip>
> > > I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H. 
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > To me, the timing--however convenient for those who preferred the highly competent Richard to a boy king whose reign would be a breeding ground for civil war--makes perfect sense. Stillington had no need to raise the issue of the precontract while Edward was alive. His previous marriage had no effect on *his* right to rule. Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known. (Unless, of course, he revealed it earlier to George, who already considered himself the rightful king and would also, given the existence of the precontract, have been the rightful heir.)
> >
> > The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).
> >
> > I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I agree with you Mary.....I've often wondered about Elizabeth Shore...being as Edward supposedly really loved her.....on the other hand surely he wouldn't have been as daft as that...Eileen
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Hastings would probably have known being Edward's " boon companion".
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Or possibly Stillington wasn't the person who revealed the Precontract at all. The only early - and English - reference we have to his role comes from the Year Book for 1 Henry VII, which states that he was the author of Titulus Regius. He could well have been asked to draft it because he was skilled in canon law, rather than because he had witnessed the Eleanor Butler marriage - after all, most of Titulus Regius is concerned with other matters, all with canonical implications.
> > so may be we ought also to be asking the question: Who else is likely to have known about the marriage?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol, I agree with what you say from para 2 onwards. As I said in another post, how did he know how the Council would react? His fellow clergy could have asked why he concealed this for so long (albeit from fear of the Woodvilles); why not tell his 'boss' Bourchier? And how did he think Richard might react - he could have been furious, after all it wasn't the first scandal to touch the York family? Like you, I don't think Stillington was a covert Lancastrian. But was he manipulated in some way which made him confess at that point and his manipulator hoped it would split the kingdom even more?
> > >  
> > > I honestly don't know, but I find it hard to reconcile the bright lawyer Stillington (and his case law is still quoted) and the rashness of this revelation just because of 'conscience'. Hilary 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013, 16:34
> > > Subject: Re: Conspiracy within a conspiracy?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I too have had the thought that the revelation of the Pre-contract was a put-up job to weaken the Yorkist administration. <snip>
> > > > I know there are many here who will disagree with my suspicions as well but it is the 'timeliness' or 'untimeliness' of the revelation that bothers me. To those who disagree I apologise for banging on about this yet again. H. 
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > To me, the timing--however convenient for those who preferred the highly competent Richard to a boy king whose reign would be a breeding ground for civil war--makes perfect sense. Stillington had no need to raise the issue of the precontract while Edward was alive. His previous marriage had no effect on *his* right to rule. Only when he was dead and the crown was about to descend to his illegitimate son did he need to make the precontract known. (Unless, of course, he revealed it earlier to George, who already considered himself the rightful king and would also, given the existence of the precontract, have been the rightful heir.)
> > >
> > > The only question (for me) is why Stillington held off telling Richard for more than a month. He may well have been debating with himself--should I or shouldn't I? Which is worse, concealing the fact that the boy king's right to rule is flawed or nonexistent or risking the wrath of the many people who expected Edward V to succeed his father? Given Richard's loyalty to his brother (even after he plainly saw Edward's faults), he may have feared Richard's reaction. (We later see Henry Tudor's reaction--instant imprisonment).
> > >
> > > I really don't see Stillington wishing to undermine the Yorkist regime (and neither did Tudor). But I can see Morton secretly gloating after Stillington's revelation. ("We can make trouble with this!")
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Years ago when I first read about Eleanor Talbot I looked up the Talbots in the DNB at the local library. I am sure that it said that in 1468 Edward gave Humphrey the Earldom of Shrewbury. If that is so then isn't it a bit of a concidence that 1468 is the year that Eleanor died.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote: “I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.”
>
>
> Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanor’s death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of York’s wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.
>
> The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury’s second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as they’ve gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.
>
>
>
>

Humphrey Talbot was never Earl of Shrewsbury. He was from the second marriage and the title went to the offspring of the first marriage. Humph was never more than Sir Humphrey Talbot. But it's true that he didn't seem to kick up a fuss about Eleanor's situation, whatever it really was. Perhaps that's why he went on a pilgrimage to St. Catherine's, Mount Sinai  conscience? Whatever, he didn't live to come back.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: ricard1an
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?


