Today's question
Today's question
reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's *Richard
III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
(as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her strong
points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time in
right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the accuracy
of that assessment?
A J
Re: Today's question
way.
On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew Richard and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters we get from so many authors. Hilary
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
Subject: Today's question
Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's *Richard
III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
(as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her strong
points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time in
right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the accuracy
of that assessment?
A J
Re: Today's question
Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
(Now that's dry!)
I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
A J
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at Fitzwilliam
> and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because of
> the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a lot
> of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot about
> the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example, some
> squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of London
> for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the population.
> You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties to
> be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him in
> the same
> way.
> On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew Richard
> and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted
> to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters we
> get from so many authors. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> Subject: Today's question
>
>
>
>
>
> Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> *Richard
> III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
>
> say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
>
> What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her strong
> points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time in
> right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
> with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
>
> Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the accuracy
> of that assessment?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
Subject: Re: Today's question
Thanks for your assessment.
Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
(Now that's dry!)
I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
A J
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at Fitzwilliam
> and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because of
> the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a lot
> of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot about
> the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example, some
> squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of London
> for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the population.
> You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties to
> be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him in
> the same
> way.
> On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew Richard
> and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted
> to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters we
> get from so many authors. Hilary
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> Subject: Today's question
>
>
>
>
>
> Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> *Richard
> III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
>
> say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
>
> What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her strong
> points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time in
> right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
> with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
>
> Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the accuracy
> of that assessment?
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Today's question
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Aug 2013, at 23:02, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> I would say more recent writers such as Baldwin, Skidmore etc tend to concur and include it in the list of Richard 'failures'. For one thing it would be a major job to challenge Horrox on her own ground without going through all this stuff yourself - and we both know how tedious that can be. So it tends to be the territory of glossed over assumption or sweeping statements. And of course Richard didn't have long to build an economic popularity base in the south even though he was a talented soldier. The major sweeping statement that comes from most biographies (say she making one herself) is that London and the south's alarm was confirmed when Richard sent for help from the north after the Tower plot. They thought he didn't love them, to put it crudely.
> But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
> Subject: Re: Today's question
>
>
> Thanks for your assessment.
>
> Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> (Now that's dry!)
>
> I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at Fitzwilliam
> > and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because of
> > the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a lot
> > of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> > It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot about
> > the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example, some
> > squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> > Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> > own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> > lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of London
> > for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the population.
> > You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties to
> > be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him in
> > the same
> > way.
> > On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew Richard
> > and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> > I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> > everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted
> > to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters we
> > get from so many authors. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> > Subject: Today's question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> > reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> > *Richard
> > III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
> >
> > say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> > (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
> >
> > What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her strong
> > points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time in
> > right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> > with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
> > with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> > that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> > reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> > I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
> >
> > Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the accuracy
> > of that assessment?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
Horrox's analysis, perhaps, as with what people are taking away from it.
As I understand today, Richard's situation appears more as a Perfect Storm
of circumstances that followed from the existing "design" of the system of
governance. However, I am actually following in Horrox's footsteps to some
extent in looking at these commissions of the peace. And one thing that
becomes immediately evident, when trying to "marry" sources like the lists
of the combatants at Bosworth, Ian Rogers' heroic efforts to catalog
everyone alive in the 15th century, & the bare names from the lists of
those named to commissions of the peace, is that even with a much smaller
population, there were many examples of names being duplicated. It appears
to be a challenge to be certain of identification of the players,
especially amongst the gentry.
A J
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I would say more recent writers such as Baldwin, Skidmore etc tend
> to concur and include it in the list of Richard 'failures'. For one thing
> it would be a major job to challenge Horrox on her own ground without going
> through all this stuff yourself - and we both know how tedious that can be.
> So it tends to be the territory of glossed over assumption or sweeping
> statements. And of course Richard didn't have long to build an economic
> popularity base in the south even though he was a talented soldier. The
> major sweeping statement that comes from most biographies (say she making
> one herself) is that London and the south's alarm was confirmed when
> Richard sent for help from the north after the Tower plot. They thought he
> didn't love them, to put it crudely.
> But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
> Subject: Re: Today's question
>
>
>
> Thanks for your assessment.
>
> Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> (Now that's dry!)
>
> I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at
> Fitzwilliam
> > and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because of
> > the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a
> lot
> > of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> > It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot
> about
> > the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example, some
> > squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> > Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> > own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> > lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of
> London
> > for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the
> population.
> > You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties
> to
> > be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him
> in
> > the same
> > way.
> > On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew
> Richard
> > and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> > I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> > everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted
> > to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters
> we
> > get from so many authors. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> > Subject: Today's question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> > reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> > *Richard
> > III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
> >
> > say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> > (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
> >
> > What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her
> strong
> > points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time
> in
> > right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> > with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
> > with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> > that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> > reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> > I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
> >
> > Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the
> accuracy
> > of that assessment?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 12:21
Subject: Re: Today's question
Thanks again. My instinct is to disagree to some extent. Not so much with
Horrox's analysis, perhaps, as with what people are taking away from it.
As I understand today, Richard's situation appears more as a Perfect Storm
of circumstances that followed from the existing "design" of the system of
governance. However, I am actually following in Horrox's footsteps to some
extent in looking at these commissions of the peace. And one thing that
becomes immediately evident, when trying to "marry" sources like the lists
of the combatants at Bosworth, Ian Rogers' heroic efforts to catalog
everyone alive in the 15th century, & the bare names from the lists of
those named to commissions of the peace, is that even with a much smaller
population, there were many examples of names being duplicated. It appears
to be a challenge to be certain of identification of the players,
especially amongst the gentry.
A J
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I would say more recent writers such as Baldwin, Skidmore etc tend
> to concur and include it in the list of Richard 'failures'. For one thing
> it would be a major job to challenge Horrox on her own ground without going
> through all this stuff yourself - and we both know how tedious that can be.
> So it tends to be the territory of glossed over assumption or sweeping
> statements. And of course Richard didn't have long to build an economic
> popularity base in the south even though he was a talented soldier. The
> major sweeping statement that comes from most biographies (say she making
> one herself) is that London and the south's alarm was confirmed when
> Richard sent for help from the north after the Tower plot. They thought he
> didn't love them, to put it crudely.
> But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
> Subject: Re: Today's question
>
>
>
> Thanks for your assessment.
>
> Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> (Now that's dry!)
>
> I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at
> Fitzwilliam
> > and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because of
> > the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a
> lot
> > of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> > It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot
> about
> > the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example, some
> > squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> > Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> > own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> > lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of
> London
> > for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the
> population.
> > You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties
> to
> > be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him
> in
> > the same
> > way.
> > On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew
> Richard
> > and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> > I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> > everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted
> > to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters
> we
> > get from so many authors. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> > Subject: Today's question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> > reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> > *Richard
> > III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has to
> >
> > say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> > (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
> >
> > What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her
> strong
> > points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time
> in
> > right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> > with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to grips
> > with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> > that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> > reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> > I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
> >
> > Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the
> accuracy
> > of that assessment?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey, just in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family name spelt Talbawe.
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> ýSir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.ý
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? Iýve emailed Clandon Park in Surrey, just
> in case itýs something to do with their history, but I thought Iýd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. Iýve come across Humphreyýs family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey, just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
family connection with the Mowbrays. But the reference is from the second
year of Richard's reign, by which time Caludon had passed to the Berkeleys,
with whom, if I recall, the Talbots had an ongoing and bitter scrap. I
haven't looked up the exact ending or settlement of this quarrel. Anyway, it
is still a possibility, so thank you again for taking the time to look into
it for me. Much appreciated. =^..^=
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey,
> just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Yes Caludon Castle was in Stoke Coventry (and a school till recently). The Talbots, Butlers, Catesbys and Belknaps all dabbled in Coventry, as did the Berkeleys. H.
________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey, just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Today's question
"Absolutely. To chase and analyse it all would be about 3 lifetimes' work.
This morning I was looking at the Bishops Blythe (Salisbury and
Coventry/Litchfield). Did you know that Archbishop Rotherham was their
uncle? They did well under H7 but then Bishop Geoffrey (Coventry) found
himself in trouble for treason twice (in 1509) supposedly about uncle's
will. He died in disgrace still accused of treason. Wonder what all that was
about? Wouldn't it be great to have a team of about 50 who you could task
with chasing all these things - you know like a crime investigation?"
Doug here:
It appears that what needs to be done is to have all this information placed
in a searchable database, various spellings and all, which could then be
searched using various criteria. If only to direct the searcher to the
relevant document/s.
And no, I'm not volunteering...
Doug
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 12:21
Subject: Re: Today's question
Thanks again. My instinct is to disagree to some extent. Not so much with
Horrox's analysis, perhaps, as with what people are taking away from it.
As I understand today, Richard's situation appears more as a Perfect Storm
of circumstances that followed from the existing "design" of the system of
governance. However, I am actually following in Horrox's footsteps to some
extent in looking at these commissions of the peace. And one thing that
becomes immediately evident, when trying to "marry" sources like the lists
of the combatants at Bosworth, Ian Rogers' heroic efforts to catalog
everyone alive in the 15th century, & the bare names from the lists of
those named to commissions of the peace, is that even with a much smaller
population, there were many examples of names being duplicated. It appears
to be a challenge to be certain of identification of the players,
especially amongst the gentry.
A J
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I would say more recent writers such as Baldwin, Skidmore etc tend
> to concur and include it in the list of Richard 'failures'. For one thing
> it would be a major job to challenge Horrox on her own ground without
> going
> through all this stuff yourself - and we both know how tedious that can
> be.
> So it tends to be the territory of glossed over assumption or sweeping
> statements. And of course Richard didn't have long to build an economic
> popularity base in the south even though he was a talented soldier. The
> major sweeping statement that comes from most biographies (say she making
> one herself) is that London and the south's alarm was confirmed when
> Richard sent for help from the north after the Tower plot. They thought he
> didn't love them, to put it crudely.
> But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
> Subject: Re: Today's question
>
>
>
> Thanks for your assessment.
>
> Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> (Now that's dry!)
>
> I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at
> Fitzwilliam
> > and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because
> > of
> > the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a
> lot
> > of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> > It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot
> about
> > the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example,
> > some
> > squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> > Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> > own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> > lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of
> London
> > for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the
> population.
> > You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties
> to
> > be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him
> in
> > the same
> > way.
> > On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew
> Richard
> > and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> > I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> > everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has
> > attempted
> > to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters
> we
> > get from so many authors. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> > Subject: Today's question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> > reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> > *Richard
> > III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has
> > to
> >
> > say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> > (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
> >
> > What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her
> strong
> > points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time
> in
> > right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> > with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to
> > grips
> > with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> > that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> > reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> > I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
> >
> > Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the
> accuracy
> > of that assessment?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=2189-bcm_1-1_1&cid=0&kw=Caludon Talbot#0
Caludon belonged to the Segraves and then the Berkeleys but see the settlement involving Richard at the end. Hope it helps! H.
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 14:11
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you too, Hilary. Caludon is definitely a possibility, but if Calandone isn't there, where else might it have been? The fact that Caludon is in Coventry and Richard happened to be there at the time of the grant (or whatever it is) is surely a coincidence? And I cannot connect Sir Humphrey himself with it, just his extended family, so to speak. I'm trying to pinpoint places with a definite link to him, to see where he might possibly be at a given time. Mostly in Calais, I know, but he must have come back sometimes. And there is still the matter of what a Restraint' might be. =^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:36 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Yes Caludon Castle was in Stoke Coventry (and a school till recently). The Talbots, Butlers, Catesbys and Belknaps all dabbled in Coventry, as did the Berkeleys. H.
________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey, just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Today's question
searchable. And that's why I'm working my way through the commissions of
the peace currently.
A J
I believe I've shared the link, although it's also possible that I changed
the permissions - anyway let me know if interested & I'll sort it out.
It's very much a work in progress. And could be cooperative (ahem!)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Absolutely. To chase and analyse it all would be about 3 lifetimes' work.
> This morning I was looking at the Bishops Blythe (Salisbury and
> Coventry/Litchfield). Did you know that Archbishop Rotherham was their
> uncle? They did well under H7 but then Bishop Geoffrey (Coventry) found
> himself in trouble for treason twice (in 1509) supposedly about uncle's
> will. He died in disgrace still accused of treason. Wonder what all that
> was
> about? Wouldn't it be great to have a team of about 50 who you could task
> with chasing all these things - you know like a crime investigation?"
>
> Doug here:
> It appears that what needs to be done is to have all this information
> placed
> in a searchable database, various spellings and all, which could then be
> searched using various criteria. If only to direct the searcher to the
> relevant document/s.
> And no, I'm not volunteering...
> Doug
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: ""
> <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 12:21
> Subject: Re: Today's question
>
> Thanks again. My instinct is to disagree to some extent. Not so much with
> Horrox's analysis, perhaps, as with what people are taking away from it.
> As I understand today, Richard's situation appears more as a Perfect Storm
> of circumstances that followed from the existing "design" of the system of
> governance. However, I am actually following in Horrox's footsteps to some
> extent in looking at these commissions of the peace. And one thing that
> becomes immediately evident, when trying to "marry" sources like the lists
> of the combatants at Bosworth, Ian Rogers' heroic efforts to catalog
> everyone alive in the 15th century, & the bare names from the lists of
> those named to commissions of the peace, is that even with a much smaller
> population, there were many examples of names being duplicated. It appears
> to be a challenge to be certain of identification of the players,
> especially amongst the gentry.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I would say more recent writers such as Baldwin, Skidmore etc tend
> > to concur and include it in the list of Richard 'failures'. For one thing
> > it would be a major job to challenge Horrox on her own ground without
> > going
> > through all this stuff yourself - and we both know how tedious that can
> > be.
> > So it tends to be the territory of glossed over assumption or sweeping
> > statements. And of course Richard didn't have long to build an economic
> > popularity base in the south even though he was a talented soldier. The
> > major sweeping statement that comes from most biographies (say she making
> > one herself) is that London and the south's alarm was confirmed when
> > Richard sent for help from the north after the Tower plot. They thought
> he
> > didn't love them, to put it crudely.
> > But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
> > Subject: Re: Today's question
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your assessment.
> >
> > Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> > (Now that's dry!)
> >
> > I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> > thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> > subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at
> > Fitzwilliam
> > > and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because
> > > of
> > > the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a
> > lot
> > > of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> > > It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot
> > about
> > > the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example,
> > > some
> > > squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> > > Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after
> their
> > > own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about
> Richard's
> > > lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of
> > London
> > > for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the
> > population.
> > > You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties
> > to
> > > be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him
> > in
> > > the same
> > > way.
> > > On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew
> > Richard
> > > and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> > > I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> > > everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has
> > > attempted
> > > to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of
> characters
> > we
> > > get from so many authors. Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > > To: "" <
> > > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> > > Subject: Today's question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> > > reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> > > *Richard
> > > III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has
> > > to
> > >
> > > say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough,
> and
> > > (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
> > >
> > > What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her
> > strong
> > > points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time
> > in
> > > right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> > > with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to
> > > grips
> > > with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> > > that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his
> short
> > > reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few
> passages
> > > I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
> > >
> > > Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the
> > accuracy
> > > of that assessment?
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
>
> AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at Fitzwilliam and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because of the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a lot of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources. It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot about the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example, some squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of London for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the population. You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties to be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him in the same
> way.
> On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew Richard and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has attempted to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters we get from so many authors. Hilary
Carol responds:
I more or less agree with Hilary except that I'm not sure about Richard's lack of popularity in London. It seems that the merchants, the mayor of London and his brother, Dr. Shaa, and even the apprentices, supported him. (We can't take Mancini at face value here.) Horrox is great on obscure sources and details that no one else mentions, but in my view, she is too uncritical of Croyland (and her objections to parts of Mancini lead her to conclusions that I don't believe are justified). I would say to accept her carefully researched facts and use your own judgement as to her interpretations and conclusions. Her scholarly style and the overwhelming amount of detail are tedious, but I am attempting to plow through the whole work, a bit at a time, with lots of other books in between.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Kendall, Audrey Williamson, and Carson, books about Richard seem to fall into four categories: dull, scholarly tracts; more or less traditional biographies and partial biographies (Seward is the worst, then Hicks and Weir, then the likes of Pollard and Ross, whom I would call moderate traditionalists); excerpts from documents mixed with sometimes anti-Ricardian commentary, e.g. Sean Cunningham or Keith Dockray; and imaginative fiction ranging from well-researched novels (Penman) to utter garbage (Phillipa Gregory).
Very few books present a balanced view of Richard combined with new material even though new material is constantly being discovered. We need a new biography incorporating this new material, but not by Horrox, indebted though we are to her for her exposure of previously unexplored material. She is both too dull and too convinced of Richard's "usurpation" to be objective about the Protectorate. (I haven't reached the part about his reign yet.) She does note that, with a few exceptions (notably Buckingham), Richard tried to retain Edward's officials wherever possible. (Too bad they didn't realize that their positions weren't in danger until *after* they rebelled!)
Carol
Carol
Re: Today's question
>
> Thanks for your assessment.
>
> Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> (Now that's dry!)
>
> I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
Carol responds:
CME? Is that a medical journal?
Re Richard's relations with his southern subjects, see Annette Carson, who differs with Horrox's view and mentions her specifically eight or ten times. (Consult the index for the specific references.)
Again, I think that Horrox is overly influenced by Mancini with regard to Richard and London.
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Snip: Soon after Richard III's accession Berkeley was created earl of Nottingham and the Mowbray inheritance was at last divided between the coheirs, Howard and Berkeley, [For the division of the inheritance, below, BCM/D Administrative history.] but in March 1484 Berkeley made an agreement with Richard and settled on the king a large proportion of the inheritance. Again, the agreement was nullified by Richard's death at Bosworth on 22 Aug. 1485.
Thank you for the pointer, Hilary, from which the above snips are taken. So Richard divided the inheritance in March 1484, and Humphrey had his Restraint' (?) on 1st June same year? And if I'm correct, the mention of Caludon indicates that it belonged to Elizabeth Talbot, Duchess of Norfolk Eleanor's favourite sister. And Sir Humphrey was their closest brother, having been of an age and brought up with them. All three were from the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury's second marriage. Sooo, was the grant to Humphrey (the nature of which I still don't understand) something to do with Richard having recognised Eleanor Talbot's marriage to Edward IV? (which could have made Richard flavour of the month with Elizabeth and Humphrey?) I wonder if there are any other little indications of Richard showing favour (unless a restraint was a mark of disapproval!) to (at least) the junior branch ofTalbots? Or is it all conjecture, isolated points that do not make a whole? Please tell me if I'm wide of the mark. I'm not a historian, remember, or particularly educated in such things. Writing novels doth not make a historian...now where have I heard that before?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Go to the very end of this (it's long) and I think you'll find a mention.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=2189-bcm_1-1_1&cid=0&kw=Caludon Talbot#0
Caludon belonged to the Segraves and then the Berkeleys but see the settlement involving Richard at the end. Hope it helps! H.
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 14:11
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you too, Hilary. Caludon is definitely a possibility, but if Calandone isn't there, where else might it have been? The fact that Caludon is in Coventry and Richard happened to be there at the time of the grant (or whatever it is) is surely a coincidence? And I cannot connect Sir Humphrey himself with it, just his extended family, so to speak. I'm trying to pinpoint places with a definite link to him, to see where he might possibly be at a given time. Mostly in Calais, I know, but he must have come back sometimes. And there is still the matter of what a Restraint' might be. =^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:36 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Yes Caludon Castle was in Stoke Coventry (and a school till recently). The Talbots, Butlers, Catesbys and Belknaps all dabbled in Coventry, as did the Berkeleys. H.
________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey, just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Today's question
patients. (CME = continuing medical education, a requirement in most, if
not all, states for keeping one's license to practice.)
A J
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:37 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your assessment.
> >
> > Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> > (Now that's dry!)
> >
> > I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> > thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> > subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> CME? Is that a medical journal?
>
> Re Richard's relations with his southern subjects, see Annette Carson, who
> differs with Horrox's view and mentions her specifically eight or ten
> times. (Consult the index for the specific references.)
>
> Again, I think that Horrox is overly influenced by Mancini with regard to
> Richard and London.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
There must be a data nerd out there somewhere who would love the challenge of compiling this and putting it into something like Access - but like everything else few are willing to do such a huge task for love.
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 17:25
Subject: Re: Today's question
Hilary Jones wrote:
"Absolutely. To chase and analyse it all would be about 3 lifetimes' work.
This morning I was looking at the Bishops Blythe (Salisbury and
Coventry/Litchfield). Did you know that Archbishop Rotherham was their
uncle? They did well under H7 but then Bishop Geoffrey (Coventry) found
himself in trouble for treason twice (in 1509) supposedly about uncle's
will. He died in disgrace still accused of treason. Wonder what all that was
about? Wouldn't it be great to have a team of about 50 who you could task
with chasing all these things - you know like a crime investigation?"
Doug here:
It appears that what needs to be done is to have all this information placed
in a searchable database, various spellings and all, which could then be
searched using various criteria. If only to direct the searcher to the
relevant document/s.
And no, I'm not volunteering...
Doug
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 12:21
Subject: Re: Today's question
Thanks again. My instinct is to disagree to some extent. Not so much with
Horrox's analysis, perhaps, as with what people are taking away from it.
As I understand today, Richard's situation appears more as a Perfect Storm
of circumstances that followed from the existing "design" of the system of
governance. However, I am actually following in Horrox's footsteps to some
extent in looking at these commissions of the peace. And one thing that
becomes immediately evident, when trying to "marry" sources like the lists
of the combatants at Bosworth, Ian Rogers' heroic efforts to catalog
everyone alive in the 15th century, & the bare names from the lists of
those named to commissions of the peace, is that even with a much smaller
population, there were many examples of names being duplicated. It appears
to be a challenge to be certain of identification of the players,
especially amongst the gentry.
A J
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I would say more recent writers such as Baldwin, Skidmore etc tend
> to concur and include it in the list of Richard 'failures'. For one thing
> it would be a major job to challenge Horrox on her own ground without
> going
> through all this stuff yourself - and we both know how tedious that can
> be.
> So it tends to be the territory of glossed over assumption or sweeping
> statements. And of course Richard didn't have long to build an economic
> popularity base in the south even though he was a talented soldier. The
> major sweeping statement that comes from most biographies (say she making
> one herself) is that London and the south's alarm was confirmed when
> Richard sent for help from the north after the Tower plot. They thought he
> didn't love them, to put it crudely.
> But, as I said, others here may disagree. H
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 22:38
> Subject: Re: Today's question
>
>
>
> Thanks for your assessment.
>
> Cover-to-cover doesn't bother me, veteran as I am of many years of CME.
> (Now that's dry!)
>
> I just want to know that what she stays reflects our "best" current
> thinking, in particular about Richard's relations with his southern
> subjects. So, in your opinion, no serious challenges on that score.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > AJ, Rosemary Horrox is a serious Cambridge medieval scholar at
> Fitzwilliam
> > and still working. Personally, and it's only me, I respect her because
> > of
> > the sheer graft that has gone into that book, rather than doing what a
> lot
> > of authors on Richard have done which is to quote the same old sources.
> > It's a hard read (I'd never attempt cover to cover) but there's a lot
> about
> > the people round Richard who have often been neglected. For example,
> > some
> > squires of the body were paid less than others (Ingleby less than
> > Brackenbury) and worked to a rota which enabled them to look after their
> > own affairs. I have no problem in accepting her argument about Richard's
> > lesser popularity with the south, Edward had cultivated the City of
> London
> > for years and London alone amounted for about a quarter of the
> population.
> > You couldn't really expect poor old Richard, forever on northern duties
> to
> > be able to rival him or for those who saw him infrequently to trust him
> in
> > the same
> > way.
> > On the plus side she does point out the loyalty of people who knew
> Richard
> > and treasured his memory after his death - she gives examples of this.
> > I salute her as a profound scholar. You don't have to agree with
> > everything she believes but to me she is one of the few who has
> > attempted
> > to spread the information net wider than the same old cast of characters
> we
> > get from so many authors. Hilary
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <
> > mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 20:59
> > Subject: Today's question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Given that I have, at this point, extremely limited time to devote to
> > reading secondary material, I have a question about Rosemary Horrox's
> > *Richard
> > III, A study in service*. I'm easing into it, by checking what she has
> > to
> >
> > say about commissions of the peace. So far, she looks very thorough, and
> > (as far as I can tell, given my own state of knowledge) correct.
> >
> > What do you folks, who are so much better read than I am, see as her
> strong
> > points & weak points (& overall is she the best to be investing my time
> in
> > right now). From previous comments I gather that many here do not agree
> > with her take on the "princes." The question I am trying to come to
> > grips
> > with specifically is Richard's relationship to "southerners." I gather
> > that there is a sense that one of his failures, at least given his short
> > reign, was in "winning them over" and Horrox already in the few passages
> > I've read, seems to be heading that direction.
> >
> > Are there any serious challenges by more recent scholars as to the
> accuracy
> > of that assessment?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
//snip//
"Thank you for the pointer, Hilary, from which the above snips are taken. So
Richard divided the inheritance in March 1484, and Humphrey had his
Restraint' (?) on 1st June same year? And if I'm correct, the mention of
Caludon indicates that it belonged to Elizabeth Talbot, Duchess of Norfolk
Eleanor's favourite sister. And Sir Humphrey was their closest brother,
having been of an age and brought up with them. All three were from the 1st
Earl of Shrewsbury's second marriage. Sooo, was the grant to Humphrey (the
nature of which I still don't understand) something to do with Richard
having recognised Eleanor Talbot's marriage to Edward IV? (which could have
made Richard flavour of the month with Elizabeth and Humphrey?) I wonder if
there are any other little indications of Richard showing favour (unless a
restraint was a mark of disapproval!) to (at least) the junior branch
ofTalbots? Or is it all conjecture, isolated points that do not make a
whole? Please tell me if I'm wide of the mark. I'm not a historian,
remember, or particularly educated in such things. Writing novels doth not
make a historian...now where have I heard that before?"
Doug here:
Would "restraint" in this context be something along the lines of preventing
someone from treating a property as it were theirs? IOW, the "restraint"
prevented the property from being alienated (sold/feoffed/given away)?
As for the "why", could it be as simple as Richard wanting to settle an
outstanding problem? His brother may very well have *not* made a decision
about the inheritance simply to keep the Talbots "on side" (if that's the
correct term).
Doug
(who *almost* missed the snark...)
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Go to the very end of this (it's long) and I think you'll find a mention.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=2189-bcm_1-1_1&cid=0&kw=Caludon
Talbot#0
Caludon belonged to the Segraves and then the Berkeleys but see the
settlement involving Richard at the end. Hope it helps! H.
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 14:11
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you too, Hilary. Caludon is definitely a possibility, but if Calandone
isn't there, where else might it have been? The fact that Caludon is in
Coventry and Richard happened to be there at the time of the grant (or
whatever it is) is surely a coincidence? And I cannot connect Sir Humphrey
himself with it, just his extended family, so to speak. I'm trying to
pinpoint places with a definite link to him, to see where he might possibly
be at a given time. Mostly in Calais, I know, but he must have come back
sometimes. And there is still the matter of what a Restraint' might be.
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:36 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Yes Caludon Castle was in Stoke Coventry (and a school till recently). The
Talbots, Butlers, Catesbys and Belknaps all dabbled in Coventry, as did the
Berkeleys. H.
________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique"
<mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey,
> just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:05 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
SandraMachin wrote:
//snip//
"Thank you for the pointer, Hilary, from which the above snips are taken. So
Richard divided the inheritance in March 1484, and Humphrey had his
Restraint' (?) on 1st June same year? And if I'm correct, the mention of
Caludon indicates that it belonged to Elizabeth Talbot, Duchess of Norfolk
Eleanor's favourite sister. And Sir Humphrey was their closest brother,
having been of an age and brought up with them. All three were from the 1st
Earl of Shrewsbury's second marriage. Sooo, was the grant to Humphrey (the
nature of which I still don't understand) something to do with Richard
having recognised Eleanor Talbot's marriage to Edward IV? (which could have
made Richard flavour of the month with Elizabeth and Humphrey?) I wonder if
there are any other little indications of Richard showing favour (unless a
restraint was a mark of disapproval!) to (at least) the junior branch
ofTalbots? Or is it all conjecture, isolated points that do not make a
whole? Please tell me if I'm wide of the mark. I'm not a historian,
remember, or particularly educated in such things. Writing novels doth not
make a historian...now where have I heard that before?"
Doug here:
Would "restraint" in this context be something along the lines of preventing
someone from treating a property as it were theirs? IOW, the "restraint"
prevented the property from being alienated (sold/feoffed/given away)?
As for the "why", could it be as simple as Richard wanting to settle an
outstanding problem? His brother may very well have *not* made a decision
about the inheritance simply to keep the Talbots "on side" (if that's the
correct term).
