Curious

I'm still working my way through the lists of Commissions of the Peace. It
strikes me that there are 2 things of interest right off the bat. One is
the frequency with which commissions were named, & the second is how the
personnel changed.

Gloucestershire in the period 1476-1485 (not including Henry VII) had one
of the highest number of commissions during that time period. The pattern
I've seen so far is for some number by Edward IV, one at most by Edward V,
& usually 2 by Richard, one-pre Buckingham's rebellion & one post. Some
counties had another commission named in the 2nd year of Richard's reign,
but some counties had none (do I presume things were operating smoothly
&/or going well in those cases where none was named in Richard's 2nd year?)

Gloucestershire, on the other hand, breaks the pattern, with 1 commission
named by Edward V, & 3 commissions named by Richard preceding Buckingham's
rebellion (dated - administratively, I suppose - as Oct 18, in the
attainder), & another 6 commissions of the peace after Buckingham's
rebellion in Richard's first year. What do you all make of this? It looks
to me as if there must have been some trouble brewing before Buckingham's
rebellion & some deal of effort to settle things down again afterwards? I
don't see any dramatic changes in personnel (besides the obvious related to
the known executions).

A J

AJ, I've noticed the South West connection too and there is evidence elsewhere of at least one south western religious house funding Lancaster abroad. I suppose that's logical given the association of the Beaufort Dukes of Somerset and the Earls of Devon with Lancaster and also the proximity to Wales. As for Commissions, I suppose the King had to use what trusted folk he had and also have a mind to the pressures on their time. They usually included at least one Justice like Richard Chokke, or a senior member of the nobility and I do wonder if the canny Edward sometimes chose people about whom he had doubts to test their loyalty? What we don't mention often is the sophisticated spy network which all parties employed. I would love to know more about that, but by its very nature, I doubt we'll ever get 'the files'. Hilary 



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 5:17
Subject: Curious


 

I'm still working my way through the lists of Commissions of the Peace. It
strikes me that there are 2 things of interest right off the bat. One is
the frequency with which commissions were named, & the second is how the
personnel changed.

Gloucestershire in the period 1476-1485 (not including Henry VII) had one
of the highest number of commissions during that time period. The pattern
I've seen so far is for some number by Edward IV, one at most by Edward V,
& usually 2 by Richard, one-pre Buckingham's rebellion & one post. Some
counties had another commission named in the 2nd year of Richard's reign,
but some counties had none (do I presume things were operating smoothly
&/or going well in those cases where none was named in Richard's 2nd year?)

Gloucestershire, on the other hand, breaks the pattern, with 1 commission
named by Edward V, & 3 commissions named by Richard preceding Buckingham's
rebellion (dated - administratively, I suppose - as Oct 18, in the
attainder), & another 6 commissions of the peace after Buckingham's
rebellion in Richard's first year. What do you all make of this? It looks
to me as if there must have been some trouble brewing before Buckingham's
rebellion & some deal of effort to settle things down again afterwards? I
don't see any dramatic changes in personnel (besides the obvious related to
the known executions).

A J

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Curious
What we don't mention often is the sophisticated spy network which all parties employed. I would love to know more about that, but by its very nature, I doubt we'll ever get 'the files'. Hilary
Sandra: Or the complete handwritten Memoirs of a Whistleblower.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is at commissions of the peace remained in place until a new one was appointed. New commissions were issued when the King wished to add a new member or drop one of the existing ones, or where a JP had died and needed to be replaced. To work out what was going on with Gloucestershire, you would first need to draw up lists of the members of each successive commission.
Marie




--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I'm still working my way through the lists of Commissions of the Peace. It
> strikes me that there are 2 things of interest right off the bat. One is
> the frequency with which commissions were named, & the second is how the
> personnel changed.
>
> Gloucestershire in the period 1476-1485 (not including Henry VII) had one
> of the highest number of commissions during that time period. The pattern
> I've seen so far is for some number by Edward IV, one at most by Edward V,
> & usually 2 by Richard, one-pre Buckingham's rebellion & one post. Some
> counties had another commission named in the 2nd year of Richard's reign,
> but some counties had none (do I presume things were operating smoothly
> &/or going well in those cases where none was named in Richard's 2nd year?)
>
> Gloucestershire, on the other hand, breaks the pattern, with 1 commission
> named by Edward V, & 3 commissions named by Richard preceding Buckingham's
> rebellion (dated - administratively, I suppose - as Oct 18, in the
> attainder), & another 6 commissions of the peace after Buckingham's
> rebellion in Richard's first year. What do you all make of this? It looks
> to me as if there must have been some trouble brewing before Buckingham's
> rebellion & some deal of effort to settle things down again afterwards? I
> don't see any dramatic changes in personnel (besides the obvious related to
> the known executions).
>
> A J
>
>
>
>

You mean Alianore Audley?