Years ago when I first read about Eleanor Talbot I looked up the Talbots in the DNB at the local library. I am sure that it said that in 1468 Edward gave Humphrey the Earldom of Shrewbury. If that is so then isn't it a bit of a concidence that 1468 is the year that Eleanor died.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote: “I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.”
>
>
> Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanor’s death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of York’s wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.
>
> The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury’s second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as they’ve gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
<snip>
>  
> PS Re London, I fear Annette may be over-confident in her views. They're certainly not echoed by Richard's biographers or by Horrox, for whom I have a great deal of respect regardless of her views on the fate of the princes. There's little evidence that Richard actively wooed the City of London in the way that Edward promoted and protected their views - albeit he didn't have much time to do so. 


Carol responds:

I think that his Parliament took their interests into consideration. Marie, what's your view on this question (whether Londoners continued to support Richard throughout his reign)? Unfortunately, I can't find the passage in "The Maligned King" where Annette states that he retained their support, but I remember quite clearly that she said so.

Carol

He couldn't have done. John Talbot 3rd Baron Shrewsbury , son of John Talbot 2nd Baron Shrewsbury and Elizabeth Butler and Eleanor's half brother, didn't die until 28 Jun 1473. He was succeeded by his son George, 4th Baron Shrewsbury. Eleanor et al were from a second marriage where the title was Viscount Lisle.  Hilary



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 14:26
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 

Years ago when I first read about Eleanor Talbot I looked up the Talbots in the DNB at the local library. I am sure that it said that in 1468 Edward gave Humphrey the Earldom of Shrewbury. If that is so then isn't it a bit of a concidence that 1468 is the year that Eleanor died.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote: â¬SI tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion... including Eleanor's.â¬
>
>
> Sandra replies: There is something about Eleanorâ¬"s death that has a twitchy feel to it. She was very close to her younger sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, with whom she lived for the latter part of her life. Elizabeth was appointed chief lady-in-waiting for Margaret of Yorkâ¬"s wedding journey. Eleanor was ill, but certainly not expected to die, so Elizabeth left on 18th June 1468 for Flanders, along with their brother Humphrey Talbot and the Lisle children. Eleanor suddenly died on 30th June, and they (or maybe just Elizabeth) cut short their stay in Flanders to hurry back to England on 13th July.
>
> The three siblings were very close (children of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsburyâ¬"s second marriage) and Eleanor and Humphrey would surely not have left at all if they knew Eleanor was near death. Then, as soon as theyâ¬"ve gone, she passes away. It may be perfectly innocent, a terrible coincidence, on the other hand... She was suddenly neatly out of the way for good and all, while her two dearest and closest kin, especially Elizabeth, were in far-off Flanders.
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He couldn't have done. John Talbot 3rd Baron Shrewsbury , son of John Talbot 2nd Baron Shrewsbury and Elizabeth Butler and Eleanor's half brother, didn't die until 28 Jun 1473. He was succeeded by his son George, 4th Baron Shrewsbury. Eleanor et al were from a second marriage where the title was Viscount Lisle.  Hilary

Carol responds:

To complicate matters further, when Thomas Talbot, Viscount Lisle, died in 1470, that title became vacant, but Richard, almost immediately after he became king and before he was crowned, gave it to Sir Edward Grey, husband of Thomas Talbot's sister, Elizabeth, and was also Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law (not to be confused with her brother of the same name)--yet, oddly, he came to Richard's support. Can it be that, as both a Grey and a Talbot-by-marriage, *he* knew about the marriage of E 4 and Eleanor Talbot Butler? Sir Edward's wife, if I've figured things out correctly, would have been Eleanor's niece since her father was John Talbot, first Viscount Lisle, Eleanor Butler's brother. (Her mother was Hilary's friend, Joan Cheddar.)

In short, Richard's Viscount Lisle (Sir Edward Grey) was simultaneously Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law and Eleanor Butler's nephew by marriage. And yet he supported Richard (at least at the beginning of his reign). To me, that speaks volumes about the validity of the precontract. It might be worth exploring Sir Edward's connections with his wife's other aunt, Elizabeth Talbot Mowbray, dowager duchess of Norfolk, who may have known about her sister's marriage to Edward IV.

Could *he* have been the one to reveal the precontract to Richard? (Supposedly, he later defected to the Tudor side at Bosworth, but that may be Tudor propaganda.)