Doug
(who *almost* missed the snark...)
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:50 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Go to the very end of this (it's long) and I think you'll find a mention.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=2189-bcm_1-1_1&cid=0&kw=Caludon
Talbot#0
Caludon belonged to the Segraves and then the Berkeleys but see the
settlement involving Richard at the end. Hope it helps! H.
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 14:11
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you too, Hilary. Caludon is definitely a possibility, but if Calandone
isn't there, where else might it have been? The fact that Caludon is in
Coventry and Richard happened to be there at the time of the grant (or
whatever it is) is surely a coincidence? And I cannot connect Sir Humphrey
himself with it, just his extended family, so to speak. I'm trying to
pinpoint places with a definite link to him, to see where he might possibly
be at a given time. Mostly in Calais, I know, but he must have come back
sometimes. And there is still the matter of what a Restraint' might be.
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:36 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Yes Caludon Castle was in Stoke Coventry (and a school till recently). The
Talbots, Butlers, Catesbys and Belknaps all dabbled in Coventry, as did the
Berkeleys. H.
________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique"
<mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 13:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Could be Caludon Castle near Coventry wiki states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caludon_Castle
The property remained in the Mowbray family until the death of Anne de
Mowbray, 8th Countess of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mowbray,_8th_Countess_of_Norfolk>
(the
child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of
York<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Shrewsbury,_1st_Duke_of_York>)
in 1481. Anne's estate was divided between John Howard, 1st Duke of
Norfolk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard,_1st_Duke_of_Norfolk>
and William de Berkeley, 1st Marquess of
Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley>,
of whom the latter took possession of Caludon Castle...!
& there is close by that Caludon Park
http://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/coventry-neighbourhoods/caludon.html
Cheers! Lisa
On 21 August 2013 08:48, SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
wrote:
> **
>
>
> Sir Humfrey Talbot hathe a Restraint for his park at Calandone Yeven at
> Coventre the furst day of Juyne Anno ij do.
>
> What, in this instance, is a Restraint, please? And does anyone have an
> inkling where Calandone might be? I've emailed Clandon Park in Surrey,
> just
> in case it's something to do with their history, but I thought I'd ask my
> knowledgeable friends here as well. Any notions? Given the wild spelling
> from back then, it could be anywhere. I've come across Humphrey's family
> name spelt Talbawe.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
> //snip//
> So Richard divided the inheritance in March 1484, and Humphrey had his ‘Restraint’ (?) on 1st June same year? [snip] Sooo, was the grant to Humphrey (the nature of which I still don’t understand) something to do with Richard having recognised Eleanor Talbot’s marriage to Edward IV? (which could have made Richard flavour of the month with Elizabeth and Humphrey?) I wonder if there are any other little indications of Richard showing favour (unless a restraint was a mark of disapproval!) to (at least) the junior branch
> ofTalbots? [snip]
>
Doug responded:
> Would "restraint" in this context be something along the lines of preventing someone from treating a property as it were theirs? IOW, the "restraint" prevented the property from being alienated (sold/feoffed/given away)? [snip]
Carol notes:
It sounds as if Doug is on the right track. Here's a definition from an online law dictionary:
"restraint on alienation
"n. an attempt in a deed or will to prevent the sale or other transfer of real property either forever or for an extremely long period of time. Such a restraint on the freedom to transfer property is generally unlawful and therefore void or voidable (can be made void if an owner objects), since a present owner should not be able to tie the hands of future generations to deal with their property. This ban on a restraint on alienation (transfer) is called "the rule against perpetuities." Examples: Oliver Oldtimer sells his ranch to his son with the condition that title may never be transferred to anyone outside of the family. Martha Oldtimer in her will gives her home to her daughter Jacqueline on condition that "Jacqueline's descendants must never sell the place." However, one is generally allowed to limit transfer to a maximum period calculated by "lives in being, plus 21 years." Restraints on alienation (so-called restrictive covenants) based on race ("only Caucasians may hold title") were declared unconstitutional in 1949.
See also: convey deed restrictive covenant rule against perpetuities use"
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1833
Hope this is helpful. I'm no lawyer (just a copyeditor with a PhD in English lit.), but it sounds as if the term has the same meaning now as in the fifteenth century.
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra
From: justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
SandraMachin wrote:
> //snip//
> So Richard divided the inheritance in March 1484, and Humphrey had his ‘Restraint’ (?) on 1st June same year? [snip] Sooo, was the grant to Humphrey (the nature of which I still don’t understand) something to do with Richard having recognised Eleanor Talbot’s marriage to Edward IV? (which could have made Richard flavour of the month with Elizabeth and Humphrey?) I wonder if there are any other little indications of Richard showing favour (unless a restraint was a mark of disapproval!) to (at least) the junior branch
> ofTalbots? [snip]
>
Doug responded:
> Would "restraint" in this context be something along the lines of preventing someone from treating a property as it were theirs? IOW, the "restraint" prevented the property from being alienated (sold/feoffed/given away)? [snip]
Carol notes:
It sounds as if Doug is on the right track. Here's a definition from an online law dictionary:
"restraint on alienation
"n. an attempt in a deed or will to prevent the sale or other transfer of real property either forever or for an extremely long period of time. Such a restraint on the freedom to transfer property is generally unlawful and therefore void or voidable (can be made void if an owner objects), since a present owner should not be able to tie the hands of future generations to deal with their property. This ban on a restraint on alienation (transfer) is called "the rule against perpetuities." Examples: Oliver Oldtimer sells his ranch to his son with the condition that title may never be transferred to anyone outside of the family. Martha Oldtimer in her will gives her home to her daughter Jacqueline on condition that "Jacqueline's descendants must never sell the place." However, one is generally allowed to limit transfer to a maximum period calculated by "lives in being, plus 21 years." Restraints on alienation (so-called restrictive covenants) based on race ("only Caucasians may hold title") were declared unconstitutional in 1949.
See also: convey deed restrictive covenant rule against perpetuities use"
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1833
Hope this is helpful. I'm no lawyer (just a copyeditor with a PhD in English lit.), but it sounds as if the term has the same meaning now as in the fifteenth century.
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Thank you, Doug. You're probably right about Humph and the Restraint. Those
quarrels were long-winded and vitriolic. Anyway, in the cowardly, time
honoured way, if I can't be sure what it was all about, I'll pretend I've
never heard of it. Under the carpet it goes..."
Before you push it "under the carpet" (if I did that, my floors would
definitely take on a resemblance to the Brecon - thankfully the rooms aren't
big enough for the Rockies/Himalayas!), do you have a listing of "who gets
what" when the inheritance was divided?
In a previous post you mentioned the Herberts, could Caludon have been
brought into the family via *them" and might that provide a better avenue of
approach?
As for the sttlement being made while Richard was in Conventry, it's
entirely likely that's sheer coincidence as kings had to sign all sorts of
documents wherever they happened to be. However, is it possible the
settlement was made in Coventry because Richard was there and the matter of
the inheritance, which concerned properties in the vicinity, was brought to
his attention? Something along the lines of "While you're here Coventry Your
Grace..."?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"It sounds as if Doug is on the right track. Here's a definition from an
online law dictionary:
"restraint on alienation
"n. an attempt in a deed or will to prevent the sale or other transfer of
real property either forever or for an extremely long period of time. Such a
restraint on the freedom to transfer property is generally unlawful and
therefore void or voidable (can be made void if an owner objects), since a
present owner should not be able to tie the hands of future generations to
deal with their property. This ban on a restraint on alienation (transfer)
is called "the rule against perpetuities." Examples: Oliver Oldtimer sells
his ranch to his son with the condition that title may never be transferred
to anyone outside of the family. Martha Oldtimer in her will gives her home
to her daughter Jacqueline on condition that "Jacqueline's descendants must
never sell the place." However, one is generally allowed to limit transfer
to a maximum period calculated by "lives in being, plus 21 years."
Restraints on alienation (so-called restrictive covenants) based on race
("only Caucasians may hold title") were declared unconstitutional in 1949.
See also: convey deed restrictive covenant rule against perpetuities
use"
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1833
Hope this is helpful. I'm no lawyer (just a copyeditor with a PhD in English
lit.), but it sounds as if the term has the same meaning now as in the
fifteenth century."
Doug here:
Thank you for the definition and source! I've copied this to my RIII folder
for future reference.
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
You are right again, of course. No, I don't have a listing of who gets what'. My interest in all this is solely whether or not it provides me with something I can use', as a writer, and it seems to me that the only interest in my case is that Richard was there and signed this restraint, and that he and Sir Humphrey MAY have spoken about it at the time. Unless, of course, Humphrey was still in Calais, where he was Marshal, and the restraint was simply issued in his absence.
I don't know enough about this sort of thing to be sure how it worked. If Humph had to be there, then it's useful to me because it places him, with Richard, in Coventry at the same time. Not with the candlestick in the library,of course. This is something I can actually use, because it gives me an opportunity to introduce a scene of the two men definitely together, not speaking solely about the restraint, but of something else as well. June 1484 would suit me very nicely. If the restraint had been prepared well beforehand, or someone else had to collar Richard while he was there in Coventry, would Sir Humphrey at least have to be present in person when the thing was issued? Might he even have to be the one doing the collaring in the nicest possible way, of course. Do you know? Oh, I do wish I knew much more about how it all worked. If he really was off in Calais as per, all I have to say is...under the carpet it goes after all.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 6:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra wrote: "Thank you, Doug. You're probably right about Humph and the Restraint. Those
quarrels were long-winded and vitriolic. Anyway, in the cowardly, time
honoured way, if I can't be sure what it was all about, I'll pretend I've
never heard of it. Under the carpet it goes..."
Dough replied: Before you push it "under the carpet" (if I did that, my floors would
definitely take on a resemblance to the Brecon - thankfully the rooms aren't
big enough for the Rockies/Himalayas!), do you have a listing of "who gets
what" when the inheritance was divided?
In a previous post you mentioned the Herberts, could Caludon have been
brought into the family via *them" and might that provide a better avenue of
approach?
As for the sttlement being made while Richard was in Conventry, it's
entirely likely that's sheer coincidence as kings had to sign all sorts of
documents wherever they happened to be. However, is it possible the
settlement was made in Coventry because Richard was there and the matter of
the inheritance, which concerned properties in the vicinity, was brought to
his attention? Something along the lines of "While you're here Coventry Your
Grace..."?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Hello again Doug.
You are right again, of course. No, I don't have a listing of who gets what'.
My interest in all this is solely whether or not it provides me with
something I can use', as a writer, and it seems to me that the only
interest in my case is that Richard was there and signed this restraint, and
that he and Sir Humphrey MAY have spoken about it at the time. Unless, of
course, Humphrey was still in Calais, where he was Marshal, and the
restraint was simply issued in his absence.
I don't know enough about this sort of thing to be sure how it worked. If
Humph had to be there, then it's useful to me because it places him, with
Richard, in Coventry at the same time. Not with the candlestick in the
library,of course. This is something I can actually use, because it gives me
an opportunity to introduce a scene of the two men definitely together, not
speaking solely about the restraint, but of something else as well. June
1484 would suit me very nicely. If the restraint had been prepared well
beforehand, or someone else had to collar Richard while he was there in
Coventry, would Sir Humphrey at least have to be present in person when the
thing was issued? Might he even have to be the one doing the collaring in
the nicest possible way, of course. Do you know? Oh, I do wish I knew much
more about how it all worked. If he really was off in Calais as per, all I
have to say is...under the carpet it goes after all."
Doug here:
(Sorry about the delay - I "thought" I'd posted this earlier)
Unless the matter involved a capital offense (and even then depositions
could be taken, I believe), there really wouldn't be a need for Sir Humphrey
to be in Coventry as his lawyers would file the paperwork after getting his
go-ahead.
Is there anything the Marshal of Calais and *only* the Marshal of Calais
could do? And if there was, were any of those "things" done during the
period in question?
Of course a disclaimer may be your only hope. Something along the lines of:
"While liberty has been taken with the dialogue of the characters portrayed,
all the events are firmly grounded in known facts."
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
(Sorry about the delay - I "thought" I'd posted this earlier)
Unless the matter involved a capital offense (and even then depositions
could be taken, I believe), there really wouldn't be a need for Sir Humphrey
to be in Coventry as his lawyers would file the paperwork after getting his
go-ahead.
Is there anything the Marshal of Calais and *only* the Marshal of Calais
could do? And if there was, were any of those "things" done during the
period in question?
Of course a disclaimer may be your only hope. Something along the lines of:
"While liberty has been taken with the dialogue of the characters portrayed,
all the events are firmly grounded in known facts."
Sandra replies:
Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey's movements, he doesn't show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can't even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard's reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It's pointed out in a few places that he didn't fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine's, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can't read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the modern' version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang. I can't see any obvious mention of him not being sound in body. Oh, there are times when I wish I'd taken up history not geography, and gone on to such interesting matters as these. Sir Humphrey wasn't a spring chicken, but he wasn't that old either, although perhaps by the standard of the day? He is reckoned to have been born somewhere around 1434 (there are a lot of different circas for him) and he died early 1493, so he was possibly 59/60. Could have been older. Who knows? The man is elusive to the likes of me. Maybe he was ill and didn't know it? I don't know the reason for his pilgrimage, if indeed there was one beyond a religious need to go there. So I have to make it up. No problem, I'm never short on ideas, that's for sure. <grin> I'm very careful to add Author's Notes in this type of novel, i.e. based around actual people and events, because I don't want what I write to be taken as gospel. Heaven forfend, given some of my plots! But I do say it's fiction and explain the points where I've done my own thing, so to speak. The truth is, of course, that I am privileged to read the personal, very private diaries these folk didn't want anyone to see. They reckoned without me sticky-beaking from the future, my skeleton key and magnifying glass at the ready.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Made on 28 February 1487 (ie 1488), but he doesn't say where.
Was "hole of mynde and of parfitte Remembraunce thanked be god, intending thorow his grace and mercy to vysite diuers pilgemagis. Therfoe I ordeyne and make this my will and testament"
Long journeys were one of the key reasons people made wills. I'm sure his wishes for his burial were connected to the fact that he would be travelling to far lands, viz he asked to be buried "where as it shall please allmyghti god to commaunde my body and soule to depart out of this world".
Lots of references to his sister the Duchess of Norfolk (whom he seems on first glance to have preferred to his wife). Complicated stipulations regarding the manor of Glossop. Wenlocks. Nephew Sir Gilbert T. Lots of other people referred to, and quite a few of his possessions.
Executors: John a Royden, Thomas a Bouthe.
Supervisors: Sister Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk, Archbishop Morton and Lord Daubeney.
Proved: 11 November 1494.
Written in haste as they used to say, so apologies for any errors.
Marie
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much, Marie. I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
>
>
> > Sandra replies:
> > Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> > I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
>
> Marie here:
> I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
So Morton had a finger in it too....!
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:05 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
No prob, Sandra. I've only had a chance to skim my eye over it so far - I'll do a proper transcription later as it looks a really interesting will.
Made on 28 February 1487 (ie 1488), but he doesn't say where.
Was "hole of mynde and of parfitte Remembraunce thanked be god, intending thorow his grace and mercy to vysite diuers pilgemagis. Therfoe I ordeyne and make this my will and testament"
Long journeys were one of the key reasons people made wills. I'm sure his wishes for his burial were connected to the fact that he would be travelling to far lands, viz he asked to be buried "where as it shall please allmyghti god to commaunde my body and soule to depart out of this world".
Lots of references to his sister the Duchess of Norfolk (whom he seems on first glance to have preferred to his wife). Complicated stipulations regarding the manor of Glossop. Wenlocks. Nephew Sir Gilbert T. Lots of other people referred to, and quite a few of his possessions.
Executors: John a Royden, Thomas a Bouthe.
Supervisors: Sister Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk, Archbishop Morton and Lord Daubeney.
Proved: 11 November 1494.
Written in haste as they used to say, so apologies for any errors.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much, Marie. I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
>
>
> > Sandra replies:
> > Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> > I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
>
> Marie here:
> I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 August 2013, 21:05
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
No prob, Sandra. I've only had a chance to skim my eye over it so far - I'll do a proper transcription later as it looks a really interesting will.
Made on 28 February 1487 (ie 1488), but he doesn't say where.
Was "hole of mynde and of parfitte Remembraunce thanked be god, intending thorow his grace and mercy to vysite diuers pilgemagis. Therfoe I ordeyne and make this my will and testament"
Long journeys were one of the key reasons people made wills. I'm sure his wishes for his burial were connected to the fact that he would be travelling to far lands, viz he asked to be buried "where as it shall please allmyghti god to commaunde my body and soule to depart out of this world".
Lots of references to his sister the Duchess of Norfolk (whom he seems on first glance to have preferred to his wife). Complicated stipulations regarding the manor of Glossop. Wenlocks. Nephew Sir Gilbert T. Lots of other people referred to, and quite a few of his possessions.
Executors: John a Royden, Thomas a Bouthe.
Supervisors: Sister Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk, Archbishop Morton and Lord Daubeney.
Proved: 11 November 1494.
Written in haste as they used to say, so apologies for any errors.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much, Marie. Iâ¬"m grateful. Iâ¬"ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
>
>
> > Sandra replies:
> > Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphreyâ¬Â"s movements, he doesnâ¬Â"t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, canâ¬Â"t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richardâ¬Â"s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. Itâ¬Â"s pointed out in a few places that he didnâ¬Â"t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherineâ¬Â"s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> > I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but canâ¬Â"t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the â¬ÂÜmodernâ¬Â" version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
>
> Marie here:
> I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is
proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey's movements, he doesn't show up
much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for
him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can't even be sure of that.
They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through
Richard's reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to
perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It's
pointed out in a few places that he didn't fight for Richard at
Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place,
being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel,
and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine's, Mount Sinai,
where he died. Of what I do not know.
I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can't
read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I
think I saw the modern' version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it
now. Dang. I can't see any obvious mention of him not being sound in body.
Oh, there are times when I wish I'd taken up history not geography, and gone
on to such interesting matters as these. Sir Humphrey wasn't a spring
chicken, but he wasn't that old either, although perhaps by the standard of
the day? He is reckoned to have been born somewhere around 1434 (there are a
lot of different circas for him) and he died early 1493, so he was possibly
59/60. Could have been older. Who knows? The man is elusive to the likes of
me. Maybe he was ill and didn't know it? I don't know the reason for his
pilgrimage, if indeed there was one beyond a religious need to go there. So
I have to make it up. No problem, I'm never short on ideas, that's for sure.
<grin> I'm very careful to add Author's Notes in this type of novel, i.e.
based around actual people and events, because I don't want what I write to
be taken as gospel. Heaven forfend, given some of my plots! But I do say it's
fiction and explain the points where I've done my own thing, so to speak.
The truth is, of course, that I am privileged to read the personal, very
private diaries these folk didn't want anyone to see. They reckoned without
me sticky-beaking from the future, my skeleton key and magnifying glass at
the ready."
Doug here:
Sorry I couldn't be more help! Only thing left that I can think of would be
to see if you can place Sir Humphrey *anywhere* with certainty and work
backward or forward from that point, taking into account travel time via
horseback, etc. And if he's at Calais, there;d be the weather, of course.
Anyway, best of luck!
Doug
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
//snip//
"So Morton had a finger in it too....!"
Doug here:
Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
from in 1471.
Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
that is.
I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
beliefs?
Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
blank spaces to use as you see fit.
Doug
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:05 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
No prob, Sandra. I've only had a chance to skim my eye over it so far - I'll
do a proper transcription later as it looks a really interesting will.
Made on 28 February 1487 (ie 1488), but he doesn't say where.
Was "hole of mynde and of parfitte Remembraunce thanked be god, intending
thorow his grace and mercy to vysite diuers pilgemagis. Therfoe I ordeyne
and make this my will and testament"
Long journeys were one of the key reasons people made wills. I'm sure his
wishes for his burial were connected to the fact that he would be travelling
to far lands, viz he asked to be buried "where as it shall please allmyghti
god to commaunde my body and soule to depart out of this world".
Lots of references to his sister the Duchess of Norfolk (whom he seems on
first glance to have preferred to his wife). Complicated stipulations
regarding the manor of Glossop. Wenlocks. Nephew Sir Gilbert T. Lots of
other people referred to, and quite a few of his possessions.
Executors: John a Royden, Thomas a Bouthe.
Supervisors: Sister Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk, Archbishop Morton and Lord
Daubeney.
Proved: 11 November 1494.
Written in haste as they used to say, so apologies for any errors.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin"
<sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much, Marie. I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of
> Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I
> only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
>
>
> > Sandra replies:
> > Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is
> > proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he
> > doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I
> > guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too,
> > can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal
> > for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII,
> > but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring
> > him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a
> > few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if
> > he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy
> > marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at
> > the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai,
> > where he died. Of what I do not know.
> > I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but
> > can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect
> > remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will
> > somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
>
> Marie here:
> I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to
> take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will
> do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
from in 1471.
Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
that is.
I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
beliefs?
Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
blank spaces to use as you see fit.
Hilary wrote:
And does he not leave a little something to my lady the King's mother (MB)? If I were Leslau I'd say it's odd that he doesn't ask for prayers for the soul of Eleanor (wills of this period often do refer to deceased siblings). But he doesn't mention his brother John either, so we can probably discount theories that he didn't like her or that she was still (really) alive. H.
Sandra replies
Hello again Doug and Hilary. Doug, I think you're right about the restored Lancastrian line not going down too well with Sir Humphrey. As I see it, Edward IV put a blot on the Talbot family honour, Richard (bless im) put that right with Titulus Regius. Then along comes Henry, and out goes the Talbot family honour again. Elizabeth was on good terms with Richard, but definitely not with Henry. By the time Henry usurped the throne, Sir Humphrey might have been a little twitchy---like Clouseau's boss---because Eleanor was his beloved sister (I'm sure).
And Hilary, could it be he didn't mention Eleanor in his will because it was written under the aegis of the Tudors, who would certainly not want to be reminded of her. Perhaps he thought he safeguarded Elizabeth's interests by not drawing Tudor attention to the past? His brother John might not get a mention because there was a little bad blood between the elder and younger branches of the family? Except for a fondly remembered nephew or so. Just guessing. Hazarding.
I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphrey's to go on a pilgrimage, but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making hands with glee after all. =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 16:55
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Doug wrote:
Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
from in 1471.
Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
that is.
I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
beliefs?
Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
blank spaces to use as you see fit.
Hilary wrote:
And does he not leave a little something to my lady the King's mother (MB)? If I were Leslau I'd say it's odd that he doesn't ask for prayers for the soul of Eleanor (wills of this period often do refer to deceased siblings). But he doesn't mention his brother John either, so we can probably discount theories that he didn't like her or that she was still (really) alive. H.
Sandra replies
Hello again Doug and Hilary. Doug, I think you're right about the restored Lancastrian line not going down too well with Sir Humphrey. As I see it, Edward IV put a blot on the Talbot family honour, Richard (bless im) put that right with Titulus Regius. Then along comes Henry, and out goes the Talbot family honour again. Elizabeth was on good terms with Richard, but definitely not with Henry. By the time Henry usurped the throne, Sir Humphrey might have been a little twitchy---like Clouseau's boss---because Eleanor was his beloved sister (I'm sure).
And Hilary, could it be he didn't mention Eleanor in his will because it was written under the aegis of the Tudors, who would certainly not want to be reminded of her. Perhaps he thought he safeguarded Elizabeth's interests by not drawing Tudor attention to the past? His brother John might not get a mention because there was a little bad blood between the elder and younger branches of the family? Except for a fondly remembered nephew or so. Just guessing. Hazarding.
I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphrey's to go on a pilgrimage, but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making hands with glee after all. =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Marie
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
> Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
> EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
> from in 1471.
> Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
> favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
> that is.
> I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
> references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
> possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
> disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
> beliefs?
> Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
> blank spaces to use as you see fit.
> Hilary wrote:
> And does he not leave a little something to my lady the King's mother (MB)? If I were Leslau I'd say it's odd that he doesn't ask for prayers for the soul of Eleanor (wills of this period often do refer to deceased siblings). But he doesn't mention his brother John either, so we can probably discount theories that he didn't like her or that she was still (really) alive. H.
>
> Sandra replies
> Hello again Doug and Hilary. Doug, I think you’re right about the restored Lancastrian line not going down too well with Sir Humphrey. As I see it, Edward IV put a blot on the Talbot family honour, Richard (bless ‘im) put that right with Titulus Regius. Then along comes Henry, and out goes the Talbot family honour again. Elizabeth was on good terms with Richard, but definitely not with Henry. By the time Henry usurped the throne, Sir Humphrey might have been a little twitchy---like Clouseau’s boss---because Eleanor was his beloved sister (I’m sure).
>
> And Hilary, could it be he didn’t mention Eleanor in his will because it was written under the aegis of the Tudors, who would certainly not want to be reminded of her. Perhaps he thought he safeguarded Elizabeth’s interests by not drawing Tudor attention to the past? His brother John might not get a mention because there was a little bad blood between the elder and younger branches of the family? Except for a fondly remembered nephew or so. Just guessing. Hazarding.
>
> I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphrey’s to go on a pilgrimage, but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making hands with glee after all. =^..^=
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Just to say I think Doug has hit something here. Prominent folks who wanted their wills proved and upheld, and their family not to be hassled by the authorities after their death, were very circumspect in the way they worded their wills. For instance almost nobody ever stipulated prayers for members of the family who had been executed for treason; they may well have sorted such prayers out privately, but they would not be included in the will. It may well be that Eleanor's name was considered unmentionable. The inclusion of Archbishop Morton as one of the supervisors may also have been intended to hep speed things through as it was to his court at Lambeth that Sir Humphrey's will would have to be taken for probate.
Marie
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
> Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
> EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
> from in 1471.
> Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
> favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
> that is.
> I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
> references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
> possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
> disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
> beliefs?
> Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
> blank spaces to use as you see fit.
> Hilary wrote:
> And does he not leave a little something to my lady the King's mother (MB)? If I were Leslau I'd say it's odd that he doesn't ask for prayers for the soul of Eleanor (wills of this period often do refer to deceased siblings). But he doesn't mention his brother John either, so we can probably discount theories that he didn't like her or that she was still (really) alive. H.
>
> Sandra replies
> Hello again Doug and Hilary. Doug, I think youýýýre right about the restored Lancastrian line not going down too well with Sir Humphrey. As I see it, Edward IV put a blot on the Talbot family honour, Richard (bless ýýýim) put that right with Titulus Regius. Then along comes Henry, and out goes the Talbot family honour again. Elizabeth was on good terms with Richard, but definitely not with Henry. By the time Henry usurped the throne, Sir Humphrey might have been a little twitchy---like Clouseauýýýs boss---because Eleanor was his beloved sister (Iýýým sure).
>
> And Hilary, could it be he didnýýýt mention Eleanor in his will because it was written under the aegis of the Tudors, who would certainly not want to be reminded of her. Perhaps he thought he safeguarded Elizabethýýýs interests by not drawing Tudor attention to the past? His brother John might not get a mention because there was a little bad blood between the elder and younger branches of the family? Except for a fondly remembered nephew or so. Just guessing. Hazarding.
>
> I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphreyýýýs to go on a pilgrimage, but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making hands with glee after all. =^..^=
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 21:17
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Just to say I think Doug has hit something here. Prominent folks who wanted their wills proved and upheld, and their family not to be hassled by the authorities after their death, were very circumspect in the way they worded their wills. For instance almost nobody ever stipulated prayers for members of the family who had been executed for treason; they may well have sorted such prayers out privately, but they would not be included in the will. It may well be that Eleanor's name was considered unmentionable. The inclusion of Archbishop Morton as one of the supervisors may also have been intended to hep speed things through as it was to his court at Lambeth that Sir Humphrey's will would have to be taken for probate.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
> Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
> EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
> from in 1471.
> Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
> favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
> that is.
> I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
> references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
> possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
> disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
> beliefs?
> Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
> blank spaces to use as you see fit.
> Hilary wrote:
> And does he not leave a little something to my lady the King's mother (MB)? If I were Leslau I'd say it's odd that he doesn't ask for prayers for the soul of Eleanor (wills of this period often do refer to deceased siblings). But he doesn't mention his brother John either, so we can probably discount theories that he didn't like her or that she was still (really) alive. H.
>
> Sandra replies
> Hello again Doug and Hilary. Doug, I think youâ¬"re right about the restored Lancastrian line not going down too well with Sir Humphrey. As I see it, Edward IV put a blot on the Talbot family honour, Richard (bless â¬Üim) put that right with Titulus Regius. Then along comes Henry, and out goes the Talbot family honour again. Elizabeth was on good terms with Richard, but definitely not with Henry. By the time Henry usurped the throne, Sir Humphrey might have been a little twitchy---like Clouseauâ¬"s boss---because Eleanor was his beloved sister (Iâ¬"m sure).
