Combatants at Bosworth

https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

This is largely based on David Rayner's list (BosworthBattlelist2), with a
few suggestions of my own indicated with [] based on my tour through the
commissions of the peace, & Paul Trevor Bale's list, with some additions of
those killed (also from Paul? but in an e-mail from Douglas Eugene
Stamate). Please take a look.

This has probably been discussed before, but given the lack of a single
comprehensive source of names, would you guys like to make a few comments
about where all these names came from? I recognize some of them from the
attainders in HT's first parliament.

I've understood that Richard's fatal charge was at the head of his
household knights - is that why there are so many Yorkshire names?

What I'm inching towards is an understanding of where did everybody come
from. Was it really as simple as the north-south divide, which I gather
still persists in England, as it certainly does here in the States. I
can't help thinking the story was more complicated than that, & probably
involved many individual decisions.

Anyway, comments, corrections, etc most welcome.

A J

Hi AJ, very impressive.
 
Here's my twopenneth for what it's worth
 
Sir Richard Ratcliffe   Lancs
John Kendall Westmoreland (now Cumbria)
Sir John Digby Leics
Hugh Earswick probably Yorks (Earswick is near Hull)
Sir William Norris - Yattendon is in Somerset, not Berks
Reggie Bray  Worcestershire (Eaton Bray came later) 
John de Vere Headington Oxfordshire (as you might guess!)
And although Francis Lovell owned one seat in Minster Lovell in Oxon I would put him primarily as a northerner, where he also owned lands and was married to Anna FitzHugh.
 
As you've said yourself, it isn't always clear cut because, like Lovell, you could own manors in two or three places. Not surprisingly, after HT's victory there was a migration south by some who owned properties there. By south I mean in the counties round London, Northants, Oxon, Berks, Kent, Essex etc.
 
Hope this helps   H


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 2 September 2013, 4:42
Subject: Combatants at Bosworth


 

https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

This is largely based on David Rayner's list (BosworthBattlelist2), with a
few suggestions of my own indicated with [] based on my tour through the
commissions of the peace, & Paul Trevor Bale's list, with some additions of
those killed (also from Paul? but in an e-mail from Douglas Eugene
Stamate). Please take a look.

This has probably been discussed before, but given the lack of a single
comprehensive source of names, would you guys like to make a few comments
about where all these names came from? I recognize some of them from the
attainders in HT's first parliament.

I've understood that Richard's fatal charge was at the head of his
household knights - is that why there are so many Yorkshire names?

What I'm inching towards is an understanding of where did everybody come
from. Was it really as simple as the north-south divide, which I gather
still persists in England, as it certainly does here in the States. I
can't help thinking the story was more complicated than that, & probably
involved many individual decisions.

Anyway, comments, corrections, etc most welcome.

A J

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Was not Willoughby the brother-in-law of Humphrey Talbot? They married the Champernowne sisters. That could mean nothing, of course. H.  



________________________________
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 2 September 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Combatants at Bosworth


 

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Hi Hilary,
Thanks for that. I had missed that one - it may shed some light on the reasons for Robert Willoughby's participation in the rebellion. For him Titulus Regius would have been a slur on the reputation of a family member who had died young and could not defend herself.

Robert was indeed married to Blanche and went on to become Henry's Steward of Household.

It is surprising how family relationships and the minor players in history can often provide clues to the reasons for certain events.

For example, Olivier de Coetivy married Marie de Valois. The manor of Coetivy is in Plouvien, western Brittany near where Henry and Jasper were shipwrecked. This meant that uncle and nephew had landed in an area where they had a lot of cousins in the local gentry and might explain Henry's devotion to Saint Armel, who was venerated in the area.

Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 9:17:08 AM

Was not Willoughby the brother-in-law of Humphrey Talbot? They married the Champernowne sisters. That could mean nothing, of course. H.  