Carol

Yes he bore the 'rod with the dove' at R's coronation. He was, dare I say it, the son-in-law of Joan Cheddar deceased, whose sister's children were to marry Stillington's grandchildren in the late 1480s and in whose circle Stillington had moved for some time.  Did he tell Stillington? Off we go again.....  Hilary  :)



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 16:45
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> He couldn't have done. John Talbot 3rd Baron Shrewsbury , son of John Talbot 2nd Baron Shrewsbury and Elizabeth Butler and Eleanor's half brother, didn't die until 28 Jun 1473. He was succeeded by his son George, 4th Baron Shrewsbury. Eleanor et al were from a second marriage where the title was Viscount Lisle.  Hilary

Carol responds:

To complicate matters further, when Thomas Talbot, Viscount Lisle, died in 1470, that title became vacant, but Richard, almost immediately after he became king and before he was crowned, gave it to Sir Edward Grey, husband of Thomas Talbot's sister, Elizabeth, and was also Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law (not to be confused with her brother of the same name)--yet, oddly, he came to Richard's support. Can it be that, as both a Grey and a Talbot-by-marriage, *he* knew about the marriage of E 4 and Eleanor Talbot Butler? Sir Edward's wife, if I've figured things out correctly, would have been Eleanor's niece since her father was John Talbot, first Viscount Lisle, Eleanor Butler's brother. (Her mother was Hilary's friend, Joan Cheddar.)

In short, Richard's Viscount Lisle (Sir Edward Grey) was simultaneously Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law and Eleanor Butler's nephew by marriage. And yet he supported Richard (at least at the beginning of his reign). To me, that speaks volumes about the validity of the precontract. It might be worth exploring Sir Edward's connections with his wife's other aunt, Elizabeth Talbot Mowbray, dowager duchess of Norfolk, who may have known about her sister's marriage to Edward IV.

Could *he* have been the one to reveal the precontract to Richard? (Supposedly, he later defected to the Tudor side at Bosworth, but that may be Tudor propaganda.)

Carol

pansydobersby wrote:

//snip//
The icing on the cake is that some books say Edward's chaplain and confessor
at the time of his death was... wait for it... RALPH SHAW/SHAA. Does anyone
know if this is really true? Because, if so, it's quite... wow. (Other
sources say he was Richard's chaplain, but surely that can't be? Richard's
chaplain in 1483 is said to have been John Dogget.)"
//snip//

Doug here:
That could explain where Shaa first got his information about Edward's sons
not being "true sons of York". He'd heard it in confession, then, when it
was brought out at the Council meeting, Shaa went ahead and used that
information in his St. Paul's speech because he could refer to the Council
meeting and not Edward's confession as the source and thus protect the
sanctity of the confession.
Which, by the way, would then explain why Richard was said to angry about
Shaa's speech - while *Shaa* may have had further corraboration that
Richard's nephews were illegitimate (Edward's confession), Richard and the
Council weren't privy to Shaa's source!
It's all speculation, but it *is* very interesting!
Doug

pansydobersby wrote:

"Isn't it also possible that the people who had first-hand knowledge of
Edward's marriage to Eleanor were dead by the Re-adeption? Perhaps the
secret was 'sleeping', so to speak. It hadn't reached the right ears (or
eyes), so was thought to be forgotten?
I tend to view all deaths that occurred circa 1467-69 with some suspicion...
including Eleanor's. E.g. Richard Scrope, Bishop of Carlisle, who died just
about a month before Eleanor. Wasn't his mother Cecily's sister? One wonders
just how close he was to his cousin Edward at some point?
Although, I must confess I don't know what motive someone might have to sit
on such explosive information during the Re-adeption - whether it was
second-hand or first-hand, and whether it was Stillington or someone else.
Unless, of course, that someone decided to watch and wait for the right
moment because they wanted to use it as leverage to their own ends? After
all, it was pretty useless as leverage (or, to use an uglier term, for
blackmail) during the Re-adeption: if Edward wasn't the legitimate King, it
scarcely mattered whether his heir was legitimate or not.
Or perhaps that someone simply didn't know what to do with it? They were
perturbed by it, but were sufficiently Yorkist (or anti-Lancastrian) not to
want it to be used to support the Lancastrian regime?
Perhaps it was someone Yorkist but anti-Woodville and playing a long waiting
game was the plan all along?
Or perhaps it only existed on paper and that paper hadn't reached the right
eyes yet.
Or something else. The whole thing is such a muddle! Thinking outside the
Stillington box only serves to confuse me. Sigh."