>
> And Hilary, could it be he didnâ¬"t mention Eleanor in his will because it was written under the aegis of the Tudors, who would certainly not want to be reminded of her. Perhaps he thought he safeguarded Elizabethâ¬"s interests by not drawing Tudor attention to the past? His brother John might not get a mention because there was a little bad blood between the elder and younger branches of the family? Except for a fondly remembered nephew or so. Just guessing. Hazarding.
>
> I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphreyâ¬"s to go on a pilgrimage, but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making hands with glee after all. =^..^=
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"The only slight 'quarrel' I'd have with this is that Humphrey had no reason
to leave out brother John Lord Lisle who died a hero with his father. My
guess is that he just didn't mention siblings. But to argue against myself,
I could say he left out both because he didn't want to mention one of them?"
Doug here:
If I remember correctly, Sir Humphrey left no children? So wouldn't his
estate/s, minus the portion to maintain his widow, would automatically go to
his nearest relatives? Any personal items could be distributed before he
left on pilgrimage and thus wouldn't be in his will. Right?
Or wrong?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hilary Jones wrote:
"The only slight 'quarrel' I'd have with this is that Humphrey had no reason
to leave out brother John Lord Lisle who died a hero with his father. My
guess is that he just didn't mention siblings. But to argue against myself,
I could say he left out both because he didn't want to mention one of them?"
Doug here:
If I remember correctly, Sir Humphrey left no children? So wouldn't his
estate/s, minus the portion to maintain his widow, would automatically go to
his nearest relatives? Any personal items could be distributed before he
left on pilgrimage and thus wouldn't be in his will. Right?
Or wrong?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
//snip//
"I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphrey's to go on a pilgrimage,
but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for
all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making
hands with glee after all. =^..^= "
I can't say I've met any historical fiction I've really liked since the
"Flashman" series, but I think that may be because too often the author
takes a just little too much liberty with "history" in the writing of the
"novel". Something which, what with all those "blanks" to fill, you
shouldn't have to worry about with your novel!
Any idea on the completion date? Or is it still very much a "work in
progress"?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Just to say I think Doug has hit something here. Prominent folks who wanted
their wills proved and upheld, and their family not to be hassled by the
authorities after their death, were very circumspect in the way they worded
their wills. For instance almost nobody ever stipulated prayers for members
of the family who had been executed for treason; they may well have sorted
such prayers out privately, but they would not be included in the will. It
may well be that Eleanor's name was considered unmentionable. The inclusion
of Archbishop Morton as one of the supervisors may also have been intended
to hep speed things through as it was to his court at Lambeth that Sir
Humphrey's will would have to be taken for probate."
Doug here:
Got something right(ish) again! I'll have to start keeping score, I guess!
A question, though. I know what an executor is and does, but just what is
the role of a "supervisor"? I've never come across that term before in
relation to wills.
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
And I have now found that Humphrey did think of pilgrimages before the one on which he died. On 25th April 1486 he was granted a licence dilecto et fideli nostro Humfrido Talbot militi marascallo villae nostrae Calesiae, quod ipse, cum sex personis in comitiva sua' to go to Rome. In November 1492 he was granted a royal licence to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. But, (this may have something to do with how they recorded the years) he drew up his will on 18th February 1492 (nine months before receiving the licence) in which he says he's going on pilgrimages. On 3rd March 1493 he was commissioned...to admit to the Order of the Garter, Alphonso, Duke of Calabria. This investment took place at Suessa (Sueca?) on 19th May 1493. He died at Mount Sinai on 5th October 1493. Most of these dates and facts are from Edward IV's French Expedition of 1475, in which there is a section dealing with Humphrey.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
The only slight 'quarrel' I'd have with this is that Humphrey had no reason to leave out brother John Lord Lisle who died a hero with his father. My guess is that he just didn't mention siblings. But to argue against myself, I could say he left out both because he didn't want to mention one of them?
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013, 21:17
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Just to say I think Doug has hit something here. Prominent folks who wanted their wills proved and upheld, and their family not to be hassled by the authorities after their death, were very circumspect in the way they worded their wills. For instance almost nobody ever stipulated prayers for members of the family who had been executed for treason; they may well have sorted such prayers out privately, but they would not be included in the will. It may well be that Eleanor's name was considered unmentionable. The inclusion of Archbishop Morton as one of the supervisors may also have been intended to hep speed things through as it was to his court at Lambeth that Sir Humphrey's will would have to be taken for probate.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> Well, as of 1487-88, anyway.
> Perhaps Sir Humphrey was a "realist" Lancastrian who'd decided to support
> EIV and Richard? Especially as there wasn't much of anyone else to choose
> from in 1471.
> Henry takes the crown and Sir Humphrey, being a Lancastrian, thus remains in
> favor. It would also explain his having Morton as a "supervisor", whatever
> that is.
> I do find his wish to go on a pilgrimage interesting. Are there any
> references of his wishing to do *before* Henry was king? Could it be
> possible Sir Humphrey's desire to go on a pilgrimage was due as much to his
> disappointment in the *restored* Lancastrian line as it was to his religious
> beliefs?
> Whichever, you've got a lot to work with for your novel! Or rather, a lot of
> blank spaces to use as you see fit.
> Hilary wrote:
> And does he not leave a little something to my lady the King's mother (MB)? If I were Leslau I'd say it's odd that he doesn't ask for prayers for the soul of Eleanor (wills of this period often do refer to deceased siblings). But he doesn't mention his brother John either, so we can probably discount theories that he didn't like her or that she was still (really) alive. H.
>
> Sandra replies
> Hello again Doug and Hilary. Doug, I think youâ¬"re right about the restored Lancastrian line not going down too well with Sir Humphrey. As I see it, Edward IV put a blot on the Talbot family honour, Richard (bless â¬Üim) put that right with Titulus Regius. Then along comes Henry, and out goes the Talbot family honour again. Elizabeth was on good terms with Richard, but definitely not with Henry. By the time Henry usurped the throne, Sir Humphrey might have been a little twitchy---like Clouseauâ¬"s boss---because Eleanor was his beloved sister (Iâ¬"m sure).
>
> And Hilary, could it be he didnâ¬"t mention Eleanor in his will because it was written under the aegis of the Tudors, who would certainly not want to be reminded of her. Perhaps he thought he safeguarded Elizabethâ¬"s interests by not drawing Tudor attention to the past? His brother John might not get a mention because there was a little bad blood between the elder and younger branches of the family? Except for a fondly remembered nephew or so. Just guessing. Hazarding.
>
> I do not know of any pre-Henry wish of Humphreyâ¬"s to go on a pilgrimage, but then, come to that, I do not know very much at all. Thank goodness for all those convenient blank spaces, eh, Doug? I can rub my mischief-making hands with glee after all. =^..^=
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
> Yes he mentions his wife, and the personal items like clothes and a morsel (!) for MB
"Also I yeve and bequeath vnto my Lady the kings moder a Floure sette with pecis of dyamoundes and iij perlys thereon hyngyng for a Remembraunce to be good solicitour for me to the kings grace to be good and gracious lord vnto my soule."
Marie
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"> A question, though. I know what an executor is and does, but just what is
> the role of a "supervisor"? I've never come across that term before in
> relation to wills."
Surpervisors (or overseers as they were more commonly called in English) of wills were very common at one time. They were generally of higher status/ greater education/ more useful connections than the executors, and as I understand it were there to offer support or guidance to the executors as and when required - and, in the case of those with connections in the right places, probably a bit of string pulling as well.
Marie
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes he mentions his wife, and the personal items like clothes and a morsel (!) for MB
"Also I yeve and bequeath vnto my Lady the kings moder a Floure sette with pecis of dyamoundes and iij perlys thereon hyngyng for a Remembraunce to be good solicitour for me to the kings grace to be good and gracious lord vnto my soule."
Marie
Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
> The John I was thinking of was Humphrey’s older Talbot half-brother John, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, offspring of the first earl’s first marriage. I gained the impression from Eleanor The Secret Queen that there was estrangement between these two families because Humphrey, Eleanor and Elizabeth’s mother fell out big time with the other branch for inheriting/appropriating various things the old earl had wished for his younger family. She felt these things rightly belonged to her children and she kicked up about it. She was good at that. Ask the Berkeleys. One of the ‘things’ was the Shrewsbury earldom itself, because the old Earl wasn’t an earl during his first marriage, but became one when married to her. She was the 1st Countess of Shrewsbury, and so her children should continue the title. If she’d won the argument, perhaps Humphrey would have been the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury? And there also appeared to be a division between support for York or Lancaster, Humphrey and his siblings veering toward York, the older branch more to Lancaster and then Tudor. Don’t quote me on all this. I need to sit down and concentrate to bring to mind all the Johns, Gilberts and Humphreys.
>
> And I have now found that Humphrey did think of pilgrimages before the one on which he died. On 25th April 1486 he was granted a licence ‘dilecto et fideli nostro Humfrido Talbot militi marascallo villae nostrae Calesiae, quod ipse, cum sex personis in comitiva sua’ to go to Rome. In November 1492 he was granted a royal licence to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. But, (this may have something to do with how they recorded the years) he drew up his will on 18th February 1492
You're right, Sandra. In my earlier post I had misread the last x as a v because the tail end has broken away from the rest of it, and therefore read 1487. But of course Humphrey's February 1492 is our February 1493. Sounds as though he was planning to get away from early on in Henry's reign.
Marie
Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
> Would MB deign to wear something as pretty as that? Too worldly, surely? A Floure â€" that is flower, yes? Set with pieces of diamond and three pearls? What is ‘hyngyng’? Hanging? A pendant? Hey, a flower that pale might even be...a white rose? No, that’s a leap too far. But what if it was indeed the rose of York...in disguise..and imagine if MB actually did wear it, not realizing. I know, I know, meandering imagination again. <grin>
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
Marie:
Yes, Floure is a flower, and it had three pendant pearls. Or may it was MB's name flower, a daisy.
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:27 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes he mentions his wife, and the personal items like clothes and a morsel (!) for MB
>
> "Also I yeve and bequeath vnto my Lady the kings moder a Floure sette with pecis of dyamoundes and iij perlys thereon hyngyng for a Remembraunce to be good solicitour for me to the kings grace to be good and gracious lord vnto my soule."
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 19:27
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes he mentions his wife, and the personal items like clothes and a morsel (!) for MB
"Also I yeve and bequeath vnto my Lady the kings moder a Floure sette with pecis of dyamoundes and iij perlys thereon hyngyng for a Remembraunce to be good solicitour for me to the kings grace to be good and gracious lord vnto my soule."
Marie
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Surpervisors (or overseers as they were more commonly called in English) of
wills were very common at one time. They were generally of higher status/
greater education/ more useful connections than the executors, and as I
understand it were there to offer support or guidance to the executors as
and when required - and, in the case of those with connections in the right
places, probably a bit of string pulling as well."
So it was a way of seeing that some of the services now provided by the
legal profession were available to the executor. Got it.
Just a thought, bu another use of those "connections in the right places"
would be to scare off anyone considering trying to take advantage of the
flux in affairs *any* death causes. Something not unknown even today.
Thanks for the information!
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Surpervisors (or overseers as they were more commonly called in English) of
wills were very common at one time. They were generally of higher status/
greater education/ more useful connections than the executors, and as I
understand it were there to offer support or guidance to the executors as
and when required - and, in the case of those with connections in the right
places, probably a bit of string pulling as well."
So it was a way of seeing that some of the services now provided by the
legal profession were available to the executor. Got it.
Just a thought, bu another use of those "connections in the right places"
would be to scare off anyone considering trying to take advantage of the
flux in affairs *any* death causes. Something not unknown even today.
Thanks for the information!
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
No, I don't know about Nicholas Talbot and his wife either. I'll have a poke around and see if I can come up with anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey's will. I can't tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You're right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister's hands or not get anything! I'd love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
No, I don't have them, Marie, but I'm willing to get them as I would quite like to know what they have to say, and if you do all the hard work, it's only right that I should my bit. I'll let you know when I post them. Thank you for the offer.
No, I don't know about Nicholas Talbot and his wife either. I'll have a poke around and see if I can come up with anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey's will. I can't tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You're right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister's hands or not get anything! I'd love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers. Will of Nicholas Talbott, Gentleman of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Collection: Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
Date range:18 February 1542 - 18 February 1542
Reference:PROB 11/29/53
Subjects:Wills and probate
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey's will. I can't tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You're right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister's hands or not get anything! I'd love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Bedtime for me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Marie Just a daft question, but which Cecily are you indicating? The only Nicholas Talbott listed at the National Archives is a gentleman of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers. Will of Nicholas Talbott, Gentleman of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Collection: Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
Date range:18 February 1542 - 18 February 1542
Reference:PROB 11/29/53
Subjects:Wills and probate
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey's will. I can't tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You're right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister's hands or not get anything! I'd love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers. Will of Nicholas Talbott, Gentleman of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Collection: Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
Date range:18 February 1542 - 18 February 1542
Reference:PROB 11/29/53
Subjects:Wills and probate
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey's will. I can't tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You're right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister's hands or not get anything! I'd love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I'm grateful. I've posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Calais
Any help would be appreciated.
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
--- In , <> wrote:
Just one more post tonight and then I’ll definitely go away. Regarding Nicholas Talbot, if you go to http://archive.org/stream/englishancestryo00bartrich/englishancestryo00bartrich_djvu.txt and do a search on ‘Nicholas’ you’ll come to one who seems very likely indeed, and he has a wife named Jane. I don’t know if he’s the same fellow whose will is available. There is also a connection with a whole load of other Talbots.
Bedtime for me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Marie – Just a daft question, but which Cecily are you indicating? The only Nicholas Talbott listed at the National Archives is a gentleman of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers. Will of Nicholas Talbott, Gentleman of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Collection: Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
Date range:18 February 1542 - 18 February 1542
Reference:PROB 11/29/53
Subjects:Wills and probate
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey’s will. I can’t tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You’re right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister’s hands or not get anything! I’d love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
--- In , <> wrote:
OK, Marie, they’re up in Files, as Will of Elizabeth Mowbray-Talbot Duchess of Norfolk and Will of Dame Jane Talbott. Almost at the end of the list.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
No, I don’t have them, Marie, but I’m willing to get them as I would quite like to know what they have to say, and if you do all the hard work, it’s only right that I should my bit. I’ll let you know when I post them. Thank you for the offer.
No, I don’t know about Nicholas Talbot and his wife either. I’ll have a poke around and see if I can come up with anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey’s will. I can’t tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You’re right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister’s hands or not get anything! I’d love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Just to let you know, since the usual automatic message hasn't come up, that I've posted the transcript of the Duchess of Norfolk's will in the files section. What she has to say about Henry VII is interesting. Jane Talbot won't be coming nearly as quickly. I had a first draft of the transcript of Elizabeth Talbot's will, but I'll have to do Jane's from scratch and it's also quite a lot longer. Plus I need a break first for other things. Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:
OK, Marie, they’re up in Files, as Will of Elizabeth Mowbray-Talbot Duchess of Norfolk and Will of Dame Jane Talbott. Almost at the end of the list.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:29 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
No, I don’t have them, Marie, but I’m willing to get them as I would quite like to know what they have to say, and if you do all the hard work, it’s only right that I should my bit. I’ll let you know when I post them. Thank you for the offer.
No, I don’t know about Nicholas Talbot and his wife either. I’ll have a poke around and see if I can come up with anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome. Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote: Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey’s will. I can’t tell you how delighted and grateful I am. You’re right, it is very interesting, and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the sister’s hands or not get anything! I’d love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Just to let you know, since the usual automatic message hasn't come up, that
I've posted the transcript of the Duchess of Norfolk's will in the files
section. What she has to say about Henry VII is interesting. Jane
Talbot won't be coming nearly as quickly. I had a first draft of the transcript
of Elizabeth Talbot's will, but I'll have to do Jane's from scratch and it's
also quite a lot longer. Plus I need a break first for other things.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
OK, Marie, they’re up in Files, as Will of Elizabeth
Mowbray-Talbot Duchess of Norfolk and Will of Dame Jane Talbott. Almost at the
end of the list.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:29 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
No, I don’t have them, Marie, but I’m willing to get them as I
would quite like to know what they have to say, and if you do all the hard work,
it’s only right that I should my bit. I’ll let you know when I post them.
Thank you for the offer.
No, I don’t know about Nicholas Talbot and his
wife either. I’ll have a poke around and see if I can come up with
anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent:
Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome.
Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and
Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have
a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of
these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS
versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his
wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey’s will. I can’t tell you
how delighted and grateful I am. You’re right, it is very interesting, and he
certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the
sister’s hands or not get anything! I’d love to know why.
Many
thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I’m
grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me
after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess.
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47
PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra
replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information.
Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s
movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in
Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife
too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for
years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there
was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the
king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t
fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was
probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture
across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St.
Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage,
but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect
remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere,
but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the
will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm
sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
[Non-text
portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I don't know the answer to that, I'm afraid. I wondered about it too. Do we have a will for the Duke of Norfolk? I know he died very suddenly, but if we do he may mention his flower in that. Maybe it was the mulberry blossom, of course. I'll have a quick look at the booklets in the papers library that deal with badges and liveries. If I forget, give me a nudge.
Also, I was interested in the reference to flowers at a funeral being a 'curiosity'. It's true that you don't tend to come across references to funeral flowers in earlier wills than this, so it seems to indicate that this was the period when they first came in - still a crazy new fashion as far as the Duchess of Norfolk was concerned!
Also, I ought to let you know that I noticed a couple of errors in my modernised spelling version last night and posted a replacement.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Marie, Elizabeth Talbot mentions the ‘flowers’ of her lord and her. Presumably their badges? I know (JA-H – Eleanor) that she may have had blue borage flowers as her badge, this was on a signet ring and may well be what she refers to for herself. Together (maybe) with the daisy, in honour of her mother, Margaret. But what flowers did John Mowbray have? His only badges that I know are the Mowbray white lion, ostrich feathers, an ostrich feather with a coronet, a chained ostrich feather and a mulberry leaf with fruit. But would the latter count as a flower? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:18 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Just to let you know, since the usual automatic message hasn't come up, that
I've posted the transcript of the Duchess of Norfolk's will in the files
section. What she has to say about Henry VII is interesting. Jane
Talbot won't be coming nearly as quickly. I had a first draft of the transcript
of Elizabeth Talbot's will, but I'll have to do Jane's from scratch and it's
also quite a lot longer. Plus I need a break first for other things.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
OK, Marie, they’re up in Files, as Will of Elizabeth
Mowbray-Talbot Duchess of Norfolk and Will of Dame Jane Talbott. Almost at the
end of the list.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:29 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
No, I don’t have them, Marie, but I’m willing to get them as I
would quite like to know what they have to say, and if you do all the hard work,
it’s only right that I should my bit. I’ll let you know when I post them.
Thank you for the offer.
No, I don’t know about Nicholas Talbot and his
wife either. I’ll have a poke around and see if I can come up with
anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent:
Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome.
Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and
Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have
a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of
these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS
versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his
wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey’s will. I can’t tell you
how delighted and grateful I am. You’re right, it is very interesting, and he
certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in the
sister’s hands or not get anything! I’d love to know why.
Many
thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie. I’m
grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It defeats me
after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can guess.
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:47
PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra
replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the information.
Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir Humphrey’s
movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything. He had in a house in
Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well, presumably his wife
too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no children. He was Marshal for
years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s reign to Henry VII, but if there
was some specific duty he had to perform, that would bring him to England or the
king, I do not know. It’s pointed out in a few places that he didn’t
fight for Richard at Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was
probably in that place, being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture
across the Channel, and at the end of his life he went off to St.
Catherine’s, Mount Sinai, where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his will, made before he left on pilgrimage,
but can’t read it. I think he says he is of sound mind and perfect
remembrance. I think I saw the ‘modern’ version of his will somewhere,
but cannot find it now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the
will in the files section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm
sure any others with palaeography skills will do the same.
[Non-text
portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I don't know the answer to that, I'm afraid. I wondered about it too. Do we have a will for the Duke of Norfolk? I know he died very suddenly, but if we do he may mention his flower in that. Maybe it was the mulberry blossom, of course. I'll have a quick look at the booklets in the papers library that deal with badges and liveries. If I forget, give me a nudge.
Also, I was interested in the reference to flowers at a funeral being a 'curiosity'. It's true that you don't tend to come across references to funeral flowers in earlier wills than this, so it seems to indicate that this was the period when they first came in - still a crazy new fashion as far as the Duchess of Norfolk was concerned!
Also, I ought to let you know that I noticed a couple of errors in my modernised spelling version last night and posted a replacement.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Marie, Elizabeth Talbot mentions the ‘flowers’ of her lord and her. Presumably their badges? I know (JA-H – Eleanor) that she may have had blue borage flowers as her badge, this was on a signet ring and may well be what she refers to for herself. Together (maybe) with the daisy, in honour of her mother, Margaret. But what flowers did John Mowbray have? His only badges that I know are the Mowbray white lion, ostrich feathers, an ostrich feather with a coronet, a chained ostrich feather and a mulberry leaf with fruit. But would the latter count as a flower? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:18 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Just to let you know, since the usual automatic message hasn't come up, that
I've posted the transcript of the Duchess of Norfolk's will in the files
section. What she has to say about Henry VII is interesting. Jane
Talbot won't be coming nearly as quickly. I had a first draft of the transcript
of Elizabeth Talbot's will, but I'll have to do Jane's from scratch and it's
also quite a lot longer. Plus I need a break first for other things.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
OK, Marie, they’re up in Files, as Will of Elizabeth
Mowbray-Talbot Duchess of Norfolk and Will of Dame Jane Talbott. Almost at the
end of the list.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:29 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
No, I don’t have them, Marie, but I’m willing to get them
as I would quite like to know what they have to say, and if you do all the hard
work, it’s only right that I should my bit. I’ll let you know when I
post them. Thank you for the offer.
No, I don’t know about Nicholas
Talbot and his wife either. I’ll have a poke around and see if I can come
up with anything.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:10 PM
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
_______ You're welcome.
Do you by any chance have the MS wills of Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and
Humphrey's widow Jane? I thought I had both but can't find either, though I have
a first-draft transcription of Elizabeth's. If you don't have transcripts of
these, and would like, I am offering to provide if you could post up the MS
versions as with Sir Humph. Also, do you know who the Nicholas Talbot and his
wife Jane might be who are mentioned in Cecily's will? Marie ________ --- In
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Marie, I have just seen your file on Sir Humphrey’s will. I can’t tell
you how delighted and grateful I am. You’re right, it is very interesting,
and he certainly favoured his sister over his wife, who had to put herself in
the sister’s hands or not get anything! I’d love to know why.
Many thanks again.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:57 PM
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Thank you so much, Marie.
I’m grateful. I’ve posted it as The Will of Sir Humphrey Talbot. It
defeats me after the first couple of lines, and I only know them because I can
guess. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013
4:47 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
> Sandra replies:
> Hello again Doug. Thank you for the
information. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to trace Sir
Humphrey’s movements, he doesn’t show up much in anything.
He had in a house in Calais, so I guess it was home for him and his wife. Well,
presumably his wife too, can’t even be sure of that. They had no
children. He was Marshal for years, from Edward IV, through Richard’s
reign to Henry VII, but if there was some specific duty he had to perform, that
would bring him to England or the king, I do not know. It’s pointed
out in a few places that he didn’t fight for Richard at
Bosworth..well, if he was Marshal of Calais, he was probably in that place,
being a busy marshal. He was a pretty permanent fixture across the Channel, and
at the end of his life he went off to St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai,
where he died. Of what I do not know.
> I have a facsimile of his
will, made before he left on pilgrimage, but can’t read it. I think
he says he is of sound mind and perfect remembrance. I think I saw the
‘modern’ version of his will somewhere, but cannot find it
now. Dang.
Marie here:
I you could post the will in the files
section I'll certainly volunteer to take a look at it, and I'm sure any others
with palaeography skills will do the same.
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I don't know if there were any winter flowers available, but there's nothing in her will to suggest she was expecting to die imminently. Usually wills were proved pretty soon after death, so it is more likely that in the event she died in May.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
 SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don’t have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the ‘flowers at the funeral’ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn’t like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I don't know if there were any winter flowers available, but there's nothing in her will to suggest she was expecting to die imminently. Usually wills were proved pretty soon after death, so it is more likely that in the event she died in May.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
 SandraMachin wrote: "Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don’t have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the ‘flowers at the funeral’ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn’t like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic ÿ SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies’ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don’t have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the ‘flowers at the funeral’ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn’t like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September
2013, 19:45
Subject: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies’ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don’t have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the ‘flowers at the funeral’ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn’t like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
It was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful heir? Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic ÿ SandraMachin wrote: "Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
The fact that EofY was illegitimate would not affect the legitimacy
of Arthur surely because he was heir to Henry, king by right of conquest.
In England (then) and UK (now) a woman takes on the rank of her husband, so
Elizabeth was queen because she was married to the king. Her birth then
becomes irrelevant. In the modern times, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
might not call herself Princess of Wales, but she is, because she is the wife of
the Prince of Wales.
It
was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the
honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she
wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to
think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would
Arthur still be the rightful heir?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September
2013, 19:45
Subject: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 8:35
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hello Hilary. No, I didn't know this all I knew of the Montgomerys was that they were Eleanor's Butler family cousins. I have just taken a quick look for Anne and found http://www.defrostingcoldcases.com/part-2-king-richard-iii-ruthless-ruler-yes-regicide-no/ As you say, the notion of such a connection is very interesting indeed, and poses questions about the actual opinion More might have held about Richard. Mind you, talking to these ladies doesn't mean they would have divulged such an enormous secret. More served Henry Tudor, who was becoming quite handy at permanently removing those he didn't want around. The survival of Eleanor Talbot, whom I believe had indeed married Edward IV, would not have suited Henry VII, who needed his queen to remain legitimate. Eleanor/Anne would surely have received the thumbs-down. And Richard, presumably, could never have known possible whispers concerning the ladies in the Minories? If he did, he did nothing about it. Giving him a ruthless hat for a moment, if he knew Eleanor was still alive, wouldn't he have produced her to back up his claim to the throne? A few threats to Elizabeth would surely make Eleanor compliant? But Richard wasn't like that. I don't think he knew, not because he failed to find out, but because the story wasn't true in the first place and the whispers are of solely modern origin. Eleanor's death' took place when her favourite brother and sister (Humphrey and Elizabeth) were out of the country escorting Richard's aunt Margaret to marry and become Duchess of Burgundy, and they rushed back on account of it. Of course, conspiracy theorists would say this was to absolve them of any complicity in a plot' to remove Eleanor to a place of safety forever more. Yet again, we'll never know. Thank you for mentioning it. The supply of fascinating what-ifs' seems in no danger of petering out. Thank goodness. An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful heir? Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic ÿ SandraMachin wrote: "Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Today's question
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:16
Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Today's question
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 9:02
Subject: Re: RE: Today's question
ÿ I agree with your conclusion completely. The logical answer to your parenthetical question is that Leslau must have thought she buried AM near Norwich:) ----- Original Message ----- From: mariewalsh2003 To: Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:16 AM Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping. The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories. Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details? (Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?) Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote: Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Arthur could not be illegitimate because his parents were legally married, dispensations granted etc. There was no question of EofY's identity - she was not an imposter, so it couldn't be said that Henry married under false pretences. However, if it could have been proved that Henry had 'married' someone else (eg someone he associated with during his exile), then we would be back with a E4 ET and EW situation, then Arthur would have been in the same position as the York children.
Sometimes, the 'what ifs' are more interesting that real events! From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
But if Henry's marriage to Elizabeth was suddenly on shaky ground because of her discovered illegitimacy (i.e. she should not/could not in law be married to the king) wouldn't that automatically make Arthur's position shaky as well? He could well be illegitimate, exactly as Edward IV's two sons were. What could Henry do about it? If legitimacy wasn't of importance regarding his wife, why would he have gone to such lengths to make her legitimate again in the first place? It's all hypothetical, of course, and just another what-if'.
=^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:10 AM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic The fact that EofY was illegitimate would not affect the legitimacy of Arthur surely because he was heir to Henry, king by right of conquest. In England (then) and UK (now) a woman takes on the rank of her husband, so Elizabeth was queen because she was married to the king. Her birth then becomes irrelevant. In the modern times, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall might not call herself Princess of Wales, but she is, because she is the wife of the Prince of Wales.
It was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful heir? Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic ÿ SandraMachin wrote: "Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
A king's wife being illegitimate, all other things being equal,
should not make any difference to her status once married. With Henry, he
had promised to marry the 'Princess of York' before he invaded, but he was
careful not to base his claim to the throne on her being her father's
heir. I assume he repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to
help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they
presumably regarded as legitimate and royal.
Arthur
could not be illegitimate because his parents were legally married,
dispensations granted etc. There was no question of EofY's identity - she
was not an imposter, so it couldn't be said that Henry married under false
pretences. However, if it could have been proved that Henry had 'married'
someone else (eg someone he associated with during his exile), then we would be
back with a E4 ET and EW situation, then Arthur would have been in the same
position as the York children.