________________________________
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 2 September 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Combatants at Bosworth


 

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

OTOH, David, it could be said that Titulus Regius cleared Eleanor Talbot's name by accepting that she had indeed been Queen of England. Her name had been quietly slurred for long enough. I don't think Robert Willoughby was motivated by anything but self-interest. He wasn't going to rise to great things under Richard, but Henry probably promised him a lot on the quiet. Or MB did. It didn't seem to matter to Willoughby that if Henry toppled Richard, Titulus Regius would be reversed, and Eleanor's name would be slurred all over again because Henry had to make EofY legitimate. So saving the Talbot family reputation wasn't very high on the Willoughby List of Noble Causes. He was his own Noble Cause. IMHO anyway. Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 1:37 PM To: Subject: Re : Re: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Hi Hilary,
Thanks for that. I had missed that one - it may shed some light on the reasons for Robert Willoughbyx27;s participation in the rebellion. For him Titulus Regius would have been a slur on the reputation of a family member who had died young and could not defend herself.

Robert was indeed married to Blanche and went on to become Henryx27;s Steward of Household.

It is surprising how family relationships and the minor players in history can often provide clues to the reasons for certain events.

For example, Olivier de Coetivy married Marie de Valois. The manor of Coetivy is in Plouvien, western Brittany near where Henry and Jasper were shipwrecked. This meant that uncle and nephew had landed in an area where they had a lot of cousins in the local gentry and might explain Henryx27;s devotion to Saint Armel, who was venerated in the area.

Regards
David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 9:17:08 AM

Was not Willoughby the brother-in-law of Humphrey Talbot? They married the Champernowne sisters. That could mean nothing, of course. H.

________________________________
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 2 September 2013, 16:39
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Combatants at Bosworth




Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks David, especially for the details about Daubeney & Willoughby.  I can't help thinking it would be helpful to our (mine, anyway) understanding of the larger picture to be able to fill in as many similar details for the rest of the players in the story.  Unless someone can convince me that only the nobles are important, or point me to a source where someone has already done a credible job of analyzing the roles of the smaller players, at which point I will happily desist & move on to the next project. 
A J

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
 

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Hi Carol, what you say about timing & who these men were ostensibly supporting makes a lot of sense.  I still have to wonder if there weren't other reasons beyond loyalty to the son of Edward IV that motivated them. 
A J

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
 

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, what you say about timing & who these men were ostensibly supporting makes a lot of sense. Â I still have to wonder if there weren't other reasons beyond loyalty to the son of Edward IV that motivated them.Â
A J
Carol responds:

Good old self-interest, do you mean? That's what I think, for what it's worth. Certainly, those who had joined Buckingham's Rebellion, even if their attainders were reversed, could not go back to the positions that they lost *by rebelling.* They should have understood that Richard was trying (rewards to Buckingham and a few others excepted) to preserve the status quo as far as possible. They brought the loss of their positions on themselves and had pretty much no option but to join Tudor. But those would be the men who joined him after October as opposed to any Edwardian Yorkists who joined him earlier under the delusion that he was an ally. They, too, were stuck with him once they believed that E5 was dead.

Re the timing, I think one of the most significant errors that historians make is the assumption that Edwardian Yorkists supported Tudor's claim from the time that Richard took the throne and that they (and EW) "already* assumed that Edward V was dead. IMO, any marriage negotiations that may have occurred before September or October would have involved a projected alliance between "princess" Elizabeth (to be restored to her former status when her brother was restored as king) and the Earl of Richmond (also restored to *his* "proper" status), not a union of legitimized York and "Lancaster" with Elizabeth as Henry's queen.

BTW, I've noticed several references in the forum lately to Henry as "mean." Weds and others, are you using the word in the American sense (malicious) or the British sense (contemptible and stingy) or some other definition? (I have no objection to any of the meanings as applied to Henry; I'm just curious as to which was intended.)

Carol

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Marie, thanks for your responses to David; this is a discussion I'm particularly interested in at the moment. When you mention "indictments" are you talking about the bill of attainder from the parliament in January 1484, or are there earlier documents? 
A J

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

 
David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

 

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham.  Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

 

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

 

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

 

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

 

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

 

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:

"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

 

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles,  but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

 

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

 

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

 

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me)
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie

David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie
David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie
--- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).
My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.
One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.
Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

Maqrie responds:

My notes aren't clear. I'm pretty sure the Bodmin stuff comes from an indictment that survives in the Cornwall Record Office, but for the life of me I can't find a reference just now. In general, the records of the oyer and terminer commissions from Richard's reign seem to be missing all the important stuff (unless you consider overflowing ditches important).