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 12:41
Subject: Re: Curious


 

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:36 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Curious
What we don't mention often is the sophisticated spy network which all parties employed. I would love to know more about that, but by its very nature, I doubt we'll ever get 'the files'. Hilary
Sandra: Or the complete handwritten Memoirs of a Whistleblower.

Marie that's what I'm doing. And as I mentioned, it's remarkable how few
changes (allowing for deaths) there were from Edward IV - Edward V -
Richard III. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that a single
change (or two) might be signifcant. At the current state of my knowledge,
I recognize when some of the familiar names (like Norfolk, Catesby,
Ratcliffe, & Buckingham himself) are added to the rosters, & perhaps these
additions are significant?

A J


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I may be wrong, but my understanding is at commissions of the peace
> remained in place until a new one was appointed. New commissions were
> issued when the King wished to add a new member or drop one of the existing
> ones, or where a JP had died and needed to be replaced. To work out what
> was going on with Gloucestershire, you would first need to draw up lists of
> the members of each successive commission.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm still working my way through the lists of Commissions of the Peace.
> It
> > strikes me that there are 2 things of interest right off the bat. One is
> > the frequency with which commissions were named, & the second is how the
> > personnel changed.
> >
> > Gloucestershire in the period 1476-1485 (not including Henry VII) had one
> > of the highest number of commissions during that time period. The pattern
> > I've seen so far is for some number by Edward IV, one at most by Edward
> V,
> > & usually 2 by Richard, one-pre Buckingham's rebellion & one post. Some
> > counties had another commission named in the 2nd year of Richard's reign,
> > but some counties had none (do I presume things were operating smoothly
> > &/or going well in those cases where none was named in Richard's 2nd
> year?)
> >
> > Gloucestershire, on the other hand, breaks the pattern, with 1 commission
> > named by Edward V, & 3 commissions named by Richard preceding
> Buckingham's
> > rebellion (dated - administratively, I suppose - as Oct 18, in the
> > attainder), & another 6 commissions of the peace after Buckingham's
> > rebellion in Richard's first year. What do you all make of this? It looks
> > to me as if there must have been some trouble brewing before Buckingham's
> > rebellion & some deal of effort to settle things down again afterwards? I
> > don't see any dramatic changes in personnel (besides the obvious related
> to
> > the known executions).
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Must be significant. Everything was done for a reason. Also significant, of course, is who got dropped, and were they dead, in rebellion, or what?
Marie

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Marie that's what I'm doing. And as I mentioned, it's remarkable how few
> changes (allowing for deaths) there were from Edward IV - Edward V -
> Richard III. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that a single
> change (or two) might be signifcant. At the current state of my knowledge,
> I recognize when some of the familiar names (like Norfolk, Catesby,
> Ratcliffe, & Buckingham himself) are added to the rosters, & perhaps these
> additions are significant?
>
> A J



>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I may be wrong, but my understanding is at commissions of the peace
> > remained in place until a new one was appointed. New commissions were
> > issued when the King wished to add a new member or drop one of the existing
> > ones, or where a JP had died and needed to be replaced. To work out what
> > was going on with Gloucestershire, you would first need to draw up lists of
> > the members of each successive commission.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still working my way through the lists of Commissions of the Peace.
> > It
> > > strikes me that there are 2 things of interest right off the bat. One is
> > > the frequency with which commissions were named, & the second is how the
> > > personnel changed.
> > >
> > > Gloucestershire in the period 1476-1485 (not including Henry VII) had one
> > > of the highest number of commissions during that time period. The pattern
> > > I've seen so far is for some number by Edward IV, one at most by Edward
> > V,
> > > & usually 2 by Richard, one-pre Buckingham's rebellion & one post. Some
> > > counties had another commission named in the 2nd year of Richard's reign,
> > > but some counties had none (do I presume things were operating smoothly
> > > &/or going well in those cases where none was named in Richard's 2nd
> > year?)
> > >
> > > Gloucestershire, on the other hand, breaks the pattern, with 1 commission
> > > named by Edward V, & 3 commissions named by Richard preceding
> > Buckingham's
> > > rebellion (dated - administratively, I suppose - as Oct 18, in the
> > > attainder), & another 6 commissions of the peace after Buckingham's
> > > rebellion in Richard's first year. What do you all make of this? It looks
> > > to me as if there must have been some trouble brewing before Buckingham's
> > > rebellion & some deal of effort to settle things down again afterwards? I
> > > don't see any dramatic changes in personnel (besides the obvious related
> > to
> > > the known executions).
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Ha! How could I have not mentioned her? =^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Curious


You mean Alianore Audley?