Sometimes,
the 'what ifs' are more interesting that real events!
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
But if Henry's marriage to
Elizabeth was suddenly on shaky ground because of her discovered illegitimacy
(i.e. she should not/could not in law be married to the king) wouldn't that
automatically make Arthur's position shaky as well? He could well be
illegitimate, exactly as Edward IV's two sons were. What could Henry do about
it? If legitimacy wasn't of importance regarding his wife, why would he have
gone to such lengths to make her legitimate again in the first place? It's all
hypothetical, of course, and just another what-if'.
=^..^=
From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
The fact that EofY was illegitimate would not affect the legitimacy
of Arthur surely because he was heir to Henry, king by right of conquest.
In England (then) and UK (now) a woman takes on the rank of her husband, so
Elizabeth was queen because she was married to the king. Her birth then
becomes irrelevant. In the modern times, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
might not call herself Princess of Wales, but she is, because she is the wife of
the Prince of Wales.
It
was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the
honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she
wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to
think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would
Arthur still be the rightful heir?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September
2013, 19:45
Subject: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
One of the reasons I am convinced that the pre-contract is true is that the actions of H7 after Bosworth are very telling. He had Stillington in his control and kept him in prison. He could have made the Bishop reveal 'The Truth' to Parliament - Henry could have finished the whole issue very easily, if the thing had been a lie - but he chose the sweeping things under the carpet method. Having the TR repealed and destroyed unread seems very suspicious to me.
With regard to the general point about monarchs marrying illegitimate persons, I don't think there is anything in law to prevent it. What might prevent such a thing would be the reaction of the Court and the nobles - if the country was in a fragile state, then any opposition to the king's marriage might be something to be avoided. But if the king was in firm control, and there was no viable opposition, then who could challenge him?
In Henry's case, it was important to retain the idea that EoY was, indeed, the Princess of York - whether in truth she was or not - not because Henry's holding of the crown, or Arthur's sucession was affected, but because it helped in the myth of the unity of York and Lancaster in Tudor.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote
I really thought her illegitimacy would make a difference, in that a king could not marry someone who was illegitimate. If she were to be found illegitimate after the marriage, then she would have been the same at the time of the marriage. But, from what you say, in this instance it would not have made any difference at all. As we' support Richard's entitlement to the throne, we all know Elizabeth wasn't a princess, but merely another Elizabeth Grey, born of the relationship between Edward IV and the widow Grey, with whom he had shacked up. Henry certainly wouldn't have married her under those circumstances. But, under the terms of my what if', I imagined him finding out after the event, and what, if anything, he'd do about it. He discovered he was married to a king's bastard, not to a princess. I doubt he'd be very pleased. And would he fear that it would give rise to future challenges to the security of his House? Elizabeth and bastard slips' and all that. Yes, he was the king, and yes, Arthur was born within marriage, but if there was a question mark over whether Elizabeth was what she said she was when she gave her vows....? =^..^=
From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:01 AM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic A king's wife being illegitimate, all other things being equal, should not make any difference to her status once married. With Henry, he had promised to marry the 'Princess of York' before he invaded, but he was careful not to base his claim to the throne on her being her father's heir. I assume he repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they presumably regarded as legitimate and royal. Arthur could not be illegitimate because his parents were legally married, dispensations granted etc. There was no question of EofY's identity - she was not an imposter, so it couldn't be said that Henry married under false pretences. However, if it could have been proved that Henry had 'married' someone else (eg someone he associated with during his exile), then we would be back with a E4 ET and EW situation, then Arthur would have been in the same position as the York children. Sometimes, the 'what ifs' are more interesting that real events! From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
But if Henry's marriage to Elizabeth was suddenly on shaky ground because of her discovered illegitimacy (i.e. she should not/could not in law be married to the king) wouldn't that automatically make Arthur's position shaky as well? He could well be illegitimate, exactly as Edward IV's two sons were. What could Henry do about it? If legitimacy wasn't of importance regarding his wife, why would he have gone to such lengths to make her legitimate again in the first place? It's all hypothetical, of course, and just another what-if'.
=^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:10 AM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic The fact that EofY was illegitimate would not affect the legitimacy of Arthur surely because he was heir to Henry, king by right of conquest. In England (then) and UK (now) a woman takes on the rank of her husband, so Elizabeth was queen because she was married to the king. Her birth then becomes irrelevant. In the modern times, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall might not call herself Princess of Wales, but she is, because she is the wife of the Prince of Wales.
It was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful heir? Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic ÿ SandraMachin wrote: "Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Henry may well have thought her illegitimate - but by repealing TR,
he swept away the taint of bastardy. He made much of uniting the red and
white roses - a great PR coup the Tudor Rose - and I guess there were few who
would want to stir things up again, certainly in the short term.
One
of the reasons I am convinced that the pre-contract is true is that the actions
of H7 after Bosworth are very telling. He had Stillington in his control
and kept him in prison. He could have made the Bishop reveal 'The Truth'
to Parliament - Henry could have finished the whole issue very easily, if the
thing had been a lie - but he chose the sweeping things under the carpet
method. Having the TR repealed and destroyed unread seems very suspicious
to me.
With
regard to the general point about monarchs marrying illegitimate persons, I
don't think there is anything in law to prevent it. What might prevent
such a thing would be the reaction of the Court and the nobles - if the country
was in a fragile state, then any opposition to the king's marriage might be
something to be avoided. But if the king was in firm control, and there
was no viable opposition, then who could challenge him?
In
Henry's case, it was important to retain the idea that EoY was, indeed, the
Princess of York - whether in truth she was or not - not because Henry's holding
of the crown, or Arthur's sucession was affected, but because it helped in the
myth of the unity of York and Lancaster in Tudor.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote
I
really thought her illegitimacy would make a difference, in that a king could
not marry someone who was illegitimate. If she were to be found illegitimate
after the marriage, then she would have been the same at the time of the
marriage. But, from what you say, in this instance it would not have made any
difference at all. As we' support Richard's entitlement to the throne, we all
know Elizabeth wasn't a princess, but merely another Elizabeth Grey, born of the
relationship between Edward IV and the widow Grey, with whom he had shacked up.
Henry certainly wouldn't have married her under those circumstances. But, under
the terms of my what if', I imagined him finding out after the event, and what,
if anything, he'd do about it. He discovered he was married to a king's bastard,
not to a princess. I doubt he'd be very pleased. And would he fear that it would
give rise to future challenges to the security of his House? Elizabeth and
bastard slips' and all that. Yes, he was the king, and yes, Arthur was born
within marriage, but if there was a question mark over whether Elizabeth was
what she said she was when she gave her vows....? =^..^=
From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
A king's wife being illegitimate, all other things being equal,
should not make any difference to her status once married. With Henry, he
had promised to marry the 'Princess of York' before he invaded, but he was
careful not to base his claim to the throne on her being her father's
heir. I assume he repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to
help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they
presumably regarded as legitimate and royal.
Arthur
could not be illegitimate because his parents were legally married,
dispensations granted etc. There was no question of EofY's identity - she
was not an imposter, so it couldn't be said that Henry married under false
pretences. However, if it could have been proved that Henry had 'married'
someone else (eg someone he associated with during his exile), then we would be
back with a E4 ET and EW situation, then Arthur would have been in the same
position as the York children.
Sometimes,
the 'what ifs' are more interesting that real events!
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
But if Henry's marriage to
Elizabeth was suddenly on shaky ground because of her discovered illegitimacy
(i.e. she should not/could not in law be married to the king) wouldn't that
automatically make Arthur's position shaky as well? He could well be
illegitimate, exactly as Edward IV's two sons were. What could Henry do about
it? If legitimacy wasn't of importance regarding his wife, why would he have
gone to such lengths to make her legitimate again in the first place? It's all
hypothetical, of course, and just another what-if'.
=^..^=
From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
The fact that EofY was illegitimate would not affect the legitimacy
of Arthur surely because he was heir to Henry, king by right of conquest.
In England (then) and UK (now) a woman takes on the rank of her husband, so
Elizabeth was queen because she was married to the king. Her birth then
becomes irrelevant. In the modern times, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
might not call herself Princess of Wales, but she is, because she is the wife of
the Prince of Wales.
It
was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7.
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the
honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she
wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to
think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would
Arthur still be the rightful heir?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September
2013, 19:45
Subject: Re:
Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladies' Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I don't have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
flowers at the funeral' reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn't
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Today's question
A J
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
No Stephen, he says nothing about Anne Montgomery being bumped off; merely that the use of her name in indicating the grave was a code amongst the ladies of the minories for where Eleanor lay. I don't think he was that much of a crank; a lot of his interpretations of Holbein paintings have been on the syllabus of unis for years.
From: Stephen Lark
<stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 9:02
Subject: Re: RE: Today's question
I agree with your conclusion completely. The
logical answer to your parenthetical question is that Leslau must have thought
she buried AM near Norwich:)
----- Original Message -----
From:
mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:16
AM
Subject: RE:
Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The
executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery.
But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery,
who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir
William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir
William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's
sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In
other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy
links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were
also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the
Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce
Legh of the Minories early enough for him to
have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more
details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with
the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In
, <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why?
She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says.
Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on
clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is
code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that
Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would
probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have
talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013,
19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit
for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right.
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of
Topic

SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that
he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in
November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not
November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with
Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a
sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Today's question
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 13:04
Subject: Re: RE: Today's question
You can still find Leslau's stuff on the Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/).
A JOn Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: No Stephen, he says nothing about Anne Montgomery being bumped off; merely that the use of her name in indicating the grave was a code amongst the ladies of the minories for where Eleanor lay. I don't think he was that much of a crank; a lot of his interpretations of Holbein paintings have been on the syllabus of unis for years.
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 9:02
Subject: Re: RE: Today's question
I agree with your conclusion completely. The logical answer to your parenthetical question is that Leslau must have thought she buried AM near Norwich:) ----- Original Message ----- From: mariewalsh2003 To: Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:16 AM Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping. The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories. Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details? (Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?) Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote: Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one of Edward's executors?
I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group.
I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of London.
As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery (probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't seem to have been all that fond of her).
The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order to make sense of their motives for being together or political affiliations.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London, Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:16
Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I think the point is that, although Henry didn't recognise Elizabeth's claim when he married her, he legitimized her and married her in order to pacify public opinion - i.e. no matter what he himself said, he was tolerated as king because he had married Edward IV's eldest daughter. He was, hence, very vulnerable if either of Elizabeth's brothers should turn up, particularly since they were now also legitimate.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
A king's wife being illegitimate, all other things being equal, should not make any difference to her status once married. With Henry, he had promised to marry the 'Princess of York' before he invaded, but he was careful not to base his claim to the throne on her being her father's heir. I assume he repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they presumably regarded as legitimate and royal.
Arthur could not be illegitimate because his parents were legally married, dispensations granted etc. There was no question of EofY's identity - she was not an imposter, so it couldn't be said that Henry married under false pretences. However, if it could have been proved that Henry had 'married' someone else (eg someone he associated with during his exile), then we would be back with a E4 ET and EW situation, then Arthur would have been in the same position as the York children.
Sometimes, the 'what ifs' are more interesting that real events! From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
But if Henry’s marriage to Elizabeth was suddenly on shaky ground because of her discovered illegitimacy (i.e. she should not/could not in law be married to the king) wouldn’t that automatically make Arthur’s position shaky as well? He could well be illegitimate, exactly as Edward IV’s two sons were. What could Henry do about it? If legitimacy wasn’t of importance regarding his wife, why would he have gone to such lengths to make her legitimate again in the first place? It’s all hypothetical, of course, and just another ‘what-if’.
=^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:10 AM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic The fact that EofY was illegitimate would not affect the legitimacy of Arthur surely because he was heir to Henry, king by right of conquest. In England (then) and UK (now) a woman takes on the rank of her husband, so Elizabeth was queen because she was married to the king. Her birth then becomes irrelevant. In the modern times, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall might not call herself Princess of Wales, but she is, because she is the wife of the Prince of Wales.
It was H8 who used his mother's birth has part of his claim, not H7. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: (snip)
An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she wasn’t? What then? He’s stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful heir? Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:28 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladies’ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote: "Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I don’t have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the ‘flowers at the funeral’ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didn’t like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Re: Brief Change of Topic
//snip// "An afterthought. What if...Henry had married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful heir?" Doug here: EoY's legitimacy, or lack thereof, wouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of her children. Her marriage to Henry was completely legal, "i-s" dotted, "t-s" crossed and everything. Even that bit about keeping EoY in his own home prior to the marriage was covered by a dispensation. Stephen would be your best bet on whether the above is correct. Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
//snip//
"An afterthought. What if...Henry had
married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but
then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an
illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position
be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful
heir?"
Doug here:
EoY's legitimacy, or lack thereof, wouldn't
have any bearing on the legitimacy of her children. Her marriage to Henry was
completely legal, "i-s" dotted, "t-s" crossed and everything. Even that bit
about keeping EoY in his own home prior to the marriage was covered by a
dispensation.
Stephen would be your best bet on whether the
above is correct.
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
//snip//
"An afterthought. What if...Henry had
married Elizabeth of York in the honest belief that she was legitimate, but
then found out too late that she wasn't? What then? He's stuck with an
illegitimate queen and Prince Arthur to think about. What would his position
be? Would the marriage remain lawful? Would Arthur still be the rightful
heir?"
Doug here:
EoY's legitimacy, or lack thereof,
wouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of her children. Her
marriage to Henry was completely legal, "i-s" dotted, "t-s" crossed and
everything. Even that bit about keeping EoY in his own home prior to the
marriage was covered by a dispensation.
Stephen would be your best bet on whether the
above is correct.
Doug
Re: Today's question
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one of Edward's executors?I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group. I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of London.As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery (probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't seem to have been all that fond of her). The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order to make sense of their motives for being together or political affiliations.Marie --- In , <> wrote:To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London, Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:16
Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Today's question
That Anne Montgomery was married to Edward IV's executor was not a supposition, it was an error - someone else's error, I admit. I was merely trying to point out who the real Anne Montgomery was. I know you initially presented Leslau's theory as possibly rather "far fetched", but in later posts seemed to be defending his reputation. All that concerned me is that the result of your post was to present a rather skewed view, and I felt Sandra deserved the bigger picture. Am I not allowed an input?
I'm amazed you so casually dismiss the significance to the dynamics of the Minories (with a Darcy and a Tyrell amongst them) of the marriages of three separate Darcy siblings to members of the Tyrell family. There was only one Darcy Haute marriage so far as I recall, and there were no Hautes in the Minories.
I'm going to skip your posts from now on, Hilary, because I'm just getting fed up with the personal point-scoring at the expense of the history. I've been researching this period for 40 years and I do feel I have something to offer.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
No I didn't say Leslau claimed that - I said that someone on the web did. I merely said to Sandra that there had been an interesting idea once mooted by Leslau about the two wills and Anne Montgomery. Sandra writes fiction; she might have been interested in it. I'm not supporting Leslau or contradicting him, except where, as with Thomas Cosyn and the Princes the dates are out. The discussion here becomes very narrow if we can't mention other people's ideas, however much we agree or disagree with them. You are making suppositions just like Leslau and we listen.BTW I would have thought it much easier to keep an eye on someone in London than in Norfolk. As for the Tyrells, that could be design or accident. The Hautes were also related to the Tyrells and Sir Richard rebelled against Richard. One could go on forever.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one of Edward's executors?I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group. I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of London.As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery (probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't seem to have been all that fond of her). The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order to make sense of their motives for being together or political affiliations.Marie --- In , <> wrote:To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London, Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:16
Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic  SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"<snip> I assume he [Henry] repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they presumably regarded as legitimate and royal. <snip>"
Carol responds:
And for another reason too often overlooked, IMO:Titulus Regius was *Richard's* claim to the crown. If it was valid, Henry's forces had killed the rightful king and usurped his throne. With Titulus Regius repealed and all copies (supposedly) burned unread, Richard could be presented as a usurping tyrant with no claim to the throne and Henry as the "savior" of England (who nevertheless could claim the throne only by conquest because, ironically, repealing TR made Edward V the rightful king of England, and who knew whether he was alive?).
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Not only was Titilus Regius Richard's claim to the throne, it was also tangible irrefutable evidence that Richard submitted the precontract to the proper legal channels, and those channels alone decided the course England would take and whom it would offer the crown to. It's proof he had the legal and personal support of the Three Estates and later Parliament.
Titilus Regius stands as evidence that Richard didn't *need* to force his way to the throne, or kill his way to the throne because it was openly offered to him. Titilus Regius proves the exact opposite of what the Tudors and their historians claimed Richard to be.
Today, if an armchair scholar or an historian accepts the precontract that led to Titilus Regius, he or she can usually go on to discover there is no evidence of Richard having murdered the ex-princes in the Tower. They are inspired to begin picking apart the Tudor propaganda piece by piece and realize all too soon where it ignores history fact and falls apart.
On the other hand, if an armchair scholar or historian *ignores* or rejects Titilus Regius -- if they insist it's based on a convenient lie (regardless it passed every test the council bishops -- contemporary experts in church law -- threw at it) , then nothing else works for them except to assume Richard was a usurping, murdering monster as tradition sings it. At that point...why dig through old records and question what one has already decided? That one point: "Is Titilus Regius valid or not?" is perhaps the strongest point that redeems or damns Richard according to whoever is answering the question.
So an historian either believes that the machinery of English government operated as it was supposed to after Edward IV died, or an historian claims that English government whimpered and shriveled in surrender before the most wicked force England had ever seen, concentrated in the person of one man -- the evil Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Oh, and he achieved his takeover of England in a matter of what...six weeks?
By discarding or ignoring or denying Titilus Regius, it looks like a traditionalist willingly accepts an archetypal fairy-tale that one violent, demonic man was capable of bringing Edward's council (and later Parliament) to its knees. That man forced England to accept his hell-ridden reign by the sheer force of his will and by...um...whatever threats he made that weren't recorded by those who were there.
Truly, he had to be the anti-Christ, because England's hero and rescuer, hnis knight on a shining white lie...erm...charger must be Henry Tudor, progeny of a double-bastard line, a man whose cast eye won't let him fight, and who had to invade England with a hired French army. (One can see where the fantasy had to be written, because the reality was just too...dangerous...to let stand.)
So the Tudors created a fairy tale of their own, casting Richard as the archetypal Evil King and King Harry as an exiled prince and savior come to claim his Camelot.
Eesh.
Are there *any* traditionalists out there believing Titilus Regius and the precontract that led to it were valid? Or have all swallowed the Tudor-written fairy tale?
~Weds
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
"<snip> I assume he [Henry] repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they presumably regarded as legitimate and royal. <snip>"
Carol responds:
And for another reason too often overlooked, IMO:Titulus Regius was *Richard's* claim to the crown. If it was valid, Henry's forces had killed the rightful king and usurped his throne. With Titulus Regius repealed and all copies (supposedly) burned unread, Richard could be presented as a usurping tyrant with no claim to the throne and Henry as the "savior" of England (who nevertheless could claim the throne only by conquest because, ironically, repealing TR made Edward V the rightful king of England, and who knew whether he was alive?).
Carol
--
Friend:
Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me:
I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Excellent analysis Weds and Carol. It also explains why the snivelling little coward had to date his reign from the day before the battle. He must have known that Titulus Regius made Richard the rightful King, well mummy would have told him wouldn't she?
--- In , <> wrote:
Carol, I think you've just hit on the one reason Tudor and his mother won, and continue to win, historically.
Not only was Titilus Regius Richard's claim to the throne, it was also tangible irrefutable evidence that Richard submitted the precontract to the proper legal channels, and those channels alone decided the course England would take and whom it would offer the crown to. It's proof he had the legal and personal support of the Three Estates and later Parliament.
Titilus Regius stands as evidence that Richard didn't *need* to force his way to the throne, or kill his way to the throne because it was openly offered to him. Titilus Regius proves the exact opposite of what the Tudors and their historians claimed Richard to be.
Today, if an armchair scholar or an historian accepts the precontract that led to Titilus Regius, he or she can usually go on to discover there is no evidence of Richard having murdered the ex-princes in the Tower. They are inspired to begin picking apart the Tudor propaganda piece by piece and realize all too soon where it ignores history fact and falls apart.
On the other hand, if an armchair scholar or historian *ignores* or rejects Titilus Regius -- if they insist it's based on a convenient lie (regardless it passed every test the council bishops -- contemporary experts in church law -- threw at it) , then nothing else works for them except to assume Richard was a usurping, murdering monster as tradition sings it. At that point...why dig through old records and question what one has already decided? That one point: "Is Titilus Regius valid or not?" is perhaps the strongest point that redeems or damns Richard according to whoever is answering the question.
So an historian either believes that the machinery of English government operated as it was supposed to after Edward IV died, or an historian claims that English government whimpered and shriveled in surrender before the most wicked force England had ever seen, concentrated in the person of one man -- the evil Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Oh, and he achieved his takeover of England in a matter of what...six weeks?
By discarding or ignoring or denying Titilus Regius, it looks like a traditionalist willingly accepts an archetypal fairy-tale that one violent, demonic man was capable of bringing Edward's council (and later Parliament) to its knees. That man forced England to accept his hell-ridden reign by the sheer force of his will and by...um...whatever threats he made that weren't recorded by those who were there.
Truly, he had to be the anti-Christ, because England's hero and rescuer, hnis knight on a shining white lie...erm...charger must be Henry Tudor, progeny of a double-bastard line, a man whose cast eye won't let him fight, and who had to invade England with a hired French army. (One can see where the fantasy had to be written, because the reality was just too...dangerous...to let stand.)
So the Tudors created a fairy tale of their own, casting Richard as the archetypal Evil King and King Harry as an exiled prince and savior come to claim his Camelot.
Eesh.
Are there *any* traditionalists out there believing Titilus Regius and the precontract that led to it were valid? Or have all swallowed the Tudor-written fairy tale?
~Weds
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Â
Pamela wrote:
"<snip> I assume he [Henry] repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they presumably regarded as legitimate and royal. <snip>"
Carol responds:
And for another reason too often overlooked, IMO:Titulus Regius was *Richard's* claim to the crown. If it was valid, Henry's forces had killed the rightful king and usurped his throne. With Titulus Regius repealed and all copies (supposedly) burned unread, Richard could be presented as a usurping tyrant with no claim to the throne and Henry as the "savior" of England (who nevertheless could claim the throne only by conquest because, ironically, repealing TR made Edward V the rightful king of England, and who knew whether he was alive?).
Carol
--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Excellent analysis Weds and Carol. It also explains why the snivelling little
coward had to date his reign from the day before the battle. He must have known
that Titulus Regius made Richard the rightful King, well mummy would have told
him wouldn't she?
--- In ,
<> wrote:
Not only was Titilus Regius Richard's claim to the throne, it was also tangible irrefutable evidence that Richard submitted the precontract to the proper legal channels, and those channels alone decided the course England would take and whom it would offer the crown to. It's proof he had the legal and personal support of the Three Estates and later Parliament.
Titilus Regius stands as evidence that Richard didn't *need* to force his way to the throne, or kill his way to the throne because it was openly offered to him. Titilus Regius proves the exact opposite of what the Tudors and their historians claimed Richard to be.
Today, if an armchair scholar or an historian accepts the precontract that led to Titilus Regius, he or she can usually go on to discover there is no evidence of Richard having murdered the ex-princes in the Tower. They are inspired to begin picking apart the Tudor propaganda piece by piece and realize all too soon where it ignores history fact and falls apart.
On the other hand, if an armchair scholar or historian *ignores* or rejects Titilus Regius -- if they insist it's based on a convenient lie (regardless it passed every test the council bishops -- contemporary experts in church law -- threw at it) , then nothing else works for them except to assume Richard was a usurping, murdering monster as tradition sings it. At that point...why dig through old records and question what one has already decided? That one point: "Is Titilus Regius valid or not?" is perhaps the strongest point that redeems or damns Richard according to whoever is answering the question.
So an historian either believes that the machinery of English government operated as it was supposed to after Edward IV died, or an historian claims that English government whimpered and shriveled in surrender before the most wicked force England had ever seen, concentrated in the person of one man -- the evil Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Oh, and he achieved his takeover of England in a matter of what...six weeks?
By discarding or ignoring or denying Titilus Regius, it looks like a traditionalist willingly accepts an archetypal fairy-tale that one violent, demonic man was capable of bringing Edward's council (and later Parliament) to its knees. That man forced England to accept his hell-ridden reign by the sheer force of his will and by...um...whatever threats he made that weren't recorded by those who were there.
Truly, he had to be the anti-Christ, because England's hero and rescuer, hnis knight on a shining white lie...erm...charger must be Henry Tudor, progeny of a double-bastard line, a man whose cast eye won't let him fight, and who had to invade England with a hired French army. (One can see where the fantasy had to be written, because the reality was just too...dangerous...to let stand.)
So the Tudors created a fairy tale of their own, casting Richard as the archetypal Evil King and King Harry as an exiled prince and savior come to claim his Camelot.
Eesh.
Are there *any* traditionalists out there believing Titilus Regius and the precontract that led to it were valid? Or have all swallowed the Tudor-written fairy tale?
~Weds
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Â
Pamela wrote:
Carol responds:
And for another reason too often overlooked, IMO:Titulus Regius was *Richard's* claim to the crown. If it was valid, Henry's forces had killed the rightful king and usurped his throne. With Titulus Regius repealed and all copies (supposedly) burned unread, Richard could be presented as a usurping tyrant with no claim to the throne and Henry as the "savior" of England (who nevertheless could claim the throne only by conquest because, ironically, repealing TR made Edward V the rightful king of England, and who knew whether he was alive?).
Carol
--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:49 PM, <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Excellent analysis Weds and Carol. It also explains why the snivelling little coward had to date his reign from the day before the battle. He must have known that Titulus Regius made Richard the rightful King, well mummy would have told him wouldn't she?
--- In , <> wrote:
Carol, I think you've just hit on the one reason Tudor and his mother won, and continue to win, historically.
Not only was Titilus Regius Richard's claim to the throne, it was also tangible irrefutable evidence that Richard submitted the precontract to the proper legal channels, and those channels alone decided the course England would take and whom it would offer the crown to. It's proof he had the legal and personal support of the Three Estates and later Parliament.
Titilus Regius stands as evidence that Richard didn't *need* to force his way to the throne, or kill his way to the throne because it was openly offered to him. Titilus Regius proves the exact opposite of what the Tudors and their historians claimed Richard to be.
Today, if an armchair scholar or an historian accepts the precontract that led to Titilus Regius, he or she can usually go on to discover there is no evidence of Richard having murdered the ex-princes in the Tower. They are inspired to begin picking apart the Tudor propaganda piece by piece and realize all too soon where it ignores history fact and falls apart.
On the other hand, if an armchair scholar or historian *ignores* or rejects Titilus Regius -- if they insist it's based on a convenient lie (regardless it passed every test the council bishops -- contemporary experts in church law -- threw at it) , then nothing else works for them except to assume Richard was a usurping, murdering monster as tradition sings it. At that point...why dig through old records and question what one has already decided? That one point: "Is Titilus Regius valid or not?" is perhaps the strongest point that redeems or damns Richard according to whoever is answering the question.
So an historian either believes that the machinery of English government operated as it was supposed to after Edward IV died, or an historian claims that English government whimpered and shriveled in surrender before the most wicked force England had ever seen, concentrated in the person of one man -- the evil Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Oh, and he achieved his takeover of England in a matter of what...six weeks?
By discarding or ignoring or denying Titilus Regius, it looks like a traditionalist willingly accepts an archetypal fairy-tale that one violent, demonic man was capable of bringing Edward's council (and later Parliament) to its knees. That man forced England to accept his hell-ridden reign by the sheer force of his will and by...um...whatever threats he made that weren't recorded by those who were there.
Truly, he had to be the anti-Christ, because England's hero and rescuer, hnis knight on a shining white lie...erm...charger must be Henry Tudor, progeny of a double-bastard line, a man whose cast eye won't let him fight, and who had to invade England with a hired French army. (One can see where the fantasy had to be written, because the reality was just too...dangerous...to let stand.)
So the Tudors created a fairy tale of their own, casting Richard as the archetypal Evil King and King Harry as an exiled prince and savior come to claim his Camelot.
Eesh.
Are there *any* traditionalists out there believing Titilus Regius and the precontract that led to it were valid? Or have all swallowed the Tudor-written fairy tale?
~Weds
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Â
Pamela wrote:
"<snip> I assume he [Henry] repealed the Titulus Regius because it was important to help reconcile his Yorkist supporters - being seen to reinstate the family they presumably regarded as legitimate and royal. <snip>"
Carol responds:
And for another reason too often overlooked, IMO:Titulus Regius was *Richard's* claim to the crown. If it was valid, Henry's forces had killed the rightful king and usurped his throne. With Titulus Regius repealed and all copies (supposedly) burned unread, Richard could be presented as a usurping tyrant with no claim to the throne and Henry as the "savior" of England (who nevertheless could claim the throne only by conquest because, ironically, repealing TR made Edward V the rightful king of England, and who knew whether he was alive?).