Doug here:
Well, *if* the matter were to brought up, either during or immediately after
the Re-Adeption, the dangers I mentioned in an earlier post would still
apply. The only way for those dangers to *not* apply would be to approach
Edward and get him to agree to publicly admit that his "marriage" to EW
wasn't valid. Which I can't see him doing just at the very point when he
needed all the support he could muster in order to regain the throne!
For anyone else to do so would merely split the Yorkist camp, as happened
after Edward's death, and, most likely, ensure a Lancastrian victory.
Doug

These discussions illustrate my point: the precontract/marriage diverted attention from the issue of the Wydville marriage which, by canon law, was invalid.
If Stillington merely prepared the Titulus Regis, could the revelation itself have come through Elizabeth Beaufort's agents? Perhaps, I am wrong, but I see her as a 'Livia' character (Graves, "I, Claudius"), outwardly virtuous but utterly ruthless in pursuit of a goal.
Is it likely that Richard used the Butler issue as a smokescreen to keep Elizabeth Wydville and the Princes safe from the Tudor? Certainly EW reconciled with Richard, making it appear to fit the theory.

The second Earl was Lady Eleanor's paternal half-brother so she was not maternally a Neville..
PS If I can find the "consanguinity test" on my hard drive, I will upload it. Imagine the spreadsheet you might need for a tennis or snooker competition.
----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> I don't know what relationship it is that you were concerned with, and I haven't seen the database. But what I have now done is to plot Edward and Eleanor's family trees to the required number of generations using the spreadsheet that Stephen kindly made for me some years back, and there are no clashes. There is a common Mortimer descent, but the common Mortimer ancestor is a generation too far back to count.
> Need to get on with other things, but if anybody would like to volunteer to draw up a table of all Sir Thomas Butler's ancestors up to great-great-great grandparents, I could check whether there was any link with Edward IV's tree which would have resulted in an impediment of affinity (because there was a bar on marrying a relative of pervious spouse).
> The most distant relationship that counted was 4th and 5th degrees - ie a common ancestor who was four generations up from one party and five generations up from the other (3rd cousins once removed, in other words).
> Marie
>

What about the 3rd Lord Neville of Raby? Grandfather to Cecily and great-grandfather to the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury?

Or did I get this wrong?

Pansy

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The second Earl was Lady Eleanor's paternal half-brother so she was not maternally a Neville..
> PS If I can find the "consanguinity test" on my hard drive, I will upload it. Imagine the spreadsheet you might need for a tennis or snooker competition.
>


Argh, sorry. I always get the rules of affinity all wrong.

Thank goodness I don't do this for a living ;)

Pansy

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Argh, sorry. I always get the rules of affinity all wrong.
>
> Thank goodness I don't do this for a living ;)
>
> Pansy
>

I don't think I'll ever understand the whole affinity thing properly.

Please, someone, explain this to me very slowly: when you marry, your husband's (or wife's) family becomes your family as well. I understand that part, as it's simple.

But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? I never get this right. Your brother is your brother by blood. Through your brother, your sister-in-law 'becomes' your sister by blood. So what about her family??

And what about your grandmother? I mean, the 5th Lord Furnivall was the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's stepfather as well. If you're Eleanor, are your step-grandfather's relatives your relatives also?

Pansy

P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

"But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? "
 
God I hope not!  My brothers in laws are awful.
 
 


Liz

From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?

 
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Argh, sorry. I always get the rules of affinity all wrong.
>
> Thank goodness I don't do this for a living ;)
>
> Pansy
>

I don't think I'll ever understand the whole affinity thing properly.

Please, someone, explain this to me very slowly: when you marry, your husband's (or wife's) family becomes your family as well. I understand that part, as it's simple.

But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? I never get this right. Your brother is your brother by blood. Through your brother, your sister-in-law 'becomes' your sister by blood. So what about her family??

And what about your grandmother? I mean, the 5th Lord Furnivall was the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's stepfather as well. If you're Eleanor, are your step-grandfather's relatives your relatives also?

Pansy

P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

Oh yes, a certain historian has claimed that it is impossible to satisfactorily identify Lady Eleanor. Good thing that didn't deter JA-H.
----- Original Message -----
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Argh, sorry. I always get the rules of affinity all wrong.
>
> Thank goodness I don't do this for a living ;)
>
> Pansy
>

I don't think I'll ever understand the whole affinity thing properly.

Please, someone, explain this to me very slowly: when you marry, your husband's (or wife's) family becomes your family as well. I understand that part, as it's simple.