Also, as regards St Leger's execution, the best I've yet found is Crowland's statement that great sums of money had been offered to save his life but they were refused and he "he had to unergo there [Exeter] the capital sentence" (Nam et ille capitalem ibidem sententiam perpessus est). Evidently that doesn't tell us the form of execution, so hopefully Skidmore has something better.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie, thanks for your responses to David; this is a discussion I'm particularly interested in at the moment. When you mention "indictments" are you talking about the bill of attainder from the parliament in January 1484, or are there earlier documents?
A J

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:54 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:

"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Couldn't they bury the pieces?

Sheffe

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me)
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie

David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie
David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie
--- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).
My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.
One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.
Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

I agree with Marie Re: Lovell It appears he was a young man very much on the rise since entering into his inheritance (although there were a lot of court battles over certain parts he had claimed, even against King Edward himself). It was Edward IV who made him a Viscount in January 1483 so it's possible that he was being groomed for bigger things after being knighted by Richard on the Scotland campaign years before Richard's accession. Born into a family which leaned toward the Lancastrian side in the wars but raised by Warwick and married into the household of Warwick's sister Alice, he had a unique background and claimed lands in many counties so it's possible he could have prospered under whomever gained control of the crown although probably not rising as high as with Richard.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote
"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Hilary,
Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Leger's wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up.

However, I am enjoying the book.

I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death.

Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM

I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me)
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie

David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie
David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie
--- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).
My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.
One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.
Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

So interesting and Byzantine.......
On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:29 PM, "Wolfand Boar" <wolfandboarfics@...> wrote:

I agree with Marie Re: Lovell It appears he was a young man very much on the rise since entering into his inheritance (although there were a lot of court battles over certain parts he had claimed, even against King Edward himself). It was Edward IV who made him a Viscount in January 1483 so it's possible that he was being groomed for bigger things after being knighted by Richard on the Scotland campaign years before Richard's accession. Born into a family which leaned toward the Lancastrian side in the wars but raised by Warwick and married into the household of Warwick's sister Alice, he had a unique background and claimed lands in many counties so it's possible he could have prospered under whomever gained control of the crown although probably not rising as high as with Richard.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote
"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds: Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

ÿ Beheadings always involved a scaffold. ----- Original Message ----- From: mariewalsh2003 To: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:44 PM Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not on Friday 13th June 1483 - or was Hastings' execution mis-reported?Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 11 Sep 2013, at 20:55, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ

Beheadings always involved a scaffold. ----- Original Message ----- From: mariewalsh2003 To: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:44 PM Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ÿ I would assume that it was misreported, unless five year-olds routinely attended council meetings. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Mulrenan To: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Not on Friday 13th June 1483 - or was Hastings' execution mis-reported? Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 11 Sep 2013, at 20:55, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ

Beheadings always involved a scaffold. ----- Original Message ----- From: mariewalsh2003 To: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:44 PM Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ÿ Stephen Lark wrote:
"Beheadings always involved a scaffold." Doug here: Why do I think some of the "reasoning" behind the claim that Hastings hadn't done anything to merit his execution may be the following: If Hastings *had* done something treasonous, then he would have been executed, but nobles were executed via beheading, which requires a scaffold. As there was no scaffold, then Hastings couldn't have been "executed", therefore he was "murdered". Doug (who doesn't claim the above is logical...)

David, I actually like the book on a more detailed reading because it throws up some new and interesting challenges and sources, like Bourchard. Tells me I should get back to some very rusty French/Breton history. I'm the last one to crow about mistakes and to be fair, other sources say that large sums of money were offered. Perhaps they were on behalf of the other Anne, his and Anne's daughter who was born when she died? That's who Chris meant, didn't he ? :)
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 20:05
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Hilary, Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Legerx27;s wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up. However, I am enjoying the book. I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death. Regards David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me) From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie David wrote to Carol: "I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie --- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

I think they kinda liked to scatter them as an example - but I could be wrong. Perhaps that was just Eddie I and fat Henry, who enjoyed pinning bits of the clergy to doors. Anyone know?
From: Sheffe <shethra77@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 18:55
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Couldn't they bury the pieces? Sheffe
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me)
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie
David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie
--- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