Carol
--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
--
Friend:
Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me:
I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Another question
Re: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I'd like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I'd like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Another question
'Sir Whatever-his-name-was'. You see it a lot in wills. Always be on the lookout where an individual is described as 'Sir' but without the word 'knight' after his name - more often than not it is a priest.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f5K1Rd4GdyoC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=%22Sir+James+gloys%22&source=bl&ots=MFwmQa-zxE&sig=3pwQXXsC7OHm4ATcTQWGBOoLVgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9wpUp3oBtSrhQfaooHwCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Sir%20James%20gloys%22&f=false
--- In , <> wrote:
Thank you, Marie. And how would he be enquired after by someone visiting the church to see him? Father (firstname) or Father (full name)? Neither? I really am lacking in knowledge with this. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I’d like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Another question
Jonathan
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 6 September 2013, 14:55
Subject: RE: Re: Another question
'Sir Whatever-his-name-was'. You see it a lot in wills. Always be on the lookout where an individual is described as 'Sir' but without the word 'knight' after his name - more often than not it is a priest.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f5K1Rd4GdyoC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=%22Sir+James+gloys%22&source=bl&ots=MFwmQa-zxE&sig=3pwQXXsC7OHm4ATcTQWGBOoLVgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9wpUp3oBtSrhQfaooHwCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Sir%20James%20gloys%22&f=false
--- In , <> wrote:
Thank you, Marie. And how would he be enquired after by someone visiting the church to see him? Father (firstname) or Father (full name)? Neither? I really am lacking in knowledge with this. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Another question "Sir", believe it or not. Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. Iâd like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Another question
'Sir Whatever-his-name-was'. You see it a lot in wills. Always be on the lookout where an individual is described as 'Sir' but without the word 'knight' after his name - more often than not it is a priest.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f5K1Rd4GdyoC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=%22Sir+James+gloys%22&source=bl&ots=MFwmQa-zxE&sig=3pwQXXsC7OHm4ATcTQWGBOoLVgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9wpUp3oBtSrhQfaooHwCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Sir%20James%20gloys%22&f=false
--- In , <> wrote:
Thank you, Marie. And how would he be enquired after by someone visiting the church to see him? Father (firstname) or Father (full name)? Neither? I really am lacking in knowledge with this. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I’d like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I really thought her illegitimacy would make a difference, in that a king could not marry someone who was illegitimate. If she were to be found illegitimate after the marriage, then she would have been the same at the time of the marriage. <snip>
Carol responds:
In this context (and my apologies if the question has already been addressed--I can't read the whole thread before posting in the current format), I wondered why Manuel of Portugal would have been content to marry Elizabeth of York--officially a king's bastard rather than a princess. Since the Portuguese were on good terms with Richard, they must have accepted Titulus Regius, which made him the rightful king (and illegitimized his nephews and nieces). Are we (the forum) saying that it would have made no difference in that instance as well (instead merely doubling the union of York and Lancaster and doing the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor one better)?
In that case, Richard might have offered his illegitimate daughter to the heir of the king of Scotland instead of marrying her to an earl and offering his niece, Anne de la Pole. The whole thing makes my head spin.
Carol
P.S. My spelling checker wants me to change "pseudo-Lancastrian" to "pseudo-Australasian"! Sure, Yahoo. Why not?
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sandra wrote:
I really thought her illegitimacy would make a difference, in that a king
could not marry someone who was illegitimate. If she were to be found
illegitimate after the marriage, then she would have been the same at the time
of the marriage. <snip>
Carol responds:
In this context (and
my apologies if the question has already been addressed--I can't read the whole
thread before posting in the current format), I wondered why Manuel of Portugal
would have been content to marry Elizabeth of York--officially a king's bastard
rather than a princess. Since the Portuguese were on good terms with Richard,
they must have accepted Titulus Regius, which made him the rightful king (and
illegitimized his nephews and nieces). Are we (the forum) saying that it would
have made no difference in that instance as well (instead merely doubling the
union of York and Lancaster and doing the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor one
better)?
In that case, Richard might have offered his illegitimate
daughter to the heir of the king of Scotland instead of marrying her to an earl
and offering his niece, Anne de la Pole. The whole thing makes my head
spin.
Carol
P.S. My spelling checker wants me to change
"pseudo-Lancastrian" to "pseudo-Australasian"! Sure, Yahoo. Why
not?
Re: Today's question
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 19:23
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: Today's question
That Anne Montgomery was married to Edward IV's executor was not a supposition, it was an error - someone else's error, I admit. I was merely trying to point out who the real Anne Montgomery was. I know you initially presented Leslau's theory as possibly rather "far fetched", but in later posts seemed to be defending his reputation. All that concerned me is that the result of your post was to present a rather skewed view, and I felt Sandra deserved the bigger picture. Am I not allowed an input?I'm amazed you so casually dismiss the significance to the dynamics of the Minories (with a Darcy and a Tyrell amongst them) of the marriages of three separate Darcy siblings to members of the Tyrell family. There was only one Darcy Haute marriage so far as I recall, and there were no Hautes in the Minories.I'm going to skip your posts from now on, Hilary, because I'm just getting fed up with the personal point-scoring at the expense of the history. I've been researching this period for 40 years and I do feel I have something to offer. Marie --- In , <> wrote:No I didn't say Leslau claimed that - I said that someone on the web did. I merely said to Sandra that there had been an interesting idea once mooted by Leslau about the two wills and Anne Montgomery. Sandra writes fiction; she might have been interested in it. I'm not supporting Leslau or contradicting him, except where, as with Thomas Cosyn and the Princes the dates are out. The discussion here becomes very narrow if we can't mention other people's ideas, however much we agree or disagree with them. You are making suppositions just like Leslau and we listen.BTW I would have thought it much easier to keep an eye on someone in London than in Norfolk. As for the Tyrells, that could be design or accident. The Hautes were also related to the Tyrells and Sir Richard rebelled against Richard. One could go on forever.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one of Edward's executors?I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group. I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of London.As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery (probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't seem to have been all that fond of her). The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order to make sense of their motives for being together or political affiliations.Marie --- In , <> wrote:To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London, Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:16
Subject: RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the Minories.Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does Leslau give more details?(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with the real Anne Montgomery?)Marie --- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women. They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting that. H.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right. =^..^= From: Douglas Eugene Stamate Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic ïûÿ SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie. No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again." Doug here: Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements? Something along that line? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Wednesday wrote:
Carol, I think you've just hit on the one reason Tudor and his mother won, and continue to win, historically. <snip>
Carol responds:
Thanks. It has always bothered me that historians focus on EoY as the sole reason for Henry's repeal of Titulus Regius.
Weds:
Are there *any* traditionalists out there believing Titilus Regius and the precontract that led to it were valid? Or have all swallowed the Tudor-written fairy tale?
Carol responds:
Gairdner, for one--oddly, given his view that skepticism regarding the traditional view presented by Shakespeare and More is dangerous! But other traditionalists don't seem to have followed his lead in that regard. (I don't recall what Ross says. I'm struggling to reread him and have to take a long break every five pages!)
Carol
Re: Today's question
Marie, I have to thank you for making my mind up for me.
There are some lovely people on this forum and I have enjoyed
communicating with them with, I hope, a bit of humour. However I have grown more
than tired of being battered every time that I make a contribution which does
not concur with your view of everything. Why on earth should I wish to point
score - I have no scholarly reputation to defend? I spent a career in Education
with the view of discussing, helping, encouraging and challenging. History is
also my passion. But it is not your preserve or my preserve; neither is
knowledge about this period. If you think it is then publish and risk the
reaction that some on here give to Hicks, Weir etc. Because believe me there are
some with a balancing argument, which is how it should be.
I'm sorry to speak so frankly and perhaps unkindly, I'm normally the
last person to be combatitive in any way. But I refuse to crawl any more to
massage your ego. I'm off to join the other departed, one of whom I miss very
much. H.
From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 19:23
Subject: RE: Re:
Re: RE: Today's question
That Anne Montgomery was married to Edward IV's executor was not a
supposition, it was an error - someone else's error, I admit. I was merely
trying to point out who the real Anne Montgomery was. I know you initially
presented Leslau's theory as possibly rather "far fetched", but in later posts
seemed to be defending his reputation. All that concerned me is that the result
of your post was to present a rather skewed view, and I felt Sandra deserved the
bigger picture. Am I not allowed an input?
I'm amazed you so casually dismiss the significance to the dynamics of the
Minories (with a Darcy and a Tyrell amongst them) of the marriages of three
separate Darcy siblings to members of the Tyrell family. There was only one
Darcy Haute marriage so far as I recall, and there were no Hautes in the
Minories.
I'm going to skip your posts from now on, Hilary, because I'm just getting
fed up with the personal point-scoring at the expense of the history. I've been
researching this period for 40 years and I do feel I have something to offer.
Marie
--- In
,
<> wrote:
No I didn't say Leslau claimed that - I said that someone on the web
did. I merely said to Sandra that there had been an interesting idea once mooted
by Leslau about the two wills and Anne Montgomery. Sandra writes fiction; she
might have been interested in it. I'm not supporting Leslau or contradicting
him, except where, as with Thomas Cosyn and the Princes the dates are out. The
discussion here becomes very narrow if we can't mention other people's ideas,
however much we agree or disagree with them. You are making suppositions just
like Leslau and we listen.
BTW I would have thought it much easier to keep an eye on someone in
London than in Norfolk. As for the Tyrells, that could be design or accident.
The Hautes were also related to the Tyrells and Sir Richard rebelled against
Richard. One could go on forever.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re:
RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one
of Edward's executors?
I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think
his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation
entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may
well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have
been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group.
I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there
is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was
going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into
mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group
of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her
first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her
sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the
gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household
at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive
for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell
lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would
want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of
London.
As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was
the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery
(probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect
sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her
will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead
a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess
may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't
seem to have been all that fond of her).
The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in
the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this
little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order
to make sense of their motives for being together or political
affiliations.
Marie
--- In ,
<> wrote:
To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think
he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her
off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but
Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It
was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like
Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London,
Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?
More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it
would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and
his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 4:16
Subject: [Richard
III Society Forum] RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of
Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the
widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462
together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William
Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister
Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other
words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links
were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also
married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the
Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories
early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does
Leslau give more details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with
the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013,
19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right.
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ïûÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Today's question
Carol,
Please don't feel guilty; it certainly had nothing to do with you. If Hilary is leaving the forum, I don't understand why given that I have assured her I will not read any of her future posts. I am not leaving, but I am cutting down because I can't spare the time and energy. I'll certainly be posting Jane Talbot's will to the files when I've finished it, and Elizabeth Brackenbury's too, which I downloaded last night (short but fascinating).
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Dear Hilary and Marie, As it was something concerning me that seems to have been the final straw for you both, I now feel very guilty. Please do not bequeath this to me. Stay with us. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I always value your unfailingly interesting input. Even when you don’t agree, you are always so good to read. Both of you. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:50 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Today's question
Marie, I have to thank you for making my mind up for me.
There are some lovely people on this forum and I have enjoyed
communicating with them with, I hope, a bit of humour. However I have grown more
than tired of being battered every time that I make a contribution which does
not concur with your view of everything. Why on earth should I wish to point
score - I have no scholarly reputation to defend? I spent a career in Education
with the view of discussing, helping, encouraging and challenging. History is
also my passion. But it is not your preserve or my preserve; neither is
knowledge about this period. If you think it is then publish and risk the
reaction that some on here give to Hicks, Weir etc. Because believe me there are
some with a balancing argument, which is how it should be.
I'm sorry to speak so frankly and perhaps unkindly, I'm normally the
last person to be combatitive in any way. But I refuse to crawl any more to
massage your ego. I'm off to join the other departed, one of whom I miss very
much. H.
From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 19:23
Subject: RE: Re:
Re: RE: Today's question
That Anne Montgomery was married to Edward IV's executor was not a
supposition, it was an error - someone else's error, I admit. I was merely
trying to point out who the real Anne Montgomery was. I know you initially
presented Leslau's theory as possibly rather "far fetched", but in later posts
seemed to be defending his reputation. All that concerned me is that the result
of your post was to present a rather skewed view, and I felt Sandra deserved the
bigger picture. Am I not allowed an input?
I'm amazed you so casually dismiss the significance to the dynamics of the
Minories (with a Darcy and a Tyrell amongst them) of the marriages of three
separate Darcy siblings to members of the Tyrell family. There was only one
Darcy Haute marriage so far as I recall, and there were no Hautes in the
Minories.
I'm going to skip your posts from now on, Hilary, because I'm just getting
fed up with the personal point-scoring at the expense of the history. I've been
researching this period for 40 years and I do feel I have something to offer.
Marie
--- In
,
<> wrote:
No I didn't say Leslau claimed that - I said that someone on the web
did. I merely said to Sandra that there had been an interesting idea once mooted
by Leslau about the two wills and Anne Montgomery. Sandra writes fiction; she
might have been interested in it. I'm not supporting Leslau or contradicting
him, except where, as with Thomas Cosyn and the Princes the dates are out. The
discussion here becomes very narrow if we can't mention other people's ideas,
however much we agree or disagree with them. You are making suppositions just
like Leslau and we listen.
BTW I would have thought it much easier to keep an eye on someone in
London than in Norfolk. As for the Tyrells, that could be design or accident.
The Hautes were also related to the Tyrells and Sir Richard rebelled against
Richard. One could go on forever.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re:
RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one
of Edward's executors?
I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think
his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation
entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may
well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have
been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group.
I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there
is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was
going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into
mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group
of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her
first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her
sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the
gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household
at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive
for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell
lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would
want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of
London.
As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was
the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery
(probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect
sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her
will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead
a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess
may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't
seem to have been all that fond of her).
The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in
the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this
little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order
to make sense of their motives for being together or political
affiliations.
Marie
--- In ,
<> wrote:
To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think
he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her
off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but
Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It
was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like
Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London,
Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?
More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it
would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and
his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 4:16
Subject: [Richard
III Society Forum] RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of
Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the
widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462
together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William
Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister
Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other
words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links
were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also
married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the
Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories
early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does
Leslau give more details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with
the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013,
19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right.
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ïûÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that he
was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died anywhere
between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in November
(if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not November. No
hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard but didnât
like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered nook somewhere? No,
meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Today's question
Carol,
Please don't feel guilty; it certainly had nothing to do with you. If Hilary is leaving the forum, I don't understand why given that I have assured her I will not read any of her future posts. I am not leaving, but I am cutting down because I can't spare the time and energy. I'll certainly be posting Jane Talbot's will to the files when I've finished it, and Elizabeth Brackenbury's too, which I downloaded last night (short but fascinating).
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Dear Hilary and Marie, As it was something concerning me that seems to have been the final straw for you both, I now feel very guilty. Please do not bequeath this to me. Stay with us. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I always value your unfailingly interesting input. Even when you don’t agree, you are always so good to read. Both of you. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:50 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Today's question
Marie, I have to thank you for making my mind up for me.
There are some lovely people on this forum and I have enjoyed
communicating with them with, I hope, a bit of humour. However I have grown more
than tired of being battered every time that I make a contribution which does
not concur with your view of everything. Why on earth should I wish to point
score - I have no scholarly reputation to defend? I spent a career in Education
with the view of discussing, helping, encouraging and challenging. History is
also my passion. But it is not your preserve or my preserve; neither is
knowledge about this period. If you think it is then publish and risk the
reaction that some on here give to Hicks, Weir etc. Because believe me there are
some with a balancing argument, which is how it should be.
I'm sorry to speak so frankly and perhaps unkindly, I'm normally the
last person to be combatitive in any way. But I refuse to crawl any more to
massage your ego. I'm off to join the other departed, one of whom I miss very
much. H.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 19:23
Subject: RE: Re:
Re: RE: Today's question
That Anne Montgomery was married to Edward IV's executor was not a
supposition, it was an error - someone else's error, I admit. I was merely
trying to point out who the real Anne Montgomery was. I know you initially
presented Leslau's theory as possibly rather "far fetched", but in later posts
seemed to be defending his reputation. All that concerned me is that the result
of your post was to present a rather skewed view, and I felt Sandra deserved the
bigger picture. Am I not allowed an input?
I'm amazed you so casually dismiss the significance to the dynamics of the
Minories (with a Darcy and a Tyrell amongst them) of the marriages of three
separate Darcy siblings to members of the Tyrell family. There was only one
Darcy Haute marriage so far as I recall, and there were no Hautes in the
Minories.
I'm going to skip your posts from now on, Hilary, because I'm just getting
fed up with the personal point-scoring at the expense of the history. I've been
researching this period for 40 years and I do feel I have something to offer.
Marie
--- In ,
<> wrote:
No I didn't say Leslau claimed that - I said that someone on the web
did. I merely said to Sandra that there had been an interesting idea once mooted
by Leslau about the two wills and Anne Montgomery. Sandra writes fiction; she
might have been interested in it. I'm not supporting Leslau or contradicting
him, except where, as with Thomas Cosyn and the Princes the dates are out. The
discussion here becomes very narrow if we can't mention other people's ideas,
however much we agree or disagree with them. You are making suppositions just
like Leslau and we listen.
BTW I would have thought it much easier to keep an eye on someone in
London than in Norfolk. As for the Tyrells, that could be design or accident.
The Hautes were also related to the Tyrells and Sir Richard rebelled against
Richard. One could go on forever.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re:
RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one
of Edward's executors?
I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think
his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation
entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may
well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have
been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group.
I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there
is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was
going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into
mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group
of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her
first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her
sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the
gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household
at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive
for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell
lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would
want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of
London.
As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was
the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery
(probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect
sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her
will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead
a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess
may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't
seem to have been all that fond of her).
The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in
the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this
little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order
to make sense of their motives for being together or political
affiliations.
Marie
--- In ,
<> wrote:
To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think
he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her
off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but
Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It
was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like
Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London,
Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?
More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it
would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and
his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 4:16
Subject: [Richard
III Society Forum] RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of
Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the
widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462
together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William
Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister
Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other
words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links
were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also
married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the
Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories
early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does
Leslau give more details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with
the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013,
19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right.
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ïûÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that
he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died
anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in
November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not
November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard
but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered
nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Another question
Sandra asked:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I’d like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Marie responded:
"Sir", believe it or not.
Carol adds:
Not "Father"? Also, I believe that bishops and above were addressed as "Your Grace," but maybe that applies only to archbishops and cardinals?
Carol, apologizing for the goofy format of this post
Re: Today's question
Carol,
Please don't feel guilty; it certainly had nothing to do with you. If Hilary is leaving the forum, I don't understand why given that I have assured her I will not read any of her future posts. I am not leaving, but I am cutting down because I can't spare the time and energy . I'll certainly be posting Jane Talbot's will to the files when I've finished it, and Elizabeth Brackenbury's too, which I downloaded last night (short but fascinating).
Marie
Carol responds:
Hi, Marie. I think it was Sandra who wrote the post you're responding to. (The new format makes it very hard to know who is writing what, I realize.)
Carol
Re: Today's question
Hi Sandra. done it again. Something odd is definitely going on with the way the posts are presenting when I open them, because again Carol's name was there and I though 'Odd - I wonder what she thinks she did to cause the problem because it was Sandra I was doing the Minories will for.' It may be something to do with the way it collapses the thread, I don't know, but I'm now quite sure it's not just me having a Carol-obsessed brainstorm (please relax, Carol, I'm not a stalker, really). The sooner we go completely back to the old format the better.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
It was me, Marie, not Carol. But thank you for your response anyway. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 6:39 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: RE: Today's question
Carol,
Please don't feel guilty; it certainly had nothing to do with you. If Hilary is leaving the forum, I don't understand why given that I have assured her I will not read any of her future posts. I am not leaving, but I am cutting down because I can't spare the time and energy . I'll certainly be posting Jane Talbot's will to the files when I've finished it, and Elizabeth Brackenbury's too, which I downloaded last night (short but fascinating).
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Dear Hilary and Marie, As it was something concerning me that seems to have been the final straw for you both, I now feel very guilty. Please do not bequeath this to me. Stay with us. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I always value your unfailingly interesting input. Even when you don’t agree, you are always so good to read. Both of you. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:50 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Today's question
Marie, I have to thank you for making my mind up for me.
There are some lovely people on this forum and I have enjoyed
communicating with them with, I hope, a bit of humour. However I have grown more
than tired of being battered every time that I make a contribution which does
not concur with your view of everything. Why on earth should I wish to point
score - I have no scholarly reputation to defend? I spent a career in Education
with the view of discussing, helping, encouraging and challenging. History is
also my passion. But it is not your preserve or my preserve; neither is
knowledge about this period. If you think it is then publish and risk the
reaction that some on here give to Hicks, Weir etc. Because believe me there are
some with a balancing argument, which is how it should be.
I'm sorry to speak so frankly and perhaps unkindly, I'm normally the
last person to be combatitive in any way. But I refuse to crawl any more to
massage your ego. I'm off to join the other departed, one of whom I miss very
much. H.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 19:23
Subject: RE: Re:
Re: RE: Today's question
That Anne Montgomery was married to Edward IV's executor was not a
supposition, it was an error - someone else's error, I admit. I was merely
trying to point out who the real Anne Montgomery was. I know you initially
presented Leslau's theory as possibly rather "far fetched", but in later posts
seemed to be defending his reputation. All that concerned me is that the result
of your post was to present a rather skewed view, and I felt Sandra deserved the
bigger picture. Am I not allowed an input?
I'm amazed you so casually dismiss the significance to the dynamics of the
Minories (with a Darcy and a Tyrell amongst them) of the marriages of three
separate Darcy siblings to members of the Tyrell family. There was only one
Darcy Haute marriage so far as I recall, and there were no Hautes in the
Minories.
I'm going to skip your posts from now on, Hilary, because I'm just getting
fed up with the personal point-scoring at the expense of the history. I've been
researching this period for 40 years and I do feel I have something to offer.
Marie
--- In ,
<> wrote:
No I didn't say Leslau claimed that - I said that someone on the web
did. I merely said to Sandra that there had been an interesting idea once mooted
by Leslau about the two wills and Anne Montgomery. Sandra writes fiction; she
might have been interested in it. I'm not supporting Leslau or contradicting
him, except where, as with Thomas Cosyn and the Princes the dates are out. The
discussion here becomes very narrow if we can't mention other people's ideas,
however much we agree or disagree with them. You are making suppositions just
like Leslau and we listen.
BTW I would have thought it much easier to keep an eye on someone in
London than in Norfolk. As for the Tyrells, that could be design or accident.
The Hautes were also related to the Tyrells and Sir Richard rebelled against
Richard. One could go on forever.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 14:26
Subject: RE: Re:
RE: Today's question
But didn't you say that Leslau claimed Anne Montgomery was the widow of one
of Edward's executors?
I once heard Leslau speak, and he was very engaging, but bluntly I think
his ideas are cracked. His alter ego for Edward V was of the wrong generation
entirely. Because she had been so long widowed (since 1462), Anne Montgomery may
well have been in the Minories longer than the other ladies; she would also have
been the eldest, and possibly the mother figure of the group.
I really feel we should distinguish between possibilities for which there
is no evidence, which can be used in novels, and actual evidence of what was
going on. There is no evidence for any of Leslau's theories; they dissolve into
mist as soon as you get close. What you have in the Minories is a little group
of East Anglian ladies: Anne Darcy-Montgomery and her Tyrell ?niece (sorry, her
first name eludes me at present), Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk and her
sister-in-law Jane Champernoun-Talbot, and the Brackenbury sisters. Some of the
gentlewomen may quite plausibly have been in the Duchess of Norfolk's household
at one time. If you turn Anne Montgomery into Eleanor Butler you gain a motive
for the Talbots wanting to be buried near her, but lose a motive for the Tyrell
lady being amongst the group. Also, it makes no sense to me that Edward would
want to hide Eleanor by moving her from north Norfolk to the edge of
London.
As we've seen again from the Greyfriars, the choir of a church was
the best place to be buried. When Jane Talbot made her will Anne Montgomery
(probably her old companion) already had a tomb in the choir so it made perfect
sense for her to ask to be near her. By the time the Duchess of Norfolk made her
will, Jane Talbot also lay in the choir, it is true, but she had only been dead
a year and it seems likely that her tomb was not yet complete. Also the Duchess
may have simply liked Anne Montgomery more (remember, Jane's husband doesn't
seem to have been all that fond of her).
The other thing we don't know is how long each of these ladies had been in
the Minories. Jane Talbot, for instance, wasn't widowed until 1494. I think this
little group of ladies is fascinating but a lot more work is required in order
to make sense of their motives for being together or political
affiliations.
Marie
--- In ,
<> wrote:
To be fair Lesalu didn't say whose widow Anne Montgomery was, I think
he said she was a friend of the sisters. Neither does he have them bumping her
off, just saying that the place they refer to his not her actual grave but
Eleanor's. I don't think his theory is that implausible as I say to Sandra. It
was not unusual for ladies to be kept unoficial prisoner in convents (like
Gwenllian I mentioned last week). They didn't have to take vows. In London,
Edward could be sure she was kept an eye on. Who knows?
More would have beenin his twenties when some of these died so it
would be plausible. I'm afraid I can't go back to check as Leslau has died and
his stuff on this has been removed from the web. H.
From: mariewalsh2003
<[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 5 September
2013, 4:16
Subject: [Richard
III Society Forum] RE: Today's question
Leslau was up one of his gum trees on this one, I'm afraid. The executor of
Edward IV to whom he was referring was Sir Thomas Montgomery. But Anne was the
widow of Thomas' brother, John Montgomery, who was executed in 1462
together with the Earl of Oxford and Sir William Tyrell of Gipping.
The Tyrell connection is actually much more interesting because Sir William
Tyrell was the father of Sir James Tyrell, and was married to Anne's sister
Margaret (they were daughters of Robert Darcy of Malden in Essex). In other
words, Anne Montgomery was Sir James' Tyrell's auntie. The Tyrell-Darcy links
were very strong - Anne's sister Eleanor and her brother Robert were also
married to Tyrells and there was a Tyrell amongst the ladies in the
Minories.
Also I'm not clear whether More was friends with Joyce Legh of the Minories
early enough for him to have met the group of women under discussion here. Does
Leslau give more details?
(Just out of interest, what did Leslau propose Eleanor Butler had done with
the real Anne Montgomery?)
Marie
--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Sandra, with regard to the two wills (Elizabeth and Jane) are you
aware that people have remarked on the Anne Montgomery connection - both women
stipulate that they wish to be buried near to her in the Minories - why? She was
the wife of the executor of Edward IV's will; or so one writer says. Leslau uses
it to build his conspiracy theory that Eleanor lived on clandestinely in the
Minories until the 1490s and that Anne Montgomery is code for her. That may
indeed be farfetched but what is interesting is that Thomas More used to visit a
woman in the Minories (Jane Leigh) and would probably have met with these women.
They had not taken vows so he could have talked with them. Interesting
that. H.
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013,
19:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Hey, Doug, can you imagine dried-flower-arranging as a favoured pursuit for
medieval ladies? With a medieval version of oasis? Might there have been a
Medieval Ladiesâ Institute? No, I joke. You may very well be right.
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Brief Change of Topic
ïûÿ
SandraMachin wrote:
"Thank you for the replacement, Marie.
No, I donât have the will of the Duke of Norfolk. All I know is that
he was fine one day, dead the next, and only (I think) thirty-two. Yes, the
âflowers at the funeralâ reference was fascinating. As she died
anywhere between November and May, I wonder what flowers she could have had in
November (if so inclined). Spring froths with flowers, of course, but not
November. No hothouses and Interflora then. As she clearly got on with Richard
but didnât like Henry, perhaps some late white roses from a sheltered
nook somewhere? No, meandering imagination strikes again."
Doug here:
Preserved flowers, perhaps? Dried arrangements?
Something along that line?
Doug
Re: Today's question
Hi Sandra. done it again. Something odd is definitely going on with the way the posts are presenting when I open them, because again Carol's name was there and I though 'Odd - I wonder what she thinks she did to cause the problem because it was Sandra I was doing the Minories will for.' It may be something to do with the way it collapses the thread, I don't know, but I'm now quite sure it's not just me having a Carol-obsessed brainstorm (please relax, Carol, I'm not a stalker, really ). The sooner we go completely back to the old format the better.
Marie
Carol responds:
I agree completely. I blame Yahoo's new tendency to attribute every post teo "" instead of a user name. If it helps at all, I usually begin my posts with "Carol responds" unless I've initiated a new topic, and I always sign my posts. I also post below the message I'm responding to (unless I'm being lazy and top-posting). And I always sign my posts, usually as Carol but sometimes as Carol (T).