But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? I never get this right. Your brother is your brother by blood. Through your brother, your sister-in-law 'becomes' your sister by blood. So what about her family??

And what about your grandmother? I mean, the 5th Lord Furnivall was the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's stepfather as well. If you're Eleanor, are your step-grandfather's relatives your relatives also?

Pansy

P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
> http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601
>
> According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
> http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601
>

Sorry, I keep messing things up today (this has been a looooong day). I meant this one lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl's daughter (!):
http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/cssbct/cgi-bin/gedlkup.php/n=royal?royal05846

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Doug here:
> That could explain where Shaa first got his information about Edward's sons
> not being "true sons of York". He'd heard it in confession, then, when it
> was brought out at the Council meeting, Shaa went ahead and used that
> information in his St. Paul's speech because he could refer to the Council
> meeting and not Edward's confession as the source and thus protect the
> sanctity of the confession.
> Which, by the way, would then explain why Richard was said to angry about
> Shaa's speech - while *Shaa* may have had further corraboration that
> Richard's nephews were illegitimate (Edward's confession), Richard and the
> Council weren't privy to Shaa's source!
> It's all speculation, but it *is* very interesting!
> Doug
>


Precisely what I think, Doug! I just wish there were a way to confirm whether Shaa really was chaplain to Edward IV at the time. He was a prebendary of St Paul's, anyway.

(Funny how he's often referred to as a 'popular preacher', making it sound like Richard picked him off the street.)

Pansy

No, as Marie's article proves (however much Hicks thinks so).
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?



"But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? "

God I hope not! My brothers in laws are awful.



Liz

From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 16:18
Subject: Re: Eleanor's death - was Conspiracy within a conspiracy?


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Argh, sorry. I always get the rules of affinity all wrong.
>
> Thank goodness I don't do this for a living ;)
>
> Pansy
>

I don't think I'll ever understand the whole affinity thing properly.

Please, someone, explain this to me very slowly: when you marry, your husband's (or wife's) family becomes your family as well. I understand that part, as it's simple.

But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? I never get this right. Your brother is your brother by blood. Through your brother, your sister-in-law 'becomes' your sister by blood. So what about her family??

And what about your grandmother? I mean, the 5th Lord Furnivall was the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's stepfather as well. If you're Eleanor, are your step-grandfather's relatives your relatives also?

Pansy

P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601

Pansy, I am a novice, and find myself tangled hopelessly. The writing is frightfully difficult to read, and then there are so many crowded on a page.
Just in my own family,traced from the early 1800's in USA, names are spelled differently, children come in and out in listing of families.....I assume, deaths, poverty, work, whatever, spouses change names, whew. So then, when I think I may have a lead in Britain, I am totally and very hopelessly lost.

On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:46 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
> http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601
>
> According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
> http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601
>

Sorry, I keep messing things up today (this has been a looooong day). I meant this one lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl's daughter (!):
http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/cssbct/cgi-bin/gedlkup.php/n=royal?royal05846

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Argh, sorry. I always get the rules of affinity all wrong.
> >
> > Thank goodness I don't do this for a living ;)
> >
> > Pansy
> >
>
> I don't think I'll ever understand the whole affinity thing properly.
>
> Please, someone, explain this to me very slowly: when you marry, your husband's (or wife's) family becomes your family as well. I understand that part, as it's simple.
>
> But if your brother marries someone, do your sister-in-law's close relatives become your relatives or not? I never get this right. Your brother is your brother by blood. Through your brother, your sister-in-law 'becomes' your sister by blood. So what about her family??

Marie here:
In a nutshell: No. You could do with reading my article on Richard's dispensation in the Files section ('Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce'). This is the mistake that Michael Hicks made, and other historians have made before him.
When you have sex with someone you "become one flesh". So you can't then marry any of your husband's relatives up to 3rd cousins: they are now your "affines". But your sister has not become "one flesh" with your husband (we hope), so his relatives are not her affines. Also simple. That is the way affinity has always worked. Parents seeking a family alliance very frequently made two marriages between their various children.



>
> And what about your grandmother? I mean, the 5th Lord Furnivall was the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's stepfather as well. If you're Eleanor, are your step-grandfather's relatives your relatives also?