ÿ That might well be logical, Hilary, except that she was seven at the time. ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones To: Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David, I actually like the book on a more detailed reading because it throws up some new and interesting challenges and sources, like Bourchard. Tells me I should get back to some very rusty French/Breton history. I'm the last one to crow about mistakes and to be fair, other sources say that large sums of money were offered. Perhaps they were on behalf of the other Anne, his and Anne's daughter who was born when she died? That's who Chris meant, didn't he ? :)
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 20:05
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Hilary, Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Legerx27;s wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up. However, I am enjoying the book. I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death. Regards David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H. (who will vanish again until Marie forgives me) From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David wrote "According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds: There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne. Marie David wrote: "Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds: This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V. Marie David wrote: "The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds: There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie David wrote "Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds: Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county. The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did. Marie David wrote to Carol: "I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds: Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise. Marie David wrote "Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds: Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded? Marie --- In , <> wrote: Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved). My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason. One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham. Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But ....... there were others who would act on her behalf. That happened all the time in litigation.
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
ÿ That might well be logical, Hilary, except that she was seven at the time. ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones To: Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David, I actually like the book on a more detailed reading because it throws up some new and interesting challenges and sources, like Bourchard. Tells me I should get back to some very rusty French/Breton history. I'm the last one to crow about mistakes and to be fair, other sources say that large sums of money were offered. Perhaps they were on behalf of the other Anne, his and Anne's daughter who was born when she died? That's who Chris meant, didn't he ? :)
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 20:05
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Hilary, Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Legerx27;s wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up. However, I am enjoying the book. I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death. Regards David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H. (who will vanish again until Marie forgives me) From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David wrote "According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds: There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne. Marie David wrote: "Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds: This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V. Marie David wrote: "The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds: There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie David wrote "Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds: Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county. The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did. Marie David wrote to Carol: "I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds: Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise. Marie David wrote "Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds: Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded? Marie --- In , <> wrote: Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved). My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason. One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham. Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry forgot to add that the Wiki source on Brackenbury's income is from Horrox page 191 and she details it quite well in the previous few pages - making him one of the top four or five best-rewarded household servants - her words. H
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David, I actually like the book on a more detailed reading because it throws up some new and interesting challenges and sources, like Bourchard. Tells me I should get back to some very rusty French/Breton history. I'm the last one to crow about mistakes and to be fair, other sources say that large sums of money were offered. Perhaps they were on behalf of the other Anne, his and Anne's daughter who was born when she died? That's who Chris meant, didn't he ? :)
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 20:05
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Hilary, Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Legerx27;s wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up. However, I am enjoying the book. I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death. Regards David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me) From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie David wrote to Carol: "I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie --- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Marie responds:

But not one of the richest men in the country.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Sorry forgot to add that the Wiki source on Brackenbury's income is from Horrox page 191 and she details it quite well in the previous few pages - making him one of the top four or five best-rewarded household servants - her words. H
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David, I actually like the book on a more detailed reading because it throws up some new and interesting challenges and sources, like Bourchard. Tells me I should get back to some very rusty French/Breton history. I'm the last one to crow about mistakes and to be fair, other sources say that large sums of money were offered. Perhaps they were on behalf of the other Anne, his and Anne's daughter who was born when she died? That's who Chris meant, didn't he ? :)
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 20:05
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Hilary, Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Legerx27;s wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up. However, I am enjoying the book. I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death. Regards David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me) From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie David wrote to Carol: "I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie --- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