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 12:41
Subject: Re: Curious




From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:36 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Curious
What we don't mention often is the sophisticated spy network which all parties employed. I would love to know more about that, but by its very nature, I doubt we'll ever get 'the files'. Hilary
Sandra: Or the complete handwritten Memoirs of a Whistleblower.

A J Hibbard wrote:

"Marie that's what I'm doing. And as I mentioned, it's remarkable how few
changes (allowing for deaths) there were from Edward IV - Edward V-Richard
III. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that a single change (or
two) might be signifcant. At the current state of my knowledge, I recognize
when some of the familiar names (like Norfolk, Catesby, Ratcliffe, &
Buckingham himself) are added to the rosters, & perhaps these additions are
significant?"

Doug here:
Just how did the Commissions operate? I know the later JPs had Quarterly
Sessions, did the same work for Commissions or were they set up only for a
particular period of time?
I ask because, if I understand it correctly(!), JPs were selected because of
their *local* standing, the fact they actually lived in the localities where
they served and thus were available year-round if necessary. And if JPs
*did* replace Commissions, then mightn't there be a continuity of personnel
from when Commissions were changed to JPs? Or, more importantly, a
*dis*continuity.
Doug
(who's understood that one reason to institute full-time, locally-based JPs
was to cut another source of power out from under the nobility, but that
could be another "post hoc..." argument when the real reason was something
else entirely)

Well, I'm just dipping into Horrox, & it looks as if she has gone over this
ground in great detail, analyzing who was added & who deleted & for what
reasons. Very enlightening.

A J


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> "Marie that's what I'm doing. And as I mentioned, it's remarkable how few
> changes (allowing for deaths) there were from Edward IV - Edward V-Richard
> III. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that a single change (or
> two) might be signifcant. At the current state of my knowledge, I
> recognize
> when some of the familiar names (like Norfolk, Catesby, Ratcliffe, &
> Buckingham himself) are added to the rosters, & perhaps these additions
> are
> significant?"
>
> Doug here:
> Just how did the Commissions operate? I know the later JPs had Quarterly
> Sessions, did the same work for Commissions or were they set up only for a
> particular period of time?
> I ask because, if I understand it correctly(!), JPs were selected because
> of
> their *local* standing, the fact they actually lived in the localities
> where
> they served and thus were available year-round if necessary. And if JPs
> *did* replace Commissions, then mightn't there be a continuity of
> personnel
> from when Commissions were changed to JPs? Or, more importantly, a
> *dis*continuity.
> Doug
> (who's understood that one reason to institute full-time, locally-based
> JPs
> was to cut another source of power out from under the nobility, but that
> could be another "post hoc..." argument when the real reason was something
> else entirely)
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:

"Well, I'm just dipping into Horrox, & it looks as if she has gone over this
ground in great detail, analyzing who was added & who deleted & for what
reasons. Very enlightening."

Oh great, just what I need - another book to add to the list!
Doug

From what I've read so far in Horrox, it looks as if the commissions she
looked at in detail did include some of Richard's northern men, so not just
those who lived in the locale meant to be served by the commission. She
also talks about Richard's plantations (which I suppose to be the movement
or use of these northerners in the south). She also refers to some of
these commissions in Edward IV's era including members of the king's
household.

2 things that aren't clear to me at this time are
(1) how many of the changes instigated by Richard were meant to be
pre-emptive & how many were reactive to Buckingham's rebellion.
(2) is it really accurate to assume that a man's connections (say as a
member of Edward IV's household) determined his "political" stance? From
the number of potential conspiracies & conspirators discussed here since I
joined in February or March, it rather sounds like an every-man-for-himself
sort of situation, with each person calculating & gambling on where his
best chance of success lay.