I think I accidentally chased away another Carol by mentioning how many of us there are here. My apologies, other Carol. I didn't mean to do that, only to make clear that your post wasn't mine.
Carol (T) (apologies if this posts twice. Yahoo seems to have rejected it the first time)
Re: Another question
Bishops were certainly addressed in letters as "the most reverend father in God Darren, Bishop of Potters Bar," to take a fictitious case, but it is my understanding that addressing the priest as plain "father" hadn't yet come in. I've certainly never seen a priest referred to as "Father So-and-So" in any medieval letter or other document. Actually, doesn't Tess's father in 'Tess of the Durbervilles' address the local vicar as 'Sir', and that was in much more recent times?
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Sandra asked:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I’d like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please?Marie responded:
"Sir", believe it or not.
Carol adds:
Not "Father"? Also, I believe that bishops and above were addressed as "Your Grace," but maybe that applies only to archbishops and cardinals?
Carol, apologizing for the goofy format of this post
Re: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I'd like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Another question
I'm afraid it is a bit confusing; I mean "Sir James Gloys" is the way the Pastons referred to their chaplain James Gloys, and the form in which they addressed their letters to him. And 'Sir' is used before priests' names all the time in contemporary wills.
If the two characters have a row you could have your hero address the priest as "Sir Priest", as that is probably correct but sounds a bit offhand. Or if it is a more respectful conversation you could try "Reverend Sir". I don't think "Father" would be incorrect - bishops certainly were addressed in writing as 'reverend father in God', and Shakespeare has Romeo address Friar Laurence as 'Father' - but it doesn't seem to have been typical of the period so far as we can tell. The problem is that we mainly have the forms of address used for written documents; it may be that if we had lots of quotes of actual speech or examples from direct speech in contemporary literature, the picture might look different. So to some extent you can play it by ear.
But I wouldn't recommend 'Sirrah'. That's really an affectation from a later era.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Marie, it’s another whine from me, I’m afraid. About priests and ‘sir’. During conversation it is fine to use ‘sir’ on its own, but when addressing him by name, i.e. Sir Paul, Sir Thomas I just know it will confuse most readers. Certainly it will be picked up on by my editors, the first of whom recently didn’t know that the Earl of Lincoln ‘loosed’ a falcon, he did not actually intend to ‘lose’ it. John de la Pole might be a little miffed to mislay his costly white hobby! The second editor knew I had the right word in the first place, but felt it would appear appear to be a typo in the finished book. I gave in and changed it to some variation on ‘fly’, can’t remember what now. So, given this sort of obstacle course, was there any other form of address you know of for priests? Or, helpfully, might ‘sir’ have been pronounced differently for such things? For instance, was it said as ‘seer’ or some much. Always putting it in italics would do the trick for my purposes. Sorry to keep banging on at you, and for cluttering up the forum. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I’d like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Another question
I'm afraid it is a bit confusing; I mean "Sir James Gloys" is the way the Pastons referred to their chaplain James Gloys, and the form in which they addressed their letters to him. And 'Sir' is used before priests' names all the time in contemporary wills.
If the two characters have a row you could have your hero address the priest as "Sir Priest", as that is probably correct but sounds a bit offhand. Or if it is a more respectful conversation you could try "Reverend Sir". I don't think "Father" would be incorrect - bishops certainly were addressed in writing as 'reverend father in God', and Shakespeare has Romeo address Friar Laurence as 'Father' - but it doesn't seem to have been typical of the period so far as we can tell. The problem is that we mainly have the forms of address used for written documents; it may be that if we had lots of quotes of actual speech or examples from direct speech in contemporary literature, the picture might look different. So to some extent you can play it by ear.
But I wouldn't recommend 'Sirrah'. That's really an affectation from a later era.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Marie, it’s another whine from me, I’m afraid. About priests and ‘sir’. During conversation it is fine to use ‘sir’ on its own, but when addressing him by name, i.e. Sir Paul, Sir Thomas I just know it will confuse most readers. Certainly it will be picked up on by my editors, the first of whom recently didn’t know that the Earl of Lincoln ‘loosed’ a falcon, he did not actually intend to ‘lose’ it. John de la Pole might be a little miffed to mislay his costly white hobby! The second editor knew I had the right word in the first place, but felt it would appear appear to be a typo in the finished book. I gave in and changed it to some variation on ‘fly’, can’t remember what now. So, given this sort of obstacle course, was there any other form of address you know of for priests? Or, helpfully, might ‘sir’ have been pronounced differently for such things? For instance, was it said as ‘seer’ or some much. Always putting it in italics would do the trick for my purposes. Sorry to keep banging on at you, and for cluttering up the forum. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Another question
"Sir", believe it or not.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I know there are those on the forum with great knowledge of the medieval church. Can one of them tell me how a priest would have been addressed in the late 15th century? He is just a (fictional, no name decided yet) priest at the Church of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the city of London, and I wish him to be enquired after and then spoken to. I’d like to get it right, but am unsure of my facts at the moment. Help please? Sandra =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
A J
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Wednesday McKenna wrote:
"I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"In this context (and my apologies if the question has already been addressed--I can't read the whole thread before posting in the current format), I wondered why Manuel of Portugal would have been content to marry Elizabeth of York--officially a king's bastard rather than a princess. Since the Portuguese were on good terms with Richard, they must have accepted Titulus Regius, which made him the rightful king (and illegitimized his nephews and nieces). Are we (the forum) saying that it would have made no difference in that instance as well (instead merely doubling the union of York and Lancaster and doing the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor one better)?
In that case, Richard might have offered his illegitimate daughter to the heir of the king of Scotland instead of marrying her to an earl and offering his niece, Anne de la Pole. The whole thing makes my head spin." Doug here: I think several things were operating here, but basically it boils down to how Scotland and Portugal were viewed by those in power in 15th century England. By itself, Scotland was no threat, but allied to France it could, and often was, a major headache. Anything that might bind Scotland closer to England, or even push it a bit from France, such as a marriage to a close relative of the King, could help do that. Thus the offering of the King's legitimate niece to the King of Scotland's heir. Portugal, on the other hand, although an ally of England, didn't count for much in the politics of Europe at that time and in those affairs was greatly overshadowed by England. It was small, on the western extremity of Europe and its population was no greater than Scotland's, if even that. Except for its' Royal House being the last legitimate representatives of the House of Lancaster, it posed no threat to England. A marriage between EoY, the illegitimate daughter of a legitimate King of England, and Manuel, the brother of the King of Portugal, would have been between two people close to the thrones of their respective countries, but *not* in a position to inherit those thrones. *We* know that wasn't how things turned out, but they wouldn't have. BTW, that treaty between England and Portugal was first signed in 1373, renewed in 1386, 1643, 1654, 1660, 1661, 1703, and 1815, with a secret declaration (whatever *that* is) added in 1899 and Arbitration Treaties signed in 1904 and 1914. The Treaty was last invoked in 1944. I'm presuming that either 1373 or 1386 was when John of Gaunt's daughter married into the House of Braganza? (HT to Sir Winston for the dates) Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Exactly AJ. So from what we know, and that is probably very little, it appears that EW neither accused Richard of murdering the Princes nor told H7 that they had been spirited away. If Richard did spirit them away and EW knew about it, he probably told her that whatever she did she must never tell anyone. If he did spirit them away I think it was after the attempt "to release" them in July 1483. I also think that MB was probably up to her eyes in that plot despite being in" Stanley's custody". When H7 took the throne EW was in an awful predicament if she knew what had happened to them. On the one hand her daughter was married to the king but his mother. who had tried to "release" her sons, was calling all the shots.
--- In , <> wrote:
But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know?
A J
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Â
 Wednesday McKenna wrote:
"I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." Â More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know?" Doug here: If I understand it correctly the position would be that EW, and thus Henry, *did* know the boys were still alive, but *didn't* know where they'd been sent and couldn't get to them. And even if Henry did know the boys were alive, unless he was willing to give up the throne, he had to act as if they *weren't* alive and that anyone claiming to be either of them was a fake. EW, knowing as much as she did about how things operated around the throne, dare not come out and support a "pretender", thus threatening her daughter position, without absolute proof, such as a personal meeting, that the "pretender" *was* one of her sons. AFAIK, she never got that chance. Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
A J
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
A J Hibbard wrote:
"But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know?" Doug here: If I understand it correctly the position would be that EW, and thus Henry, *did* know the boys were still alive, but *didn't* know where they'd been sent and couldn't get to them. And even if Henry did know the boys were alive, unless he was willing to give up the throne, he had to act as if they *weren't* alive and that anyone claiming to be either of them was a fake. EW, knowing as much as she did about how things operated around the throne, dare not come out and support a "pretender", thus threatening her daughter position, without absolute proof, such as a personal meeting, that the "pretender" *was* one of her sons. AFAIK, she never got that chance. Doug
Re: Another question
Bishops were certainly addressed in letters as "the most reverend father in God Darren, Bishop of Potters Bar," to take a fictitious case, but it is my understanding that addressing the priest as plain "father" hadn't yet come in . I've certainly never seen a priest referred to as "Father So-and-So" in any medieval letter or other document. Actually, doesn't Tess's father in 'Tess of the Durbervilles' address the local vicar as 'Sir', and that was in much more recent times?
Marie
Carol responds:
Hi, Marie. It's been fifteen years since I read "Tess," but wouldn't that vicar have been a C of E minister rather than a Catholic priest? Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
Carol, with apologies for the big print and no idea where it came from
Re: Another question
On Sep 7, 2013, at 12:36 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Bishops were certainly addressed in letters as "the most reverend father in God Darren, Bishop of Potters Bar," to take a fictitious case, but it is my understanding that addressing the priest as plain "father" hadn't yet come in . I've certainly never seen a priest referred to as "Father So-and-So" in any medieval letter or other document. Actually, doesn't Tess's father in 'Tess of the Durbervilles' address the local vicar as 'Sir', and that was in much more recent times?
Marie
Carol responds:
Hi, Marie. It's been fifteen years since I read "Tess," but wouldn't that vicar have been a C of E minister rather than a Catholic priest? Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
Carol, with apologies for the big print and no idea where it came from
Re: Another question
Yes, of course the vicar in Tess was CofE, but an awful lot of customs were simply carried over, and Tess's father, as an uneducated country person, probably wasn't up-to-the-minute on these matters.
One reason 15th century people, it occurs to me, would so often have adressed priests as "Sir" rather than "Father" is because at all levels of polite and semi-polite late-medieval society children addressed their own parents as "Sir" and "Dame" rather than "Father" and "Mother". But looking into it further it seems there was in theory an academic status required to qualify priests for this title http://www.thereformation.info/sirpriest.htm. So not any lowly "Holy water clerk" would be addressed as Sir. Chaucer uses "Sir Priest" as a form of address. So I think Sandra will have to play it by ear as regards the encounter between her hero and the priest.
"Bless me Father" doesn't seem to have yet come in - the initial words of the confession were in Latin at this period. It seems the penitent started by saying to the priest "Benedicite" (Bless [me]), but this case cited by Eamon Duffy in 'The Stripping of the Altars' has him further on address the priest as 'my ghostly father' (paperback, p. 61):
"First the said John Stanton said Benedicite, and the priest said Dominus. And then the said John said Confiteor, and afterwards rehearsed the seven deadly sins particularly, and then the misspending of his five wits. And then the priest said, Have you not sinned in not doing the five [sic] works of mercy? The said John said, Yes, forsooth, for the which and all other I cry God mercy and beseech you, my ghostly father, of forgiveness, and give me penance of my sins."
But this is a very formalized encounter, and doesn't tell us a lot about day-to-day conversation.
By the way, going back to the discussion with Sandra on confession as a pass to heaven, Grosseteste apparently wrote that the contrition had to be sincere as, even if the priest were fooled, God would know; something to the effect of 'God does not hand out absolution for good acting.'
I really wish I could be more help.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Marie wrote:
Bishops were certainly addressed in letters as "the most reverend father in God Darren, Bishop of Potters Bar," to take a fictitious case, but it is my understanding that addressing the priest as plain "father" hadn't yet come in . I've certainly never seen a priest referred to as "Father So-and-So" in any medieval letter or other document. Actually, doesn't Tess's father in 'Tess of the Durbervilles' address the local vicar as 'Sir', and that was in much more recent times?
Marie
Carol responds:
Hi, Marie. It's been fifteen years since I read "Tess," but wouldn't that vicar have been a C of E minister rather than a Catholic priest? Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
Carol, with apologies for the big print and no idea where it came from
Re: Brief Change of Topic
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Makes sense, Doug. Thanks.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
> destama@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > "But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say
> > spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't
> > know?"
> >
> > Doug here:
> > If I understand it correctly the position would be that EW, and thus
> > Henry, *did* know the boys were still alive, but *didn't* know where they'd
> > been sent and couldn't get to them.
> > And even if Henry did know the boys were alive, unless he was willing to
> > give up the throne, he had to act as if they *weren't* alive and that
> > anyone claiming to be either of them was a fake. EW, knowing as much as she
> > did about how things operated around the throne, dare not come out and
> > support a "pretender", thus threatening her daughter position, without
> > absolute proof, such as a personal meeting, that the "pretender" *was* one
> > of her sons.
> > AFAIK, she never got that chance.
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Another question
Sandra wrote:
I definitely wouldnâ¬"t use â¬Üsirrahâ¬" ⬠I know itâ¬"s insulting. <snip>
Carol responds:
I think that possibly Marie's thought that you were considering "sirrah" comes from the way the posts are showing up--an a with a circumflex over it in place of apostrophes. I wonder if those of us who are posting from somewhere other than the forum can turn off curly quotes or "smart quotes." I had a similar problem with my posts when I tried to compose in Word and then copy and paste my posts to the forum. Just a thought.
By the way, it looks as if we're no longer able to change subject headings. Anyone know a way to do it from the forum? Or must we start a new thread when we drift from the topic?
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Doug
Carol responds:
Interesting reasoning--I don't know whether I agree or not. My primary question, perhaps unanswerable, is how the Portuguese felt about EoY's legitimacy and her marriage to the heir presumptive or whatever Manuel was. It seems clear that neither Portugal nor Scotland had any objection to
Richard's kingship per se. Nor did Spain, for that matter. It was only France, inveterate enemy of England and the House of York (and fearful of Richard because of his anti-Treaty-of-Picquigny stance and its own precarious minority rule) opposed him. (I won't count Francis of Britanny, who was just trying to use the "Earl or Richmond" to harass Richard, not, as far as I know, to back Tudor as a pretender to the throne).
Regarding Portugal as a royal nobody--How things changed in just a few years. With the exploration of Africa and the New World, Portugal became a great power, along with Spain. Imagine Richard allied by marriage to either one, and how the history of the world, especially the Americas, might have been changed. I imagine Richard, excited by the prospect of exploration, sending Englishmen along with the Portuguese, to Brazil. And if he had backed Columbus--but it didn't happen that way, alas.
Carol
Re: Another question
Sandra wrote:
Carol responds:
I think that possibly Marie's thought that you were considering "sirrah" comes from the way the posts are showing up--an a with a circumflex over it in place of apostrophes. I wonder if those of us who are posting from somewhere other than the forum can turn off curly quotes or "smart quotes." I had a similar problem with my posts when I tried to compose in Word and then copy and paste my posts to the forum. Just a thought.
By the way, it looks as if we're no longer able to change subject headings. Anyone know a way to do it from the forum? Or must we start a new thread when we drift from the topic?
Carol
Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
I have often heard it said that it must be significant that EW did not openly accuse Richard. Was there some kind of enquiry / trial / investigation, at which she might have been expected to speak? I have never read about one.
It seems to me that launching an investigation would have been a bizarre thing to have done after Bosworth. I think at that time - before any pretenders appeared - there was very little doubt in the minds of most people, particularly among Henry's followers.
If an enquiry did take place, I would be grateful for a reference.
Regards
David
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 2:41:02 PM
But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know?
A J
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Wednesday McKenna wrote:
"I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug
Re: Today's question
Carol asked:
Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
I would think that the "Father" in the catholic confession confession is God the Father.
,And it is him the sinner asks for forgiveness. It seems to me inappropiate to ask the priest for forgivenessfor only God can take away the sins.
I don`t know how it was the middle ages but in my 20century experience we never called a priest father.
It was either Herr Pfarrer or Herr Kaplan , but monks are called Pater with their first name added.
Eva.
--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Marie wrote:
Bishops were certainly addressed in letters as "the most reverend father in God Darren, Bishop of Potters Bar," to take a fictitious case, but it is my understanding that addressing the priest as plain "father" hadn't yet come in . I've certainly never seen a priest referred to as "Father So-and-So" in any medieval letter or other document. Actually, doesn't Tess's father in 'Tess of the Durbervilles' address the local vicar as 'Sir', and that was in much more recent times?
Marie
Carol responds:
Hi, Marie. It's been fifteen years since I read "Tess," but wouldn't that vicar have been a C of E minister rather than a Catholic priest? Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
Carol, with apologies for the big print and no idea where it came from
Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
As John Ashdown-Hill points out in his book *The Last Days of Richard III*, Henry veered back and forth between demonizing Richard and demonizing Richard's nephews. Here's how it went down:
Immediately after Bosworth, Henry pressed his own claim (which mentioned neither the rumor about the boys nor seriously pressed his nonexistent blood claim; he stated that his claim to the throne was by right of conquest and only secondarily via his alleged Lancastrian blood. His blood claim was so weak that in order to strengthen his hold on the throne, he had to have Richard's Titulus Regius repealed so he could make Elizabeth of York legitimate before he married her. But a decade later, as the rebellions led by persons claiming to be Edward IV's sons were in full flower, Henry suddenly starts being "nicer" to the memory of Richard, and caused his gravesite to be spiffed up a bit with a plaque that among other things acknowledged Richard as the lawful king of England (the spiffing up, along with the church itself, was lost during the Dissolution under Henry's son a few decades later). Only in 1502, after Henry felt the boys -- who though they were illegitimate still had far better blood claims than did Henry -- were either dead or neutralized, did he go back to demonizing Richard, and only then did he start pushing as fact the old rumor started by John Morton et al, and which didn't have wide airing in England until he started pushing it.
Again, Henry's problem is that he had no, repeat, no, blood claim to speak of (unless one holds that royal blood claims are homeopathic, that they get stronger the less actual royal blood flows in one's veins). Edward's sons were the illegitimate sons of a King. Henry was the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a younger son of a King.
Tamara
--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have often heard it said that it must be significant that EW did not openly accuse Richard. Was there some kind of enquiry / trial / investigation, at which she might have been expected to speak? I have never read about one.
>
> It seems to me that launching an investigation would have been a bizarre thing to have done after Bosworth. I think at that time - before any pretenders appeared - there was very little doubt in the minds of most people, particularly among Henry's followers.
>
> If an enquiry did take place, I would be grateful for a reference.
>
> Regards
> David
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
I have often heard it said that it must be significant that EW did not openly accuse Richard. Was there some kind of enquiry / trial / investigation, at which she might have been expected to speak? I have never read about one.
It seems to me that launching an investigation would have been a bizarre thing to have done after Bosworth. I think at that time - before any pretenders appeared - there was very little doubt in the minds of most people, particularly among Henry's followers.
If an enquiry did take place, I would be grateful for a reference."
Doug here: As far as I know there are only two references to what happened to Richard's nephews. The first is the rumor that "was spread" during Buckigham's Rebellion that the boys were dead, which cut the ground out from under Buckingham and the others whose announced aims were to re-instate E(V). Their actual aims may have been something else entirely. The other is the reference to the boys not being seen in the Tower "after Easter", with Easter of 1484 being the most likely candidate as the boys were most definitely in the Tower during the period after Easter of 1483. The fact that EW came out of sanctuary at the end of March (I believe) 1484 provides some support for that also being the time her sons were moved from the Tower. Henry based *his* claim to the throne on his having conquered a usurper - not by any law of inheritance. He added support to his conquest, or perhaps a better way to view it is he reduced opposition his taking the crown, by marrying the "legitimate" eldest daughter of Edward IV. However, as far as I know anyway, there was never an official, Henry-backed pronouncement that Richard had killed his nephews. Which, again in my view, is a bit odd. If Richard *had* killed his nephews and Henry had done a publicized investigation, it almost certainly would have turned up people who could verify when and where the boys were last seen - even if those people were only servants or laborers in the Tower, watermen and the like. However, all that those "witnesses" could actually provide would be evidence that the boys were alive up to X, but what Henry would desperately need from any investigation would be solid information that the boys *were* dead. Any investigation into what happened to the boys that *didn't* prove they were dead would, in a sense, put an official primatur on their possibly still being alive. Thus giving more heart to those opposed to Henry's taking the throne in the first place. Therefore, whether the boys actually were dead or nor, didn't matter; they *had* to be dead or else Henry would have defeated a usurper only to become one himself when he didn't step aside and let E(V) retake the throne. And altruism and Henry Tudor did *not* go together... Doug
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Marie replies
There was no public enquiry, but I think we cannot assume that this was because everybody implicitly believed the Princes were dead. This is where burrowing into the events of the time puts a different complexion on things than the story we get courtesy of Vergil and More. Henry VII avoided mentioning Edward V and his brother, most probably because he didn't know what had become of them. Had Henry VII held an enquiry and it had found evidence for the survival of either one, he would really have shot himself in the foot. That, rather than total confidence in their demise, is probably the real reason their was no enquiry.
To come back to Elizabeth Woodville: mothers don't generally just assume their missing children are dead without very good evidence. And why would a woman who believed a particular man had had her two sons murdered, then give him her daughters to take care of? She didn't even make him promise not to kill them, only not to imprison them in the Tower of London or anywhere else. And, if she had good evidence that the boys were both dead, why did she not pass this evidence on to Henry VII (who was, as A. J. points out, clearly spooked by Perkin Warbeck)? Why was her eldest son Dorset trying to escape Tudor in 1485, and was left behind as a hostage in France when Henry sailed for England? Why did Dorset spend a good deal of Henry VII's reign in the Tower, and why was Elizabeth Woodville stripped by Henry of all her lands?
Why did Henry have to be pushed into marrying Elizabeth of York?
And why does Von Poppelau suggest that, when he visited England in May 1484, opinion there was divided as to whether or not Richard had murdered the Princes?
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Hi,
I have often heard it said that it must be significant that EW did not openly accuse Richard. Was there some kind of enquiry / trial / investigation, at which she might have been expected to speak? I have never read about one.
It seems to me that launching an investigation would have been a bizarre thing to have done after Bosworth. I think at that time - before any pretenders appeared - there was very little doubt in the minds of most people, particularly among Henry's followers.
If an enquiry did take place, I would be grateful for a reference.
Regards
David
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 2:41:02 PM
But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know?
A J
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Â
 Wednesday McKenna wrote:
"I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." Â More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Immediately after Bosworth, Henry pressed his own claim (which mentioned
neither the rumor about the boys nor seriously pressed his nonexistent blood
claim; he stated that his claim to the throne was by right of conquest and only
secondarily via his alleged Lancastrian blood. His blood claim was so weak that
in order to strengthen his hold on the throne, he had to have Richard's Titulus
Regius repealed so he could make Elizabeth of York legitimate before he married
her. But a decade later, as the rebellions led by persons claiming to be Edward
IV's sons were in full flower, Henry suddenly starts being "nicer" to the memory
of Richard, and caused his gravesite to be spiffed up a bit with a plaque that
among other things acknowledged Richard as the lawful king of England (the
spiffing up, along with the church itself, was lost during the Dissolution under
Henry's son a few decades later). Only in 1502, after Henry felt the boys -- who
though they were illegitimate still had far better blood claims than did Henry
-- were either dead or neutralized, did he go back to demonizing Richard, and
only then did he start pushing as fact the old rumor started by John Morton et
al, and which didn't have wide airing in England until he started pushing
it.
Again, Henry's problem is that he had no, repeat, no, blood claim to
speak of (unless one holds that royal blood claims are homeopathic, that they
get stronger the less actual royal blood flows in one's veins). Edward's sons
were the illegitimate sons of a King. Henry was the great-grandson of an
illegitimate son of a younger son of a King.
Sandra adds:-
One wonders sometimes
exactly how early in the proceedings Henry Tudor wished he had never returned to
England, never heard of Bosworth, and certainly never heard of Richard III. Not
long after Bosworth, I fancy, when he realised the House of York would not
finally lie down and die without a lot more fighting. And he didn't like
fighting. Counting the money was more up his street. But an uphill struggle lay
in waiting, and Henry had made his bed, he had to lie in it. But fair do's, he
cottoned on and got to grips with the ropes---and the dosh---but it shortened
his life and ruined his health. Do we feel
sympathy...?
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Not only did EW never once say her boys were dead or missing, much less accuse Richard of killing them, but Henry himself didn't get around to accusing Richard of killing the boys until 1502 -- AFTER the last of the pretenders (at least one of whom was supported by EW) had been vanquished. <snip>
Carol responds:
Even then, Henry didn't openly accuse Richard--or Sir James Tyrrell. Research into the matter has shown that there was no confession or statement by Henry that Sir James had confessed--it was all the invention of Sir Thomas More. Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them! But so far as I know, he never came out and said, after the executions of Perkin Warbeck (1499) and Tyrrrell (1502) that Richard had killed his nephews. See the article by Susan Leas in our Files for the absence of a a confession by Tyrrell or a statement by Henry to that effect. The rumor is my own conjecture. (The circumstances resemble those in which the original rumor that the "Princes" had been killed "arose" or "was spread.")
But, yes, Henry's view of Richard as tyrant/usurper was certainly modified when he decided to build Richard a tomb and plaque stating that he was, among other things, the rightful king (and, IIRC, faithful guardian of his nephews). I wonder if either Polydore Vergil or Sir Thomas More ever saw that plaque!
Carol
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Carol wrote:
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Tamara wrote:
Not only did EW never once say her boys were dead or missing, much less accuse Richard of killing them, but Henry himself didn't get around to accusing Richard of killing the boys until 1502 -- AFTER the last of the pretenders (at least one of whom was supported by EW) had been vanquished. <snip>
Carol responds:
Even then, Henry didn't openly accuse Richard--or Sir James Tyrrell. Research into the matter has shown that there was no confession or statement by Henry that Sir James had confessed--it was all the invention of Sir Thomas More. Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them! But so far as I know, he never came out and said, after the executions of Perkin Warbeck (1499) and Tyrrrell (1502) that Richard had killed his nephews. See the article by Susan Leas in our Files for the absence of a a confession by Tyrrell or a statement by Henry to that effect. The rumor is my own conjecture. (The circumstances resemble those in which the original rumor that the "Princes" had been killed "arose" or "was spread.")
But, yes, Henry's view of Richard as tyrant/usurper was certainly modified when he decided to build Richard a tomb and plaque stating that he was, among other things, the rightful king (and, IIRC, faithful guardian of his nephews). I wonder if either Polydore Vergil or Sir Thomas More ever saw that plaque!
Carol
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Right there in the abbey, she had access to doctors of theology who gladly would have framed any challenge, rebuttal or argument she cared to submit to the Council and Privy Council regarding the precontracted marriage between her husband and Eleanor Butler. She could have submitted further arguments to Parliament when they gathered after Buckingham's rebellion a few months later to review and approve (is approve the correct word?) Titilus Regius.
EW remained silent while only a few feet away the Council declared her marriage invalid and her children illegitimate. She made peace with Richard afterward and had him put in writing his commitment to protect and make good marriages for her daughters. She came out of sanctuary after he was crowned and sent her two eldest daughters to live in his court while she went to live elsewhere with her other daughters, on a pension provided by Richard. She urged Dorset to come home and make peace with Richard as well.
She also had the opportunity when Henry Tudor took over to accuse Richard of inventing the precontract or of killing her two sons or of any other crime she wished to lay at his feet. The time was ripe, Henry would have welcomed it and preserved it forever in writing. But she never accused Richard of anything.
For a full discussion of what EW did and didn't do when her husband was revealed as a bigamist, you might want to read Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King. That's the best reference I know...others may know better ones. It contains a lengthy discussion of all the points you've raised. The book was originally written in 2009; you might want to get the revised copy that was released earlier this year, as it includes details of Annette's involvement with the discovery of Richard's bones. (While the cover is the same, there's a banner across the top of the book declaring it the revised version.)
Annette Carson also did a presentation with Philippa Langley at an R3 conference held in Leicester. Both women mention some of what Elizabeth Woodville did and didn't do. Link to presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f60CyRdCXls
Also...the last thing Henry Tudor wanted to do after Bosworth was to launch and investigation as to whether the precontract or Richard's taking the throne was valid -- because it was valid. What Henry did was: (1) arrest Stillington; (2) order Titilus Regius repealed in Parliament without its being read. He wanted no copy of the act to exist and ordered all copies returned to Westminster and destroyed. His propagandists carefully substituted the name of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Butler in their writings, which woman everyone knew Edward IV wouldn't have married. He also *refused* to try Stillington for treason after accusing him of same, and before a Parliament that was expecting Stillington to give testimony. He apparently didn't want any testimony to be heard.