As far as Buckingham is concerned, Marie, I agree with you. Why would he pass over his own claim in favour of Henry Tudor? The truth behind the rebellion must have come as a very disagreeable shock. I also want to thank you for Jane Talbot's will, which I could never have deciphered. You are utterly brilliant! If you are going away for a pleasant reason, I wish you every well. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:59 AM To: Subject: RE: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Quite right - servant not richest men
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 13 September 2013, 12:05
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Marie responds:But not one of the richest men in the country. Marie --- In , <> wrote:Sorry forgot to add that the Wiki source on Brackenbury's income is from Horrox page 191 and she details it quite well in the previous few pages - making him one of the top four or five best-rewarded household servants - her words. H
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2013, 20:48
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David, I actually like the book on a more detailed reading because it throws up some new and interesting challenges and sources, like Bourchard. Tells me I should get back to some very rusty French/Breton history. I'm the last one to crow about mistakes and to be fair, other sources say that large sums of money were offered. Perhaps they were on behalf of the other Anne, his and Anne's daughter who was born when she died? That's who Chris meant, didn't he ? :)
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 20:05
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Hilary, Nice to see your post. I think my other message touches on the story of St Legerx27;s wife, who I know to be dead. There are some other minor errors in the book - for instance he states that Jean du Quelennec had been Admiral of Brittany since the 1430s. The job had actually become hereditary and 3 consecutive Jeans held the position and the one who supported Henry was the grandson. But you would really need to know your Bretons to pick that one up. However, I am enjoying the book. I forgot to cover the point about Brackenbury and his wealth. I have to confess I got that from Wikipedia(!) it states he had £500 a year at his death. Regards David From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 1:25:30 PM I was going to lurk so as not to upset Marie but I can't let this one go. Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? On Bodmin, Skidmore's notes are very imprecise. H.(who will vanish again until Marie forgives me) From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2013, 12:54
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
David wrote"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king." Marie responds:There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.Marie David wrote:"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body." Marie responds:This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.Marie David wrote:"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry." Marie responds:There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats. Marie David wrote"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds:Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.Marie David wrote to Carol: "I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him." Marie responds:Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.Marie David wrote"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering." Marie responds:Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?Marie --- In , <> wrote:Hi Carol Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing. According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king. Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body. The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry. Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward. The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford. I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him. Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment. I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering. Kind regards David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)
--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again... I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring. Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion. However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry. Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call. They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral. Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition. So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent. Regards David

Pamela
There is a genuine Byzantine connection with Bosworth. It is widely known that the commanding admiral of the French fleet that landed Henry in Wales was Guillaume de Casenove - nicknamed Coulon.

What is less well is that his second in command was George le Grec - or George the Greek. This person was a Greek exile from the Turkish takeover of Constantinople. (Aka Coulon the Younger)

Geroge Paleologue de Bissipat served in the French navy and later settled in northern France - I think at the Chateau de Troissereux.

Source: Histoire de la Marine Francaise, de la Ronciere.

Regards
David
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 7:49:44 PM

So interesting and Byzantine.......
On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:29 PM, "Wolfand Boar" <wolfandboarfics@...> wrote:

I agree with Marie Re: Lovell It appears he was a young man very much on the rise since entering into his inheritance (although there were a lot of court battles over certain parts he had claimed, even against King Edward himself). It was Edward IV who made him a Viscount in January 1483 so it's possible that he was being groomed for bigger things after being knighted by Richard on the Scotland campaign years before Richard's accession. Born into a family which leaned toward the Lancastrian side in the wars but raised by Warwick and married into the household of Warwick's sister Alice, he had a unique background and claimed lands in many counties so it's possible he could have prospered under whomever gained control of the crown although probably not rising as high as with Richard.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote
"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds: Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

Hi, David. Yahoo won't let me format this post the way I want to, so I have no choice but to top post.

Thanks for answering my question about the timing. It seems that I'm correct that the vast majority of the rebels joined Tudor only after Buckingham's Rebellion failed. Either they knew that they had forfeited their former positions under Richard and had no choice but to remain rebels or they believed the rumors that Edward's sons were dead and thought that a marriage between Tudor and Elizabeth of York was the only means of "restoring" an Edwardian Yorkist regime. As for personal loyalty to Tudor, I doubt it. So far as we know, he was not a charismatic figure. More likely, they were united by opposition to the "usurper" Richard and the (vain) hope of restoring the pre-1483 status quo. (I suspect that personal loyalty to Henry was limited to MB, Morton, Uncle Jasper, and the Earl of Oxford. Just my view. Tudor sources, of course, create a different picture.)

Regarding Thomas St. Leger, I thought that he was beheaded. What's your source for saying that he was hanged, drawn, and quartered? As for personal animosity, Richard may have felt that St. Leger had seduced his sister, Anne, causing her to violate her marriage vows and become an adulteress. (Edward IV, an adulterer himself, wouldn't have cared.) Whether Richard disapproved of Anne's marriage to her lover, I don't know. It probably depends on the way that the Church would have regarded the marriage. (Marie, would the Church have viewed Anne's marriage to her adulterous lover as valid?)