A J


On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> "Well, I'm just dipping into Horrox, & it looks as if she has gone over
> this
> ground in great detail, analyzing who was added & who deleted & for what
> reasons. Very enlightening."
>
> Oh great, just what I need - another book to add to the list!
> Doug
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:

"From what I've read so far in Horrox, it looks as if the commissions she
looked at in detail did include some of Richard's northern men, so not just
those who lived in the locale meant to be served by the commission. She
also talks about Richard's plantations (which I suppose to be the movement
or use of these northerners in the south). She also refers to some of these
commissions in Edward IV's era including members of the king's
household.
2 things that aren't clear to me at this time are
(1) how many of the changes instigated by Richard were meant to be
pre-emptive & how many were reactive to Buckingham's rebellion.
(2) is it really accurate to assume that a man's connections (say as a
member of Edward IV's household) determined his "political" stance? From
the number of potential conspiracies & conspirators discussed here since I
joined in February or March, it rather sounds like an every-man-for-himself
sort of situation, with each person calculating & gambling on where his best
chance of success lay."

Doug here:
First, I wonder if those "plantations", were they done the other way 'round
(southerners to the north), would have been described as rewarding one's
supporters with lands forfeited by rebels and not by a term that implies
bringing in "foreigners" and forcibly settling them on appropriated lands?
There was an earlier thread (I've included Carol's contribution below)
regarding Buckingham, which showed him to be in charge of Commissions
scattered all over England. From what Carol provided it seems to me that,
while people such as Richard or Buckingham were placed at the head of these
Commissions, the actual work was done by locals, with "locals" being used
to describe someone of sufficient stature actually living in the locality.
If one didn't already have such a supporter already living in a specific
locality, then it behooved the person in charge to find some way of
*placing* such a supporter there.
As to your two questions, my take on the first is that prior to
"Buckingham's Rebellion", the only such personnel changes that were probably
made likely consisted of removing any rabid Woodville supporters from the
Commissions and replacing them with supporters of Richard or Buckingham
(Richard not realizing there might be a difference). Of course, after the
rebellion, there would be a lot more properties available to reward
supporters and, more importantly, provide Richard with people he could trust
in positions of local authority.
I doubt "household" membership ever *completely* defined anyone's support,
but it does provide a starting point. There's also the difference in outlook
that may occur because one isn't a noble and thus not subject to the same
ethos(?). And again, is a pledge of loyalty to be adhered to *regardless* of
whatever may happen after the pledge was given? To be cliched, books have
been written...
Doug
(what Carol posted follows below)

"Here is Buckingham's itinerary from the girders website (which I realize is
not absolutely reliable):
"20 Jul. On commissions of the peace for Norfolk and Wiltshire.
(C.P.R.1476-85, pp.566 and 577)
24 Jul. On a commission of the peace for Cornwall. (ibid.p.556)
26 Jul. On commissions of the peace for Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Rutland,
Huntingdonshire and Somerset. (ibid. pp.556, 562, 570 and 571)
28 Jul. On a commission of the peace for Kent. (ibid.p.563)
30 Jul. On commissions of the peace for Kent, Leicestershire and
Warwickshire. (ibid.pp.563, 564 and 576)
9 Aug. On commissions of the peace for Leicestershire and Warwickshire.
(ibid.pp.564 and 576)
11 Aug. On a commission of the peace for Worcestershire. (ibid.p.578)
18 Aug. On a commission of the peace for Suffolk. (ibid.p.574)
26 Aug. On a commission of the peace for Somerset. (ibid.p.571)
28 Aug. On a commission of oyer and terminer for London. (ibid.p.465)
[Note gap]
24 Sep. He sent a letter to Henry Tudor inviting him to come to
England.(Rowse p.277)
Oct. He raised the rebellion. His force was rendered useless by floods of
the rivers Wye and Severn on the fifteenth. (C.D.N.B.p.1231)
Late Oct. He was at Weobly with Morton, John Rush, Sir William Knyvet and
Thomas Nandik as the rebellion crumbled. (P.M.K. p.273)
23 Oct. A proclamation was issued offering a reward for his capture.
(C.P.R.1476-85 p.367)
29/30 Oct. Taken to Salisbury. (P.M.K. p.273)
2 Nov. Executed in Salisbury Market Place. (ibid.p.274)"
P.M.,K. is Kendall; C.P.R. is Calendar of Patent Rolls; C.D.N.B. is Compact
Dictionary of National Biography; Rowse is A. L. Rowse, "Bosworth Field and
the Wars of the Roses."

Hope this helps out!
Doug

Thanks Doug. I appreciate anyone's opinion more informed than I am.