For 100+ years, the Tudor propagandists had free rein in accusing Richard of anything they liked because Titilus Regius had been erased and no man alive under Tudor reign would have dared contradict the king or his mother. When Sir George Buck discovered a copy of Titilus Regius tucked into the Croyland Chronicle, the actual facts of the precontract and the three estates' reasoning and invitation for Richard's taking the throne were again revealed.
Its re-emergence also revealed the lengths to which Henry VII went to smear Richard's name. If Richard wasn't a murdering monster, then H7 wasn't the savior of England he and his chroniclers claimed he was. The only reason history knows that Richard follows all the legal steps to take the throne is because that one copy of Titilus Regiius escaped H7's efforts to smudge it out of existence.
EW's silence regarding Richard is only one piece of a complex puzzle; the more you dig, the more pieces you have to examine and move around the board.
~Weds
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi,
I have often heard it said that it must be significant that EW did not openly accuse Richard. Was there some kind of enquiry / trial / investigation, at which she might have been expected to speak? I have never read about one.
It seems to me that launching an investigation would have been a bizarre thing to have done after Bosworth. I think at that time - before any pretenders appeared - there was very little doubt in the minds of most people, particularly among Henryx27;s followers.
If an enquiry did take place, I would be grateful for a reference.
Regards
David
From:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sent:
Sat, Sep 7, 2013 2:41:02 PM
But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know?
A J
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Wednesday McKenna wrote:
"I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug
--
Friend:
Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me:
I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Today's question
Penance and Reconciliation (commonly called confession, reconciliation
or penance), and its history/tradition is centuries long.
The words are actually, "Bless me, father, for I have sinned," because
the priest doesn't actually forgive anyone -- it's God who does the
forgiving, depending upon how contrite the petitioner is.
I've been told that medieval Catholics simply said, "Benedicite" at
the beginning of their confessions, so I know that part of it was in
use in Richard's time even if priests weren't addressed as "father".
Individual confession began in the 11th century, but I can't find out
if "bless me" began then. Maybe it's so old, no one knows when it
began? Maybe we should ask on a Catholic answers discussion board?
In the early Church, publicly known sins were often confessed openly
(publicly) in church. Individual confession traces back to the 11th
century. (Ref. Poschmann, Bernhard (1963). Penance and the Anointing
of the Sick. p. 156.) Also, the confessional box is a 16th-century
Counter-Reformation invention, so it seems before then private
confessions were face-to-face. Then again, you can confess
face-to-face today as well if you want.
~Weds
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 6:27 AM, <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol asked:
>
> Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
>
>
> I would think that the "Father" in the catholic confession confession is God the Father.
>
> ,And it is him the sinner asks for forgiveness. It seems to me inappropiate to ask the priest for forgiveness
> for only God can take away the sins.
> I don`t know how it was the middle ages but in my 20century experience we never called a priest father.
> It was either Herr Pfarrer or Herr Kaplan , but monks are called Pater with their first name added.
> Eva.
>
>
>
> --- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> Bishops were certainly addressed in letters as "the most reverend father in God Darren, Bishop of Potters Bar," to take a fictitious case, but it is my understanding that addressing the priest as plain "father" hadn't yet come in . I've certainly never seen a priest referred to as "Father So-and-So" in any medieval letter or other document. Actually, doesn't Tess's father in 'Tess of the Durbervilles' address the local vicar as 'Sir', and that was in much more recent times?
>
> Marie
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marie. It's been fifteen years since I read "Tess," but wouldn't that vicar have been a C of E minister rather than a Catholic priest? Anyone know when the formula, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" came into use in the Catholic sacrament of Confession?
>
> Carol, with apologies for the big print and no idea where it came from
>
>
--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
White Hart
Re: White Hart
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
Did our Richard also have the second Richard's badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: White Hart
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
I saw this article. I was not impressed with the headline - Rebel found with the hunchback's badge! Perhaps we should all write to the journalist (Jack Malvern) and suggest he does a little research before he puts pen to paper (or finger to key).
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
Did our Richard also have the second Richard's badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: White Hart
I saw this article. I was not impressed with the headline -
Rebel found with the hunchback's badge! Perhaps we should all write to the
journalist (Jack Malvern) and suggest he does a little research before he puts
pen to paper (or finger to key).
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
Did our Richard also have the second Richard's badge?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09
=^..^=
Re: White Hart
Would be quite a disappointment for a lot of people, I think....
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
If by any chance it is Richard de la Pole, dare we wonder if John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, looked something like him? But without the facial hair? =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:43 AM To: Subject: Re: White Hart
I saw this article. I was not impressed with the headline -
Rebel found with the hunchback's badge! Perhaps we should all write to the
journalist (Jack Malvern) and suggest he does a little research before he puts
pen to paper (or finger to key).
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
Did our Richard also have the second Richard’s badge?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09
=^..^=
Re: White Hart
Would be quite a disappointment for a lot of people, I think....
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
If by any chance it is Richard de la Pole, dare we wonder if John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, looked something like him? But without the facial hair? =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:43 AM To: Subject: Re: White Hart
I saw this article. I was not impressed with the headline -
Rebel found with the hunchback's badge! Perhaps we should all write to the
journalist (Jack Malvern) and suggest he does a little research before he puts
pen to paper (or finger to key).
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>
Did our Richard also have the second Richard’s badge?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09
=^..^=
Re: White Hart
Marie replies,
I've been googling and cogitating. A couple of things are bothering me:-
1) A white hart badge (of Richard II primarily) is a small thing on which to pin an entire identification
2) This portrait, apparently, used to belong to the Tempests of Tong Hall in Yorkshire
3) As Toby Capwell (at least I think it was him) pointed out at the RIII Soc Bosworth conference, livery collars and badges were for distribution to followers, not for wearing yourself. This man is therefore perhaps a retainer or supporter of the owner of the White Hart cognisance.
4) Is the general style of the hat and beard a bit late for Richard de la Pole?
I haven't got any further with my thoughts, but might this be just a member of the Tempest family displaying the badge of his "good lord"? Or a badge of the Tempests themselves? Did anyone else use the White Hart in the 16th century?
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Did our Richard also have the second Richard’s badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: White Hart
A little confused. Unfortunately, I cannot read the whole article so could someone who has summarize it pretty please? What does Richard II's white hart badge have to do with Richard III? From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] White Hart
I fear so. My good self included. =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:26 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: White Hart Would be quite a disappointment for a lot of people, I think.... Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
If by any chance it is Richard de la Pole, dare we wonder if John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, looked something like him? But without the facial hair? =^..^=
Re: White Hart
A little confused. Unfortunately, I cannot read the whole article so could
someone who has summarize it pretty please? What does Richard II's white hart
badge have to do with Richard III?
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10,
2013 6:27 AM
Subject: Re:
White Hart
I fear so. My good self included. =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:26 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: White
Hart
Would be quite a disappointment for a lot of people, I think....
Marie
--- In
,
<> wrote:
If by any chance it is Richard de la Pole, dare we wonder if John de la
Pole, Earl of Lincoln, looked something like him? But without the facial hair?
=^..^=
Re: White Hart
Jonathan
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2013, 12:31
Subject: Re: White Hart
I can't read all of it either, just the beginning, and view the picture. The full article has to be subscribed to, or found in the print Times. As to what Richard II's badge has to do with Richard III, that's what we want to know. I have never seen the white hart associated with our Richard, but that doesn't mean it never was. Just that I don't know. Sandra =^..^= From: Wolfand Boar Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:25 PM To: Subject: Re: White Hart
A little confused. Unfortunately, I cannot read the whole article so could someone who has summarize it pretty please? What does Richard II's white hart badge have to do with Richard III? From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: White Hart
I fear so. My good self included. =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:26 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: White Hart Would be quite a disappointment for a lot of people, I think.... Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
If by any chance it is Richard de la Pole, dare we wonder if John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, looked something like him? But without the facial hair? =^..^=
Re: White Hart
Marie replies,
I've been googling and cogitating. A couple of things are bothering me:-
1) A white hart badge (of Richard II primarily) is a small thing on which to pin an entire identification
2) This portrait, apparently, used to belong to the Tempests of Tong Hall in Yorkshire
3) As Toby Capwell (at least I think it was him) pointed out at the RIII Soc Bosworth conference, livery collars and badges were for distribution to followers, not for wearing yourself. This man is therefore perhaps a retainer or supporter of the owner of the White Hart cognisance.
4) Is the general style of the hat and beard a bit late for Richard de la Pole?
I haven't got any further with my thoughts, but might this be just a member of the Tempest family displaying the badge of his "good lord"? Or a badge of the Tempests themselves? Did anyone else use the White Hart in the 16th century?
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Did our Richard also have the second Richard’s badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
"Interesting reasoning--I don't know whether I agree or not. My primary question, perhaps unanswerable, is how the Portuguese felt about EoY's legitimacy and her marriage to the heir presumptive or whatever Manuel was. It seems clear that neither Portugal nor Scotland had any objection to
Richard's kingship per se. Nor did Spain, for that matter. It was only France, inveterate enemy of England and the House of York (and fearful of Richard because of his anti-Treaty-of-Picquigny stance and its own precarious minority rule) opposed him. (I won't count Francis of Britanny, who was just trying to use the "Earl or Richmond" to harass Richard, not, as far as I know, to back Tudor as a pretender to the throne).
Regarding Portugal as a royal nobody--How things changed in just a few years. With the exploration of Africa and the New World, Portugal became a great power, along with Spain. Imagine Richard allied by marriage to either one, and how the history of the world, especially the Americas, might have been changed. I imagine Richard, excited by the prospect of exploration, sending Englishmen along with the Portuguese, to Brazil. And if he had backed Columbus--but it didn't happen that way, alas." Doug here: I'm sorry to say I don't know where or how I got the idea that Manuel *wasn't* the Portugese heir! I do know Prince Henry the Navigator was a brother of the Portugese King, perhaps it was from there? There's also the point that EoY's proposed marriage to Manuel was part of a deal that also included Richard's marriage to the King of Portugal's sister That last would certainly be considered a furthering of Portugal's influence and status and I would think much would also depend on how Richard was seen to view his nephews and nieces and the best *evidence* we have on that points to his treating them as "royal", or nearly so, but *not* legitimate. Just as an afterthought, perhaps the offering of EoY as a bride to Manuel was because there wasn't anyone else? Were there any other legitimate females of the proper age? Doug
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
"The dowager queen Elizabeth Woodville was next door to Westminster, in sanctuary within the abbey itself while the council discussions were going on. She had friends and contacts on that council. One was Rotherham, who was no friend of Richard's.
Right there in the abbey, she had access to doctors of theology who gladly would have framed any challenge, rebuttal or argument she cared to submit to the Council and Privy Council regarding the precontracted marriage between her husband and Eleanor Butler. She could have submitted further arguments to Parliament when they gathered after Buckingham's rebellion a few months later to review and approve (is approve the correct word?) Titilus Regius.
EW remained silent while only a few feet away the Council declared her marriage invalid and her children illegitimate. She made peace with Richard afterward and had him put in writing his commitment to protect and make good marriages for her daughters. She came out of sanctuary after he was crowned and sent her two eldest daughters to live in his court while she went to live elsewhere with her other daughters, on a pension provided by Richard. She urged Dorset to come home and make peace with Richard as well. She also had the opportunity when Henry Tudor took over to accuse Richard of inventing the precontract or of killing her two sons or of any other crime she wished to lay at his feet. The time was ripe, Henry would have welcomed it and preserved it forever in writing. But she never accused Richard of anything. For a full discussion of what EW did and didn't do when her husband was revealed as a bigamist, you might want to read Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King. That's the best reference I know...others may know better ones. It contains a lengthy discussion of all the points you've raised. The book was originally written in 2009; you might want to get the revised copy that was released earlier this year, as it includes details of Annette's involvement with the discovery of Richard's bones. (While the cover is the same, there's a banner across the top of the book declaring it the revised version.) Annette Carson also did a presentation with Philippa Langley at an R3 conference held in Leicester. Both women mention some of what Elizabeth Woodville did and didn't do. Link to presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f60CyRdCXls Also...the last thing Henry Tudor wanted to do after Bosworth was to launch and investigation as to whether the precontract or Richard's taking the throne was valid -- because it was valid. What Henry did was: (1) arrest Stillington; (2) order Titilus Regius repealed in Parliament without its being read. He wanted no copy of the act to exist and ordered all copies returned to Westminster and destroyed. His propagandists carefully substituted the name of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Butler in their writings, which woman everyone knew Edward IV wouldn't have married. He also *refused* to try Stillington for treason after accusing him of same, and before a Parliament that was expecting Stillington to give testimony. He apparently didn't want any testimony to be heard. For 100+ years, the Tudor propagandists had free rein in accusing Richard of anything they liked because Titilus Regius had been erased and no man alive under Tudor reign would have dared contradict the king or his mother. When Sir George Buck discovered a copy of Titilus Regius tucked into the Croyland Chronicle, the actual facts of the precontract and the three estates' reasoning and invitation for Richard's taking the throne were again revealed.
Its re-emergence also revealed the lengths to which Henry VII went to smear Richard's name. If Richard wasn't a murdering monster, then H7 wasn't the savior of England he and his chroniclers claimed he was. The only reason history knows that Richard follows all the legal steps to take the throne is because that one copy of Titilus Regiius escaped H7's efforts to smudge it out of existence. EW's silence regarding Richard is only one piece of a complex puzzle; the more you dig, the more pieces you have to examine and move around the board." Doug here: Excellent summary! re: Parliament "approving" Titulus Regius. If TR is considered a piece of legislation, the best term would most likely be "enacted"; as "It is hereby enacted...". If, on the other hand, TR is considered a resolution; ie, the thoughts of Parliament concerning a particular subject the opening would likely be something along the lines of "It is hereby resolved..." and the best way to describe such a document's passage through Parliament would either be "resolved" (surprise!) or "passed". The former would have legal standing and the latter wouldn't. Because TR declared EW's marriage to Edward IV invalid, and why, and also removed her children from the line of succession, I'd plump for "enacted". Doug
Re: White Hart
Marie responds,
I suspect the expert just confused Richard II with Richard III - an arti historian rather than a historian of the 15th C, perhaps.
The Tempests who sheltered Henry VI were not at Tong Hall. The Tempests get very confusing, and some were Lancastrian and others not. In the Yorkist period there were two branches living in next-door manor houses just west of Skipton, one house called Broughton and the other Bracewell. I get them confused. One of them, the senior line I think, were the ones who helped - or claimed to have helped - Henry VI. One of those two died out and the other is still going. Don't know where the Tong line fits in though.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
The titfer doesn’t look English at all. To me, anyway. But certainly it more fits the 16th century, than the 15th. Somehow he just doesn’t look English. OK, if he’s Richard de la Pole, he spent a lot of time on the Continent, but even so. According to The Handbook to English Heraldry by Charles Boutell, Edward IV used the white hart, but there is no mention of Richard using the same. Richard doesn’t have a listing in this particular part of the book, which goes from Edward IV to Henry VII, but I imagine he had the same badges as Edward? The Tempests of Tong Hall were, I gather, ‘zealously’ Lancastrian, and at one time provided shelter for Henry VI. I agree with you, Jonathan, it may well be a harking back to the legitimate line and Richard II. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:07 PM To: Subject: RE: White Hart
Marie replies,
I've been googling and cogitating. A couple of things are bothering me:-
1) A white hart badge (of Richard II primarily) is a small thing on which to pin an entire identification
2) This portrait, apparently, used to belong to the Tempests of Tong Hall in Yorkshire
3) As Toby Capwell (at least I think it was him) pointed out at the RIII Soc Bosworth conference, livery collars and badges were for distribution to followers, not for wearing yourself. This man is therefore perhaps a retainer or supporter of the owner of the White Hart cognisance.
4) Is the general style of the hat and beard a bit late for Richard de la Pole?
I haven't got any further with my thoughts, but might this be just a member of the Tempest family displaying the badge of his "good lord"? Or a badge of the Tempests themselves? Did anyone else use the White Hart in the 16th century?
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Did our Richard also have the second Richard’s badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Marie responds
Manuel wasn't the Portuguese heir in 1485 because King John had a son, Afonso. Afonso later died, and that is how Manuel ended up as King of Portugal.
I agree with Doug that, having been treated as the legitimate offspring of Edward IV for so many years, and brought up and educated as such, Elizabeth and her sisters were in an anomalous position - not legitimate but not your regular royal bastards either.
As has also been pointed out, the Portuguese negotiations also had something to do with neutralizing the Lancastrian claim, and in particular neutralizing Henry Tudor's claim. Marrying Elizabeth to a foreign prince, but with himself married into the same royal house, would be a pretty safe way of placing her out of Tudor's reach without anyone being able to claim that he had made her a disparaging marriage. Look what happened to her sister Cecily after Bosworth. Richard had married her to Lord Scrope's young brother, but Henry and his mum got the marriage annulled and made her marry Henry's middle-aged uncle.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
 Carol (T) wrote:
"Interesting reasoning--I don't know whether I agree or not. My primary question, perhaps unanswerable, is how the Portuguese felt about EoY's legitimacy and her marriage to the heir presumptive or whatever Manuel was. It seems clear that neither Portugal nor Scotland had any objection to
Richard's kingship per se. Nor did Spain, for that matter. It was only France, inveterate enemy of England and the House of York (and fearful of Richard because of his anti-Treaty-of-Picquigny stance and its own precarious minority rule) opposed him. (I won't count Francis of Britanny, who was just trying to use the "Earl or Richmond" to harass Richard, not, as far as I know, to back Tudor as a pretender to the throne).
Regarding Portugal as a royal nobody--How things changed in just a few years. With the exploration of Africa and the New World, Portugal became a great power, along with Spain. Imagine Richard allied by marriage to either one, and how the history of the world, especially the Americas, might have been changed. I imagine Richard, excited by the prospect of exploration, sending Englishmen along with the Portuguese, to Brazil. And if he had backed Columbus--but it didn't happen that way, alas." Doug here: I'm sorry to say I don't know where or how I got the idea that Manuel *wasn't* the Portugese heir! I do know Prince Henry the Navigator was a brother of the Portugese King, perhaps it was from there? There's also the point that EoY's proposed marriage to Manuel was part of a deal that also included Richard's marriage to the King of Portugal's sister That last would certainly be considered a furthering of Portugal's influence and status and I would think much would also depend on how Richard was seen to view his nephews and nieces and the best *evidence* we have on that points to his treating them as "royal", or nearly so, but *not* legitimate. Just as an afterthought, perhaps the offering of EoY as a bride to Manuel was because there wasn't anyone else? Were there any other legitimate females of the proper age? Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
ÿ
Carol
(T) wrote:
"Interesting reasoning--I don't know whether I agree or not. My primary
question, perhaps unanswerable, is how the Portuguese felt about EoY's
legitimacy and her marriage to the heir presumptive or whatever Manuel was.
It seems clear that neither Portugal nor Scotland had any objection to
Richard's kingship per se. Nor did Spain, for that matter. It was only
France, inveterate enemy of England and the House of York (and fearful of
Richard because of his anti-Treaty-of-Picquigny stance and its own
precarious minority rule) opposed him. (I won't count Francis of Britanny,
who was just trying to use the "Earl or Richmond" to harass Richard, not, as
far as I know, to back Tudor as a pretender to the throne).
Regarding
Portugal as a royal nobody--How things changed in just a few years. With the
exploration of Africa and the New World, Portugal became a great power,
along with Spain. Imagine Richard allied by marriage to either one, and how
the history of the world, especially the Americas, might have been changed.
I imagine Richard, excited by the prospect of exploration, sending
Englishmen along with the Portuguese, to Brazil. And if he had backed
Columbus--but it didn't happen that way, alas."
Doug here:
I'm sorry to say I don't know where or how I
got the idea that Manuel *wasn't* the Portugese heir! I do know Prince Henry
the Navigator was a brother of the Portugese King, perhaps it was from
there?
There's also the point that EoY's proposed
marriage to Manuel was part of a deal that also included Richard's marriage
to the King of Portugal's sister That last would certainly be considered a
furthering of Portugal's influence and status and I would think much would
also depend on how Richard was seen to view his nephews and nieces and the
best *evidence* we have on that points to his treating them as "royal", or
nearly so, but *not* legitimate.
Just as an afterthought, perhaps the offering
of EoY as a bride to Manuel was because there wasn't anyone else? Were there
any other legitimate females of the proper age?
Doug
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
Re: White Hart
Marie replies,
<snip>4) Is the general style of the hat and beard a bit late for Richard de la Pole?
Carol responds:
I'm no expert on Tudor-era fashions, but the hat looks (to me) a lot like the hat worn by Edward VI in his portrait painted ca. 1550: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England
Richard de la Pole died twenty-five years earlier, in 1525, near the middle of Henry VIII's reign. For comparison, here's fat Henry, ca. 1531: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1491_Henry_VIII.jpg
All of them have flat hats with feathers, but the style of Henry's does seem to be different from that of the supposed de la Pole.
The white hart crest is interesting, but I can't see it connecting him with our Richard. Wouldn't his (Richard de la Pole's) cognizance have been the white rose given his nickname (or epithet or whatever the correct term is)?
CarolI
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Carol responds:
Well, Anne de la Pole was promised to the King of Scotland's heir. I don't know how old her sisters were. IMO, Richard wouldn't have promised Anne St. Leger )still a child in any case) because of her father's low birth. The connection with Edward IV was what was important in the Portuguese marriage negotiations, I think--also the direct Plantagenet line (male rather than female) as would have been the case with the daughter of one of Richard's sisters.
I'm thinking that Elizabeth of York's legitimacy would not have mattered to Manuel (or his cousin, King John II, to use the English spelling of their names) because his children would not inherit any titles through her (including the crown if John II died childless, as he did). In Henry VII's case, it was different. EoY had to be legitimate(d) because his own claim was so shaky that his children might choose (as Henry VIII did) to claim the throne through their mother.
I didn't mean to imply that Manuel was the heir apparent; that was John's son, Alfonso, who later died in a fall from a horse (just like Mary of Burgundy). But after the death in 1484 of Manuel's older brother, Diego (murdered by John II, according to Wikipedia!), he was next in line after Alfonso, which would make him, I think, heir presumptive. (Maria (Bronte?), you're an authority on the Spanish and Portuguese lines--maybe you can help me out here. I know you'll use the authentic spellings that I'm too lazy to look up.)
Just my muddled thinking on this issue. I could be wrong on all counts, including Maria's user name. Thanks to the Yahoos, we can no longer look up member names and IDs.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Carol wrote
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name.
I was often wondering about this too concerning the disfigured portraits of Richard, as they were painted and then altered in Henry VIII's time. Was the memory of Richard such a threat to Henry VIII?
Has anyone an idea?
Eva
--- In , <> wrote:
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Marie responds,
That's good; so we are agreed. Why Henry VIII? I think he was just a different personality, and also he wasn't responsible for executing Warwick [?] and Warwick. Henry VII was always cagey about the whole subject of the Princes, and he went on as he had started. Maybe he was never sure who he had had hanged in 1499.
Henry VIII was making a fresh start, and wanted the whole question wrapped up. It really does look to me as if this was a new policy decision. I think it very likely that Vergil did find the Wardrobe accounts, because he has Tyrell sent down from York, but More didn't go with that version and had Richard send him down from Warwick, which of course conflicted with the actual documentary evidence that he rode with Richard to York but makes for better timing. And that makes me think that Tyrell actual movements weren't that important. He really wasn't a great candidate from the historical point of view since he was only on a flying visit to London to pick up the gear for the investiture, but what the hell? He was dead and called Tyrell.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
~Weds
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
--
Friend:
Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me:
I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
I'm writing quickly and so can't check this, but perhaps it will jog someone's memory. Was it Henry VIII who had to assure Aragon that the princes were dead before Aragon would agree to betroth Catherine to Arthur?
~Weds
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
--
Friend:
Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me:
I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
--
Friend:
Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
Me:
I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: White Hart
Rebel found&. I confess that we have the Times because my husband likes the crossword. Here is my type-up: It is a tiny detail, but a scholar has spotted a hat badge meaning that a portrait sold by Christie's is not a French noble but an heir of Richard III [Jack Malvern writes]. Richard de la Pole once planned to invade from France and topple Henry VIII. Anthony Gross says the portrait is not, as thought, of Charles, Constable of Bourbon, but a propaganda work from when Richard hoped for the English throne. The crucial evidence is that the hat badge is the white hart of York, not the winged hart of Bourbon. I really don't think this is Bourbon , Dr Gross said. There is a lifetime portrait of the Constable and this looks nothing like him. That's all. It is quite a vivid picture and fills a space decoratively. It is supplemented by an advertisement for tickets to the talk to be given at the Times Cheltenham Literature Festival by Philippa Langley and Michael Jones on The King's Grave: the Search for Richard III on Monday 7th October.
Jan.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2013, 17:43
Subject: RE: RE: White Hart
Marie wrote:
Marie replies,<snip>
4) Is the general style of the hat and beard a bit late for Richard de la Pole?
Carol responds:
I'm no expert on Tudor-era fashions, but the hat looks (to me) a lot like the hat worn by Edward VI in his portrait painted ca. 1550: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England
Richard de la Pole died twenty-five years earlier, in 1525, near the middle of Henry VIII's reign. For comparison, here's fat Henry, ca. 1531: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1491_Henry_VIII.jpg
All of them have flat hats with feathers, but the style of Henry's does seem to be different from that of the supposed de la Pole.
The white hart crest is interesting, but I can't see it connecting him with our Richard. Wouldn't his (Richard de la Pole's) cognizance have been the white rose given his nickname (or epithet or whatever the correct term is)?
CarolI
Re: White Hart
Did our Richard also have the second Richard's badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Marie responds,
I don't know of any assurance re the Princes, but it is said that Spain did demand that Warwick should be got rid of before Catherine could marry Arthur. She is supposed to have referred to it in later years as "a marriage made in blood" but I don't know what the sources are for all this.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I'm writing quickly and so can't check this, but perhaps it will jog someone's memory. Was it Henry VIII who had to assure Aragon that the princes were dead before Aragon would agree to betroth Catherine to Arthur?
~Weds
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Â
Â
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Â
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 2:29:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
The dowager queen Elizabeth Woodville was next door to Westminster, in sanctuary within the abbey itself while the council discussions were going on. She had friends and contacts on that council. One was Rotherham, who was no friend of Richard's. Right there in the abbey, she had access to doctors of theology who gladly would have framed any challenge, rebuttal or argument she cared to submit to the Council and Privy Council regarding the precontracted marriage between her husband and Eleanor Butler. She could have submitted further arguments to Parliament when they gathered after Buckingham's rebellion a few months later to review and approve (is approve the correct word?) Titilus Regius. EW remained silent while only a few feet away the Council declared her marriage invalid and her children illegitimate. She made peace with Richard afterward and had him put in writing his commitment to protect and make good marriages for her daughters. She came out of sanctuary after he was crowned and sent her two eldest daughters to live in his court while she went to live elsewhere with her other daughters, on a pension provided by Richard. She urged Dorset to come home and make peace with Richard as well. She also had the opportunity when Henry Tudor took over to accuse Richard of inventing the precontract or of killing her two sons or of any other crime she wished to lay at his feet. The time was ripe, Henry would have welcomed it and preserved it forever in writing. But she never accused Richard of anything.
For a full discussion of what EW did and didn't do when her husband was revealed as a bigamist, you might want to read Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King. That's the best reference I know...others may know better ones. It contains a lengthy discussion of all the points you've raised. The book was originally written in 2009; you might want to get the revised copy that was released earlier this year, as it includes details of Annette's involvement with the discovery of Richard's bones. (While the cover is the same, there's a banner across the top of the book declaring it the revised version.)
Annette Carson also did a presentation with Philippa Langley at an R3 conference held in Leicester. Both women mention some of what Elizabeth Woodville did and didn't do. Link to presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f60CyRdCXls
Also...the last thing Henry Tudor wanted to do after Bosworth was to launch and investigation as to whether the precontract or Richard's taking the throne was valid -- because it was valid. What Henry did was: (1) arrest Stillington; (2) order Titilus Regius repealed in Parliament without its being read. He wanted no copy of the act to exist and ordered all copies returned to Westminster and destroyed. His propagandists carefully substituted the name of Elizabeth Lucy for Eleanor Butler in their writings, which woman everyone knew Edward IV wouldn't have married. He also *refused* to try Stillington for treason after accusing him of same, and before a Parliament that was expecting Stillington to give testimony. He apparently didn't want any testimony to be heard.