Apologies for any irregularities in the way this post appears!

Carol

--- In , David wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David


--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

H Sandra,

Buckingham seems to have had some problems getting his own followers in order and may have had a realistic view of his own popularity. He may also not have shared the legitimist view to succession.

While I can see Francis II financing an invasion in favour of Edward V - who was engaged to his daughter - I can't see him dong the same in favour of Buckingham. Certainly, in the belief that Edward was dead, he could expect Henry to provide a rule favourable to Brittany's interests.

If Francis was supporting Buckingham or Edward, I would have thought Henry would be the last person to put at the head of the force - a man with no miltary training or experience.

Is there a reason that contributors seem to be desperate to establish that the rising was not in favour of Henfy?

Kind regards
David


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 11:18:27 AM

As far as Buckingham is concerned, Marie, I agree with you. Why would he pass over his own claim in favour of Henry Tudor? The truth behind the rebellion must have come as a very disagreeable shock. I also want to thank you for Jane Talbot's will, which I could never have deciphered. You are utterly brilliant! If you are going away for a pleasant reason, I wish you every well. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:59 AM To: Subject: RE: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hilary wrote:

"<snip>
Chris Skidmore page 151 para 2 'A ruthless search for those hiding in the shelter of friends or the protection of sanctuary ensued. Richard's own brother-in-law Thomas St Leger, the husband of his sister Anne, was unfortunate enough to be captured. In the attempt to save his life innumerable sums of money were offered by Anne pleading with her brother to save her husband's life.' Anne had been dead since 1476! Dear, dear Chris! And how could St Leger be buried (as even Croyland says he was) if he'd been hung drawn and quartered? <snip>

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. Thanks for reappearing. I had the same question as Marie did about St. Leger's supposed hanging, drawing, and quartering. It seems that Skidmore is yet another Tudor historian (shades of David Starkey) who can't be trusted thanks to his animus against Richard. I won't waste any money on this book!

Any other doubtful passages in Skidmore that you can cite for us?

Carol

Wow, every day brings another gem. I love this group and all of you very very intelligent people. Happy Friday
On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:03 PM, "Durose David" <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Pamela
There is a genuine Byzantine connection with Bosworth. It is widely known that the commanding admiral of the French fleet that landed Henry in Wales was Guillaume de Casenove - nicknamed Coulon.

What is less well is that his second in command was George le Grec - or George the Greek. This person was a Greek exile from the Turkish takeover of Constantinople. (Aka Coulon the Younger)

Geroge Paleologue de Bissipat served in the French navy and later settled in northern France - I think at the Chateau de Troissereux.

Source: Histoire de la Marine Francaise, de la Ronciere.

Regards
David
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 7:49:44 PM

So interesting and Byzantine.......
On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:29 PM, "Wolfand Boar" <wolfandboarfics@...> wrote:

I agree with Marie Re: Lovell It appears he was a young man very much on the rise since entering into his inheritance (although there were a lot of court battles over certain parts he had claimed, even against King Edward himself). It was Edward IV who made him a Viscount in January 1483 so it's possible that he was being groomed for bigger things after being knighted by Richard on the Scotland campaign years before Richard's accession. Born into a family which leaned toward the Lancastrian side in the wars but raised by Warwick and married into the household of Warwick's sister Alice, he had a unique background and claimed lands in many counties so it's possible he could have prospered under whomever gained control of the crown although probably not rising as high as with Richard.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

David wrote
"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford." Marie responds: Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

Hi David. No, no reason to want to establish the rising was not in favour of Henry. To me (no historian or expert) it just seems unlikely that a man like Buckingham would lend his support to someone who was further from the throne than himself. You are probably right in all you say, I certainly will not argue with your infinitely superior knowledge of all things Breton. I just cannot get around the feeling that Buckingham was too full of himself to support Henry. Perhaps he believed the rest of them were supporting him, and found out too late it was all a sneaky trick. A safe bet on the invaders' part that Buckingham would keep Richard busy while the Real McCoy slipped in from the south. If Buckingham had joined up with Henry, how long would he (Buckingham) have survived? He'd be far too uncomfortable and risky a bedfellow for Henry, who was, let's say, pretty ruthless with ridding himself of rivals. But that's just my view, not the forum's in general. You should know me by now, David, always looking for what I want to be there, not what actually is. You've put me straight before---very kindly---and no doubt you'll do it again now. <grin> Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:18 PM To: Subject: Re : Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

H Sandra,

Buckingham seems to have had some problems getting his own followers in order and may have had a realistic view of his own popularity. He may also not have shared the legitimist view to succession.