Marie again:
The rule applied in the same way to stepchildren. If a widower and widow married, this did not prevent their children by their previous marriages hitching up with each other. In fact, again you often see a double marriage in this circumstance - the widower and widow, and two of their existing children.
In another nutshell, there is no possibility of a virgin having a relationship of affinity with anybody; and someone who is sexually experienced can only be related by affinity to blood kin of previous sexual partners.
Simples.
>

>
> P.S. By the way, has anyone ever noticed just how messy and plain wrong some of these genealogical websites are? For example, this one here lists Eleanor as the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter (!):
> http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601
>
> According to this one (and several others), Eleanor didn't exist at all:
> http://thepeerage.com/p10761.htm#i107601
>

Marie endorses above statement wholeheartedly.

Never came in on this at the time, but I'm not confident that, as far as the King is concerned, chaplain is the same as confessor. The King had several chaplains, because the royal chapels were institutions rather than just somewhere for the same little man to say mass for you every morning; but I would think he wouldn't make his confession to just any of the priests of his chapel: too much of a security risk apart from anything else. I would think you would want to see the word 'confessor' attached to a person's name to be sure he really did hear the King's outpourings.
Marie

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doug here:
> > That could explain where Shaa first got his information about Edward's sons
> > not being "true sons of York". He'd heard it in confession, then, when it
> > was brought out at the Council meeting, Shaa went ahead and used that
> > information in his St. Paul's speech because he could refer to the Council
> > meeting and not Edward's confession as the source and thus protect the
> > sanctity of the confession.
> > Which, by the way, would then explain why Richard was said to angry about
> > Shaa's speech - while *Shaa* may have had further corraboration that
> > Richard's nephews were illegitimate (Edward's confession), Richard and the
> > Council weren't privy to Shaa's source!
> > It's all speculation, but it *is* very interesting!
> > Doug
> >
>
>
> Precisely what I think, Doug! I just wish there were a way to confirm whether Shaa really was chaplain to Edward IV at the time. He was a prebendary of St Paul's, anyway.
>
> (Funny how he's often referred to as a 'popular preacher', making it sound like Richard picked him off the street.)
>
> Pansy
>

I was talking to someone who lives in Mottram where the Shaa family originated, at the weekend. He said that there is a painting of Edmund Shaa at the Guildhall, offering the crown to Richard. I looked it up on the Internet and found a small version of the painting but it looked relatively modern. It was something that I had not heard before about Edmund Shaa offering the crown to Richard So if your "speculation" is correct Doug and as Marie said it may well be that Stillington's involvement may just have been drawing up the Titulus Regius, that could be what happened. Only speculation but as you say interesting.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doug here:
> > That could explain where Shaa first got his information about Edward's sons
> > not being "true sons of York". He'd heard it in confession, then, when it
> > was brought out at the Council meeting, Shaa went ahead and used that
> > information in his St. Paul's speech because he could refer to the Council
> > meeting and not Edward's confession as the source and thus protect the
> > sanctity of the confession.
> > Which, by the way, would then explain why Richard was said to angry about
> > Shaa's speech - while *Shaa* may have had further corraboration that
> > Richard's nephews were illegitimate (Edward's confession), Richard and the
> > Council weren't privy to Shaa's source!
> > It's all speculation, but it *is* very interesting!
> > Doug
> >
>
>
> Precisely what I think, Doug! I just wish there were a way to confirm whether Shaa really was chaplain to Edward IV at the time. He was a prebendary of St Paul's, anyway.
>
> (Funny how he's often referred to as a 'popular preacher', making it sound like Richard picked him off the street.)
>
> Pansy
>

Marie wrote:

"Never came in on this at the time, but I'm not confident that, as far as
the King is concerned, chaplain is the same as confessor. The King had
several chaplains, because the royal chapels were institutions rather than
just somewhere for the same little man to say mass for you every morning;
but I would think he wouldn't make his confession to just any of the priests
of his chapel: too much of a security risk apart from anything else. I would
think you would want to see the word 'confessor' attached to a person's name
to be sure he really did hear the King's outpourings."

So it would be better to consider someone mentioned as being a/the "King's
Chaplain" as being more of a public official than anything else? Which,
while it doesn't exclude that person from *also* being the King's confessor,
does make it unlikely.
I presume the King's confessor would be consider a member of the Royal
Household, but would he be paid formally, as in drawing money from the
Exchequer, or "privately", say from something such as the Privy Purse? Would
the latter help explain why there's no record (as if 500 years wasn't
enough!)?
Or if the King's confessor was someone from one of the Orders, would there
even be any payment?
Doug