For 100+ years, the Tudor propagandists had free rein in accusing Richard of anything they liked because Titilus Regius had been erased and no man alive under Tudor reign would have dared contradict the king or his mother. When Sir George Buck discovered a copy of Titilus Regius tucked into the Croyland Chronicle, the actual facts of the precontract and the three estates' reasoning and invitation for Richard's taking the throne were again revealed. Its re-emergence also revealed the lengths to which Henry VII went to smear Richard's name. If Richard wasn't a murdering monster, then H7 wasn't the savior of England he and his chroniclers claimed he was. The only reason history knows that Richard follows all the legal steps to take the throne is because that one copy of Titilus Regiius escaped H7's efforts to smudge it out of existence. EW's silence regarding Richard is only one piece of a complex puzzle; the more you dig, the more pieces you have to examine and move around the board.
~Weds
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote: Hi, I have often heard it said that it must be significant that EW did not openly accuse Richard. Was there some kind of enquiry / trial / investigation, at which she might have been expected to speak? I have never read about one. It seems to me that launching an investigation would have been a bizarre thing to have done after Bosworth. I think at that time - before any pretenders appeared - there was very little doubt in the minds of most people, particularly among Henryx27;s followers. If an enquiry did take place, I would be grateful for a reference. Regards David From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 2:41:02 PM But - if she told HT what she knew about the "princes" (let's just say spirited away) why did Henry seemingly continue to act as if he didn't know? A J On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote: Wednesday McKenna wrote: "I think Elizabeth Woodville's silence regarding the precontract (even after Richard was gone), as well as her neglecting to throw herself, sobbing, at Mr. Tydder's feet whilst choking out, "Richard killed my sons!" may also have told the wrongful king a few home truths he didn't like." More non-barking dogs ignored by "historians"... Doug -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: White Hart
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:05:05 PM
Subject: Re: White Hart
Is anyone else having the problem of messages coming through to the forum twice? I sent the message below at 08.17, and it posted, but now it has posted again, this time at 18.54. Very strange. I have had a lot of trouble with messages not posting until very late, and then going all over the place, but the same message twice is a first. =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:17 AM To: Subject: White Hart Did our Richard also have the second Richard's badge? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09 =^..^=
Re: Brief Change of Topic
We start with Afonso V, known as El Africano. Born in 1432 and died in 1481. He was a busy man: a foiled suitor for Isabel the Catholic (who had her heart and mind set on Fernando); husband to Isabel's niece the unfortunate Juana "la Beltraneja", who may or may not have been the daughter of Enrique IV of Castile, and therefore may or may not have been heir to Castile. Afonso championed her and lost to the young Catholic Kings.
Prior to this, he had two children by Isabel of Coimbra: Joana (1452-1492 - "our" Joana); and Joao II (1455-1495). Joana, who was competent enough to take over the regency of Portugal while papa and son raided Africa, was set on becoming a nun, did so eventually, and died at Aveiro. Joao married Leonor de Viseu, in 1470; by whom he had one child, Afonso.
This Afonso was born in 1475 and died from a horse accident, as was noted above, in 1491. In 1490, he had married Isabel, eldest child of the Catholic Kings. Isabel was so overwrought, she swore never to marry again and begged to join a convent. The answer was no, and in 1497, she married Manoel I of Portugal. (Shades of both Joana of Portugal and of young Isabel's own sister, Juana, who could also be, shall we say tenacious, in her affections).
Manoel became king in 1495, upon the death of Joano II. He was born in 1469 and died in 1521. His father was Joao, younger brother of El Africano. His mother was Beatriz de Viseu, a very interesting lady in her own right, but let's not get distracted now! His elder brother, Diogo, was a leader of the opposition to the policies of Joao II, and was executed by the king in 1484 (*by* the king himself). However, in 1493, relationships perforce changed, and Manoel was named the heir of Portugal, after the death of Afonso.
Now, I'm not at all sure how matters actually stood between Manoel and Joao in 1485, but I can find out in a day or two.
In 1484-5, Joao was king of Portugal and married to Leonor.Afonso was single, but I do believe there were negotiations in the works between Joao and the Catholic Kings. Joana was single and not happy about prospects of marriage to anyone. Manoel was probably living on the safe side, having lost his brother to the anger of Joao only a year before.Also, in 1485, but on December 16, Catherine of Aragon was born.
In the event, after young Isabel died in childbirth in 1498, Manoel went on to marry Maria, the sister between Juana and Catherine of Aragon. She died in 1417, and in 1518, he married Eleanor, sister of Charles V. They were the chidren of Juana and Philip the Handsome, so Manoel was clearly keeping it in the family.
So.
Mariaejbronte@... (extremely rushed and writing in segments for which, apologies).
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Carol responds:
Well, Anne de la Pole was promised to the King of Scotland's heir. I don't know how old her sisters were. IMO, Richard wouldn't have promised Anne St. Leger )still a child in any case) because of her father's low birth. The connection with Edward IV was what was important in the Portuguese marriage negotiations, I think--also the direct Plantagenet line (male rather than female) as would have been the case with the daughter of one of Richard's sisters.
I'm thinking that Elizabeth of York's legitimacy would not have mattered to Manuel (or his cousin, King John II, to use the English spelling of their names) because his children would not inherit any titles through her (including the crown if John II died childless, as he did). In Henry VII's case, it was different. EoY had to be legitimate(d) because his own claim was so shaky that his children might choose (as Henry VIII did) to claim the throne through their mother.
I didn't mean to imply that Manuel was the heir apparent; that was John's son, Alfonso, who later died in a fall from a horse (just like Mary of Burgundy). But after the death in 1484 of Manuel's older brother, Diego (murdered by John II, according to Wikipedia!), he was next in line after Alfonso, which would make him, I think, heir presumptive. (Maria (Bronte?), you're an authority on the Spanish and Portuguese lines--maybe you can help me out here. I know you'll use the authentic spellings that I'm too lazy to look up.)
Just my muddled thinking on this issue. I could be wrong on all counts, including Maria's user name. Thanks to the Yahoos, we can no longer look up member names and IDs.
Carol
Re: White Hart
Sandra, I can barely read the thread (thread???) messages. I rarely
post anything (assuming I actually have anything worth saying) and never expect
to find my message etc. Is this Yahoo site only for those with degrees in
computer tech? Could the forum consider setting up an FB site (not ideal, but
readable.)
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10,
2013 2:05:05 PM
Subject: Re:
White Hart
Is anyone else having the problem of messages coming through to the forum
twice? I sent the message below at 08.17, and it posted, but now it has posted
again, this time at 18.54. Very strange. I have had a lot of trouble with
messages not posting until very late, and then going all over the place, but the
same message twice is a first. =^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:17 AM
To:
Subject: White Hart
Did our Richard also have the second Richard's badge?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3864889.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_09
=^..^=
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Maria ejbronte@...
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Marie responds,
I don't know of any assurance re the Princes, but it is said that Spain did demand that Warwick should be got rid of before Catherine could marry Arthur. She is supposed to have referred to it in later years as "a marriage made in blood" but I don't know what the sources are for all this.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
I'm writing quickly and so can't check this, but perhaps it will jog someone's memory. Was it Henry VIII who had to assure Aragon that the princes were dead before Aragon would agree to betroth Catherine to Arthur?
~Weds
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Â
Â
"Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly didn't suppress them!"
Â
Marie responds:
Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
Marie
Carol responds:
My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation for Fabyan to have heard it.
I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints, I can't do that.
Carol. .
--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Maria
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
Hi All - Sorry: been lax in coming in with my usual Iberian inputs: it's Busy Season at my day job, and our theatre group is presenting a bunch of readings (one of which is the start of my major re-write of my Richard III comedy!). Anyway. Here's the Portuguese layout:
We start with Afonso V, known as El Africano. Born in 1432 and died in 1481. He was a busy man: a foiled suitor for Isabel the Catholic (who had her heart and mind set on Fernando); husband to Isabel's niece the unfortunate Juana "la Beltraneja", who may or may not have been the daughter of Enrique IV of Castile, and therefore may or may not have been heir to Castile. Afonso championed her and lost to the young Catholic Kings.
Prior to this, he had two children by Isabel of Coimbra: Joana (1452-1492 - "our" Joana); and Joao II (1455-1495). Joana, who was competent enough to take over the regency of Portugal while papa and son raided Africa, was set on becoming a nun, did so eventually, and died at Aveiro. Joao married Leonor de Viseu, in 1470; by whom he had one child, Afonso.
This Afonso was born in 1475 and died from a horse accident, as was noted above, in 1491. In 1490, he had married Isabel, eldest child of the Catholic Kings. Isabel was so overwrought, she swore never to marry again and begged to join a convent. The answer was no, and in 1497, she married Manoel I of Portugal. (Shades of both Joana of Portugal and of young Isabel's own sister, Juana, who could also be, shall we say tenacious, in her affections).
Manoel became king in 1495, upon the death of Joano II. He was born in 1469 and died in 1521. His father was Joao, younger brother of El Africano. His mother was Beatriz de Viseu, a very interesting lady in her own right, but let's not get distracted now! His elder brother, Diogo, was a leader of the opposition to the policies of Joao II, and was executed by the king in 1484 (*by* the king himself). However, in 1493, relationships perforce changed, and Manoel was named the heir of Portugal, after the death of Afonso.
Now, I'm not at all sure how matters actually stood between Manoel and Joao in 1485, but I can find out in a day or two.
In 1484-5, Joao was king of Portugal and married to Leonor.Afonso was single, but I do believe there were negotiations in the works between Joao and the Catholic Kings. Joana was single and not happy about prospects of marriage to anyone. Manoel was probably living on the safe side, having lost his brother to the anger of Joao only a year before.Also, in 1485, but on December 16, Catherine of Aragon was born.
In the event, after young Isabel died in childbirth in 1498, Manoel went on to marry Maria, the sister between Juana and Catherine of Aragon. She died in 1417, and in 1518, he married Eleanor, sister of Charles V. They were the chidren of Juana and Philip the Handsome, so Manoel was clearly keeping it in the family.
So.
Mariaejbronte@... (extremely rushed and writing in segments for which, apologies).
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Carol responds:
Well, Anne de la Pole was promised to the King of Scotland's heir. I don't know how old her sisters were. IMO, Richard wouldn't have promised Anne St. Leger )still a child in any case) because of her father's low birth. The connection with Edward IV was what was important in the Portuguese marriage negotiations, I think--also the direct Plantagenet line (male rather than female) as would have been the case with the daughter of one of Richard's sisters.
I'm thinking that Elizabeth of York's legitimacy would not have mattered to Manuel (or his cousin, King John II, to use the English spelling of their names) because his children would not inherit any titles through her (including the crown if John II died childless, as he did). In Henry VII's case, it was different. EoY had to be legitimate(d) because his own claim was so shaky that his children might choose (as Henry VIII did) to claim the throne through their mother.
I didn't mean to imply that Manuel was the heir apparent; that was John's son, Alfonso, who later died in a fall from a horse (just like Mary of Burgundy). But after the death in 1484 of Manuel's older brother, Diego (murdered by John II, according to Wikipedia!), he was next in line after Alfonso, which would make him, I think, heir presumptive. (Maria (Bronte?), you're an authority on the Spanish and Portuguese lines--maybe you can help me out here. I know you'll use the authentic spellings that I'm too lazy to look up.)
Just my muddled thinking on this issue. I could be wrong on all counts, including Maria's user name. Thanks to the Yahoos, we can no longer look up member names and IDs.
Carol
Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Topic
Sorry to be responding to posts out of sequence, I will pick them all up as I can. I am checking my facts regarding the exiles with Henry.
With regard to your point about Francis II / Pierre Landais and their use of Henry, I would agree that while Edward IV was alive, Henry was purely a lever with which to influence English policy. In fact, Francis had an agreement with Edward that Henry and Jasper's servants were sent home; uncle and nephew were separated, kept under Breton guards and Edward picked up the costs.
However, Edward V's deposition changed everything. He was engaged to Francis's daughter, Anne. Richard's accession put all Francis plans for a Breton / English alliance through the marriage to nothing. A limited war ensued, fought mainly at sea by corsairs between England and Brittany and England and France and Francis financed 2 attempts to put Henry on the throne.
See the Wiki page for Jean Coetanlem. He was in many ways the precursor of Columbus. During his attacks around Bristol in 1484, he drew up naval charts that were used by the fleet landing Henry in Wales. Readers in the US may be interested to know that one of Henry's Breton followers belonged to the same family as La Fayette's mother - de la Rivière.
So I would disagree with your assessment of Francis attitude to Richard. It was only when he had decided that there was no chance that an invasion could succeed and that Richard was there to stay that Landais decided that he would cosy up to him.
Kind Regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sent: Tue, Sep 10, 2013 3:45:37 PM
ÿ
Carol
(T) wrote:
"Interesting reasoning--I don't know whether I agree or not. My primary
question, perhaps unanswerable, is how the Portuguese felt about EoY's
legitimacy and her marriage to the heir presumptive or whatever Manuel was. It
seems clear that neither Portugal nor Scotland had any objection to
Richard's kingship per se. Nor did Spain, for that matter. It was only
France, inveterate enemy of England and the House of York (and fearful of
Richard because of his anti-Treaty-of-Picquigny stance and its own precarious
minority rule) opposed him. (I won't count Francis of Britanny, who was just
trying to use the "Earl or Richmond" to harass Richard, not, as far as I know,
to back Tudor as a pretender to the throne).
Regarding Portugal as a royal
nobody--How things changed in just a few years. With the exploration of Africa
and the New World, Portugal became a great power, along with Spain. Imagine
Richard allied by marriage to either one, and how the history of the world,
especially the Americas, might have been changed. I imagine Richard, excited
by the prospect of exploration, sending Englishmen along with the Portuguese,
to Brazil. And if he had backed Columbus--but it didn't happen that way,
alas."
Doug here:
I'm sorry to say I don't know where or how I got
the idea that Manuel *wasn't* the Portugese heir! I do know Prince Henry the
Navigator was a brother of the Portugese King, perhaps it was from
there?
There's also the point that EoY's proposed
marriage to Manuel was part of a deal that also included Richard's marriage to
the King of Portugal's sister That last would certainly be considered a
furthering of Portugal's influence and status and I would think much would
also depend on how Richard was seen to view his nephews and nieces and the
best *evidence* we have on that points to his treating them as "royal", or
nearly so, but *not* legitimate.
Just as an afterthought, perhaps the offering of
EoY as a bride to Manuel was because there wasn't anyone else? Were there any
other legitimate females of the proper age?
Doug
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Marie responds,
I take your point that Henry must have developed royal ambitions whilst still in France. Given the disappearance of Edward IV's sons and the death of the Duke of Buckingham, Henry can surely have had only one end in mind when he vowed to marry Elizabeth of York at Christmas 1483; I see no reason to doubt the fact that he did this, as a papal dispensation for the marriage was issued on 27 March 1484.
As regards Coetanlem's sack of Bristol in 1484, however, C. S. L. Davies has cast doubt on this (The Alleged Sack of Bristol : International Ramifications of Breton Privateering, 1484-5', Historical Research, vol 67, 1994). I haven't had time to read it, but there's a copy in the Society Papers Library if anyone would like to borrow it.
Marie
--- In , <> wrote:
Hi Carol,
Sorry to be responding to posts out of sequence, I will pick them all up as I can. I am checking my facts regarding the exiles with Henry.
With regard to your point about Francis II / Pierre Landais and their use of Henry, I would agree that while Edward IV was alive, Henry was purely a lever with which to influence English policy. In fact, Francis had an agreement with Edward that Henry and Jasper's servants were sent home; uncle and nephew were separated, kept under Breton guards and Edward picked up the costs.
However, Edward V's deposition changed everything. He was engaged to Francis's daughter, Anne. Richard's accession put all Francis plans for a Breton / English alliance through the marriage to nothing. A limited war ensued, fought mainly at sea by corsairs between England and Brittany and England and France and Francis financed 2 attempts to put Henry on the throne.
See the Wiki page for Jean Coetanlem. He was in many ways the precursor of Columbus. During his attacks around Bristol in 1484, he drew up naval charts that were used by the fleet landing Henry in Wales. Readers in the US may be interested to know that one of Henry's Breton followers belonged to the same family as La Fayette's mother - de la Rivière.
So I would disagree with your assessment of Francis attitude to Richard. It was only when he had decided that there was no chance that an invasion could succeed and that Richard was there to stay that Landais decided that he would cosy up to him.
Kind Regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Sent: Tue, Sep 10, 2013 3:45:37 PM

Carol
(T) wrote:
"Interesting reasoning--I don't know whether I agree or not. My primary
question, perhaps unanswerable, is how the Portuguese felt about EoY's
legitimacy and her marriage to the heir presumptive or whatever Manuel was. It
seems clear that neither Portugal nor Scotland had any objection to
Richard's kingship per se. Nor did Spain, for that matter. It was only
France, inveterate enemy of England and the House of York (and fearful of
Richard because of his anti-Treaty-of-Picquigny stance and its own precarious
minority rule) opposed him. (I won't count Francis of Britanny, who was just
trying to use the "Earl or Richmond" to harass Richard, not, as far as I know,
to back Tudor as a pretender to the throne).
Regarding Portugal as a royal
nobody--How things changed in just a few years. With the exploration of Africa
and the New World, Portugal became a great power, along with Spain. Imagine
Richard allied by marriage to either one, and how the history of the world,
especially the Americas, might have been changed. I imagine Richard, excited
by the prospect of exploration, sending Englishmen along with the Portuguese,
to Brazil. And if he had backed Columbus--but it didn't happen that way,
alas."
Doug here:
I'm sorry to say I don't know where or how I got
the idea that Manuel *wasn't* the Portugese heir! I do know Prince Henry the
Navigator was a brother of the Portugese King, perhaps it was from
there?
There's also the point that EoY's proposed
marriage to Manuel was part of a deal that also included Richard's marriage to
the King of Portugal's sister That last would certainly be considered a
furthering of Portugal's influence and status and I would think much would
also depend on how Richard was seen to view his nephews and nieces and the
best *evidence* we have on that points to his treating them as "royal", or
nearly so, but *not* legitimate.
Just as an afterthought, perhaps the offering of
EoY as a bride to Manuel was because there wasn't anyone else? Were there any
other legitimate females of the proper age?
Doug
Re: Brief Change of Topic
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:09:57 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Brief Change of Topic
Carol responds:
Well, Anne de la Pole was promised to the King of Scotland's heir. I don't know how old her sisters were. IMO, Richard wouldn't have promised Anne St. Leger )still a child in any case) because of her father's low birth. The connection with Edward IV was what was important in the Portuguese marriage negotiations, I think--also the direct Plantagenet line (male rather than female) as would have been the case with the daughter of one of Richard's sisters.
I'm thinking that Elizabeth of York's legitimacy would not have mattered to Manuel (or his cousin, King John II, to use the English spelling of their names) because his children would not inherit any titles through her (including the crown if John II died childless, as he did). In Henry VII's case, it was different. EoY had to be legitimate(d) because his own claim was so shaky that his children might choose (as Henry VIII did) to claim the throne through their mother.
I didn't mean to imply that Manuel was the heir apparent; that was John's son, Alfonso, who later died in a fall from a horse (just like Mary of Burgundy). But after the death in 1484 of Manuel's older brother, Diego (murdered by John II, according to Wikipedia!), he was next in line after Alfonso, which would make him, I think, heir presumptive. (Maria (Bronte?), you're an authority on the Spanish and Portuguese lines--maybe you can help me out here. I know you'll use the authentic spellings that I'm too lazy to look up.)
Just my muddled thinking on this issue. I could be wrong on all counts, including Maria's user name. Thanks to the Yahoos, we can no longer look up member names and IDs.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Brief Change of Top
Elaine
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> It's possible, but I don't recall any contemporary documentation on it; and
> he was executed in November 21, 1499, two days before Perkin Warbeck, on a
> presumed charge of conspiracy with Warbeck, so I don't know. For sure,
> there may still have been pressure from the Catholic Kings to make the
> throne as safe as possible for their daughter, but I wonder how much
> pressure was needed for Henry VII to act in November 1499.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Marie responds,
> >
> > I don't know of any assurance re the Princes, but it is said that Spain
> > did demand that Warwick should be got rid of before Catherine could marry
> > Arthur. She is supposed to have referred to it in later years as "a
> > marriage made in blood" but I don't know what the sources are for all this.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , <
> > > wrote:
> >
> > I'm writing quickly and so can't check this, but perhaps it will jog
> > someone's memory. Was it Henry VIII who had to assure Aragon that the
> > princes were dead before Aragon would agree to betroth Catherine to Arthur?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > **
> > Â
> >
> > Â
> > Â Carol earlier:
> >
> > "Nevertheless, just after Sir James's execution, rumors of his involvement
> > (as Richard's agent) began to circulate (reported in some of the early
> > Tudor chronicles). If Henry didn't circulate them himself, he certainly
> > didn't suppress them!"
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Marie responds:
> >
> > Can you give details of these chronicles, Carol? I have only been able to
> > find mentions in the Great Chronicle (written by Fabyan), but that also
> > seems to date from c. 1512, like Vergil and More, so I'd assumed it was the
> > young Henry VIII who was responsible for releasing this story.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > My apologies. This is what I get for posting in a hurry without checking
> > my facts (other than the dates of the executions). I was thinking that the
> > Great Chronicle was earlier. it definitely mentions a rumor about Tyrrell
> > (or, alternatively, "an old servant of King Richard's named
> > -----------[name left blank]"). My point was that Tyrrell never confessed
> > (More to the contrary) and Henry VII never said that he did (Bacon to the
> > contrary). If the recorded rumors as Tyrrell as murderer didn't arise until
> > 1512 (picked up by Vergil as well as Fabyan), all the better for the theory
> > that a Tudor king either spread the rumor unofficially, with no public
> > record, or allowed them to spread. I don't mind at all if that king is
> > Henry VIII rather than Henry VII.
> >
> > The main point, on which we agree, is that Henry VII never openly accused
> > Richard or his agents of murdering the so-called Princes in the Tower.
> >
> > One rhetorical question, though--why 1512 and why Henry VIII? it was more
> > in Henry VII's interest than his son's to blacken Richard's name. Maybe
> > Vergil found the wardrobe accounts and put two and two together--Tyrell was
> > Richard's servant, he was in London during July 1483, therefore he must
> > have murdered the "Princes"? The rumor could have spread from there--and
> > from Vergil to More. But it would need to have been in general circulation
> > for Fabyan to have heard it.
> >
> > I would go back to my old posts on the topic to see if I said anything
> > relevant, but given the current situation with Yahoo and time constraints,
> > I can't do that.
> >
> > Carol. .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Re: White Hart
Sandra, I can barely read the thread (thread???) messages. I rarely post anything (assuming I actually have anything worth saying) and never expect to find my message etc. Is this Yahoo site only for those with degrees in computer tech? Could the forum consider setting up an FB site (not ideal, but readable.)
Carol responds:
Ugh, not Facebook! (There are already various Richard III Facebook sites, but I stay away from them.) Maybe we could resort to Google Groups again as we did when Yahoo tried to "Facebookize" the Yahoo forums. I suspect that they'll get the message this time as they did before that everyone hates, loathes, and detests their "improvements." There are numerous complaints (thousands, IIRC) on their feedback page. They're about as popular as Tudor's taxation policies.
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Maria Torres wrote:
"Hi All - Sorry: been lax in coming in with my usual Iberian inputs:
it's Busy Season at my day job, and our theatre group is presenting a
bunch of readings (one of which is the start of my major re-write of my
Richard III comedy!). <snip>"
Carol responds:
Thanks for your detailed response to my questions. Yahoo won't let me quote your post so I had to copy and paste the first paragraph.
My questions are 1) how Joao/Joano? (John II) and his cousin Manoel (Manuel) felt about EoY's illegitimacy and Richard's kingship (I'm guessing that they ignored or underplayed the first and accepted the second) and 2) Whether Richard knew about John II's execution (murder) of his cousin Diogo/Diego (Manuel's older brother) whose position as next in line to the throne after the king's son, Alfonso; treason; and execution not only on the orders of but at the hands of the king must have reminded Richard painfully of George's treason and execution on Edward's orders.
Evidently, political considerations (Richard's need for an heir and the need for a union of York and Lancaster overrode all other considerations). And Portugal (or, alternatively, Spain) would have been an ally against France. Did both already have powerful navies and were both already engaged in naval exploration (Africa and Asia at this time rather than the New World)? I can see Richard wanting to get in on that. (If this question has already been answered, ignore it this time around.)
Can't delete whatever will appear beneath this post thanks to Yahoo. Sorry!
Carol
--- In , <> wrote:
Hi All - Sorry: been lax in coming in with my usual Iberian inputs: it's Busy Season at my day job, and our theatre group is presenting a bunch of readings (one of which is the start of my major re-write of my Richard III comedy!). Anyway. Here's the Portuguese layout:
We start with Afonso V, known as El Africano. Born in 1432 and died in 1481. He was a busy man: a foiled suitor for Isabel the Catholic (who had her heart and mind set on Fernando); husband to Isabel's niece the unfortunate Juana "la Beltraneja", who may or may not have been the daughter of Enrique IV of Castile, and therefore may or may not have been heir to Castile. Afonso championed her and lost to the young Catholic Kings.
Prior to this, he had two children by Isabel of Coimbra: Joana (1452-1492 - "our" Joana); and Joao II (1455-1495). Joana, who was competent enough to take over the regency of Portugal while papa and son raided Africa, was set on becoming a nun, did so eventually, and died at Aveiro. Joao married Leonor de Viseu, in 1470; by whom he had one child, Afonso.
This Afonso was born in 1475 and died from a horse accident, as was noted above, in 1491. In 1490, he had married Isabel, eldest child of the Catholic Kings. Isabel was so overwrought, she swore never to marry again and begged to join a convent. The answer was no, and in 1497, she married Manoel I of Portugal. (Shades of both Joana of Portugal and of young Isabel's own sister, Juana, who could also be, shall we say tenacious, in her affections).
Manoel became king in 1495, upon the death of Joano II. He was born in 1469 and died in 1521. His father was Joao, younger brother of El Africano. His mother was Beatriz de Viseu, a very interesting lady in her own right, but let's not get distracted now! His elder brother, Diogo, was a leader of the opposition to the policies of Joao II, and was executed by the king in 1484 (*by* the king himself). However, in 1493, relationships perforce changed, and Manoel was named the heir of Portugal, after the death of Afonso.
Now, I'm not at all sure how matters actually stood between Manoel and Joao in 1485, but I can find out in a day or two.
In 1484-5, Joao was king of Portugal and married to Leonor.Afonso was single, but I do believe there were negotiations in the works between Joao and the Catholic Kings. Joana was single and not happy about prospects of marriage to anyone. Manoel was probably living on the safe side, having lost his brother to the anger of Joao only a year before.Also, in 1485, but on December 16, Catherine of Aragon was born.
In the event, after young Isabel died in childbirth in 1498, Manoel went on to marry Maria, the sister between Juana and Catherine of Aragon. She died in 1417, and in 1518, he married Eleanor, sister of Charles V. They were the chidren of Juana and Philip the Handsome, so Manoel was clearly keeping it in the family.
So.
Mariaejbronte@... (extremely rushed and writing in segments for which, apologies).
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Carol responds:
Well, Anne de la Pole was promised to the King of Scotland's heir. I don't know how old her sisters were. IMO, Richard wouldn't have promised Anne St. Leger )still a child in any case) because of her father's low birth. The connection with Edward IV was what was important in the Portuguese marriage negotiations, I think--also the direct Plantagenet line (male rather than female) as would have been the case with the daughter of one of Richard's sisters.
I'm thinking that Elizabeth of York's legitimacy would not have mattered to Manuel (or his cousin, King John II, to use the English spelling of their names) because his children would not inherit any titles through her (including the crown if John II died childless, as he did). In Henry VII's case, it was different. EoY had to be legitimate(d) because his own claim was so shaky that his children might choose (as Henry VIII did) to claim the throne through their mother.
I didn't mean to imply that Manuel was the heir apparent; that was John's son, Alfonso, who later died in a fall from a horse (just like Mary of Burgundy). But after the death in 1484 of Manuel's older brother, Diego (murdered by John II, according to Wikipedia!), he was next in line after Alfonso, which would make him, I think, heir presumptive. (Maria (Bronte?), you're an authority on the Spanish and Portuguese lines--maybe you can help me out here. I know you'll use the authentic spellings that I'm too lazy to look up.)
Just my muddled thinking on this issue. I could be wrong on all counts, including Maria's user name. Thanks to the Yahoos, we can no longer look up member names and IDs.
Carol
Re: Brief Change of Topic
Maria Bronte?? (Having such difficulty in following this Yahoo format! Maria Bronte - wife of Patrick, mother of Charlotte etc.??) That is what Yahoo does to my "mind".
Carol responds:
Hi, um, JF. (Don't know what to call you.) I meant Maria Torres, who, as a Bronte fan, uses the Yahoo ID mariabronte (or something like that). I couldn't remember her last name and couldn't check the no longer accessible Members list, so I hoped that she would know whom I was referring to and respond--as she did. (Thanks, Maria!)
Sorry to confuse anyone!
Carol