While I can see Francis II financing an invasion in favour of Edward V - who was engaged to his daughter - I canx27;t see him dong the same in favour of Buckingham. Certainly, in the belief that Edward was dead, he could expect Henry to provide a rule favourable to Brittanyx27;s interests.

If Francis was supporting Buckingham or Edward, I would have thought Henry would be the last person to put at the head of the force - a man with no miltary training or experience.

Is there a reason that contributors seem to be desperate to establish that the rising was not in favour of Henfy?

Kind regards
David

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 11:18:27 AM

As far as Buckingham is concerned, Marie, I agree with you. Why would he pass over his own claim in favour of Henry Tudor? The truth behind the rebellion must have come as a very disagreeable shock. I also want to thank you for Jane Talbot's will, which I could never have deciphered. You are utterly brilliant! If you are going away for a pleasant reason, I wish you every well. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:59 AM To: Subject: RE: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marie responds,

The history books say that Anne got a divorce from Exeter in 1473 before marrying St Leger, but I have not found a proper reference for this and I've not encountered the divorce in the Papal Registers but I may just have missed it. I once read that the grounds were undispensed consanguinity, but that seems a bit far-fetched given that York and HH's father Duke John would have known their respective pedigrees inside out and the whole point of the marriage was to funnel the legitimate blood of Lancaster into York's own line of descent. Again, I don't have details of whatever dispensation Anne got to marry Henry Holland in the first place and I'm afraid I don't have time to look into it now.

Had Exeter died first, Anne would have needed a dispensation to marry St Leger as she had polluted her marriage by adultery with St. L., but since her marriage to Exeter was declared void I suppose the adultery bar didn't come into it.

But it does all sound a bit shaky, and as if Edward might have misused his power and influence to persuade the Pope to part Anne from her husband, who was obnoxious as well as Lancastrian although Richard was too young to have been aware of that. I wonder if lingering doubts about the legitimacy of Anne St Leger were perhaps the reason that her line never pressed a claim to the throne and that she made a fairly modest marriage.

Would love to look into it further, but no opportunity.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi, David. Yahoo won't let me format this post the way I want to, so I have no choice but to top post.

Thanks for answering my question about the timing. It seems that I'm correct that the vast majority of the rebels joined Tudor only after Buckingham's Rebellion failed. Either they knew that they had forfeited their former positions under Richard and had no choice but to remain rebels or they believed the rumors that Edward's sons were dead and thought that a marriage between Tudor and Elizabeth of York was the only means of "restoring" an Edwardian Yorkist regime. As for personal loyalty to Tudor, I doubt it. So far as we know, he was not a charismatic figure. More likely, they were united by opposition to the "usurper" Richard and the (vain) hope of restoring the pre-1483 status quo. (I suspect that personal loyalty to Henry was limited to MB, Morton, Uncle Jasper, and the Earl of Oxford. Just my view. Tudor sources, of course, create a different picture.)

Regarding Thomas St. Leger, I thought that he was beheaded. What's your source for saying that he was hanged, drawn, and quartered? As for personal animosity, Richard may have felt that St. Leger had seduced his sister, Anne, causing her to violate her marriage vows and become an adulteress. (Edward IV, an adulterer himself, wouldn't have cared.) Whether Richard disapproved of Anne's marriage to her lover, I don't know. It probably depends on the way that the Church would have regarded the marriage. (Marie, would the Church have viewed Anne's marriage to her adulterous lover as valid?)

Apologies for any irregularities in the way this post appears!