A J


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> "From what I've read so far in Horrox, it looks as if the commissions she
> looked at in detail did include some of Richard's northern men, so not
> just
> those who lived in the locale meant to be served by the commission. She
> also talks about Richard's plantations (which I suppose to be the movement
> or use of these northerners in the south). She also refers to some of
> these
> commissions in Edward IV's era including members of the king's
> household.
> 2 things that aren't clear to me at this time are
> (1) how many of the changes instigated by Richard were meant to be
> pre-emptive & how many were reactive to Buckingham's rebellion.
> (2) is it really accurate to assume that a man's connections (say as a
> member of Edward IV's household) determined his "political" stance? From
> the number of potential conspiracies & conspirators discussed here since I
> joined in February or March, it rather sounds like an
> every-man-for-himself
> sort of situation, with each person calculating & gambling on where his
> best
> chance of success lay."
>
> Doug here:
> First, I wonder if those "plantations", were they done the other way
> 'round
> (southerners to the north), would have been described as rewarding one's
> supporters with lands forfeited by rebels and not by a term that implies
> bringing in "foreigners" and forcibly settling them on appropriated lands?
> There was an earlier thread (I've included Carol's contribution below)
> regarding Buckingham, which showed him to be in charge of Commissions
> scattered all over England. From what Carol provided it seems to me that,
> while people such as Richard or Buckingham were placed at the head of
> these
> Commissions, the actual work was done by locals, with "locals" being used
> to describe someone of sufficient stature actually living in the locality.
> If one didn't already have such a supporter already living in a specific
> locality, then it behooved the person in charge to find some way of
> *placing* such a supporter there.
> As to your two questions, my take on the first is that prior to
> "Buckingham's Rebellion", the only such personnel changes that were
> probably
> made likely consisted of removing any rabid Woodville supporters from the
> Commissions and replacing them with supporters of Richard or Buckingham
> (Richard not realizing there might be a difference). Of course, after the
> rebellion, there would be a lot more properties available to reward
> supporters and, more importantly, provide Richard with people he could
> trust
> in positions of local authority.
> I doubt "household" membership ever *completely* defined anyone's support,
> but it does provide a starting point. There's also the difference in
> outlook
> that may occur because one isn't a noble and thus not subject to the same
> ethos(?). And again, is a pledge of loyalty to be adhered to *regardless*
> of
> whatever may happen after the pledge was given? To be cliched, books have
> been written...
> Doug
> (what Carol posted follows below)
>
> "Here is Buckingham's itinerary from the girders website (which I realize
> is
> not absolutely reliable):
> "20 Jul. On commissions of the peace for Norfolk and Wiltshire.
> (C.P.R.1476-85, pp.566 and 577)
> 24 Jul. On a commission of the peace for Cornwall. (ibid.p.556)
> 26 Jul. On commissions of the peace for Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Rutland,
> Huntingdonshire and Somerset. (ibid. pp.556, 562, 570 and 571)
> 28 Jul. On a commission of the peace for Kent. (ibid.p.563)
> 30 Jul. On commissions of the peace for Kent, Leicestershire and
> Warwickshire. (ibid.pp.563, 564 and 576)
> 9 Aug. On commissions of the peace for Leicestershire and Warwickshire.
> (ibid.pp.564 and 576)
> 11 Aug. On a commission of the peace for Worcestershire. (ibid.p.578)
> 18 Aug. On a commission of the peace for Suffolk. (ibid.p.574)
> 26 Aug. On a commission of the peace for Somerset. (ibid.p.571)
> 28 Aug. On a commission of oyer and terminer for London. (ibid.p.465)
> [Note gap]
> 24 Sep. He sent a letter to Henry Tudor inviting him to come to
> England.(Rowse p.277)
> Oct. He raised the rebellion. His force was rendered useless by floods of
> the rivers Wye and Severn on the fifteenth. (C.D.N.B.p.1231)
> Late Oct. He was at Weobly with Morton, John Rush, Sir William Knyvet and
> Thomas Nandik as the rebellion crumbled. (P.M.K. p.273)
> 23 Oct. A proclamation was issued offering a reward for his capture.
> (C.P.R.1476-85 p.367)
> 29/30 Oct. Taken to Salisbury. (P.M.K. p.273)
> 2 Nov. Executed in Salisbury Market Place. (ibid.p.274)"
> P.M.,K. is Kendall; C.P.R. is Calendar of Patent Rolls; C.D.N.B. is Compact
> Dictionary of National Biography; Rowse is A. L. Rowse, "Bosworth Field and
> the Wars of the Roses."
>
> Hope this helps out!
> Doug
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:

"Thanks Doug. I appreciate anyone's opinion more informed than I am."

Not certain about the "more informed", but hope anything I post helps!
Doug