Carol

--- In , David wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David


--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David

Marie responds,

I'm not by any means desperate to prove the rebellion wasn't in Tudor's favour, but it is a very complicated set of circumstances and I'm always in favour of being absolutely ruthless in not pretending the sources tell us more than they do. You know oodles more than I do about Brittany, but the Breton perspective is only a small part of the picture. From here on I'm writing from memory of dates, and so my apologies if I'm wrong on any point, but:-

The rising as originally planned was to restore Edward V; Crowland says it and it's obvious that it would have been so; if the Act of Atttainder is correct, then Buckingham wrote to Tudor about 2/3 of the way through September. The question we need to ask ourselves here is whether the plans were at this stage still ostensibly in favour of Edward V, ie when did the story that EV and his brother were dead erupt? This rumour/announcements linked by Crowland to the point where Buckingham announced himself leader of the rebellion, which is unlikely to have been before the first days of October given when Richard found out. This news then has to filter across to Brittany, leaving Duke Francis with a new set of circumstances to assess. He may very well have wanted to place Henry Tudor, whom he knew, upon the throne, but it wasn't entirely up to him. At any rate, it does seem from the alleged letter by Buckingham that Brittany HT's involvement predated the announcement of the deaths of the 'Princes'. The involvement of Margaret Beaufort should not, in this context, be overlooked.

I'm far from convinced that Henry Tudor would have been the person Buckingham had in mind when he grabbed the rebellion into his own hands on the grounds that Edward V was no more. I don't think for a minute he realised how unpopular he was. If he had done, he wouldn't have taken hold of the reins of the rebellion in the first place.

It wasn't until Christmas, after the rebellion was over and the wanted men had fetched up in Brittany, that Henry made his solemn agreement to marry Elizabeth of York.

Honestly, it's not just Ricardians who are questioning the received version (which may of course turn out in the end to be correct). I first heard it suggested that Buckingham's Rebellion was really in favour of Buckingham by none other than Michael Hicks at a talk I attended some years back. It's not just a funny idea of folk on this forum but a new dimension in mainstream thinking about Richard's reign. What is perhaps surprising is that Chris Skidmore doesn't, so far as I can tell from your posts, address this question, but that may be because he is a newcomer to the period from later Tudor studies.

Must go.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi David. No, no reason to want to establish the rising was not in favour of Henry. To me (no historian or expert) it just seems unlikely that a man like Buckingham would lend his support to someone who was further from the throne than himself. You are probably right in all you say, I certainly will not argue with your infinitely superior knowledge of all things Breton. I just cannot get around the feeling that Buckingham was too full of himself to support Henry. Perhaps he believed the rest of them were supporting him, and found out too late it was all a sneaky trick. A safe bet on the invaders' part that Buckingham would keep Richard busy while the Real McCoy slipped in from the south. If Buckingham had joined up with Henry, how long would he (Buckingham) have survived? He'd be far too uncomfortable and risky a bedfellow for Henry, who was, let's say, pretty ruthless with ridding himself of rivals. But that's just my view, not the forum's in general. You should know me by now, David, always looking for what I want to be there, not what actually is. You've put me straight before---very kindly---and no doubt you'll do it again now. <grin> Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:18 PM To: Subject: Re : Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

H Sandra,

Buckingham seems to have had some problems getting his own followers in order and may have had a realistic view of his own popularity. He may also not have shared the legitimist view to succession.

While I can see Francis II financing an invasion in favour of Edward V - who was engaged to his daughter - I canx27;t see him dong the same in favour of Buckingham. Certainly, in the belief that Edward was dead, he could expect Henry to provide a rule favourable to Brittanyx27;s interests.

If Francis was supporting Buckingham or Edward, I would have thought Henry would be the last person to put at the head of the force - a man with no miltary training or experience.

Is there a reason that contributors seem to be desperate to establish that the rising was not in favour of Henfy?

Kind regards
David

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 11:18:27 AM

As far as Buckingham is concerned, Marie, I agree with you. Why would he pass over his own claim in favour of Henry Tudor? The truth behind the rebellion must have come as a very disagreeable shock. I also want to thank you for Jane Talbot's will, which I could never have deciphered. You are utterly brilliant! If you are going away for a pleasant reason, I wish you every well. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:59 AM To: Subject: RE: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marie responds,

Really glad if the will is of help.

Yes, finally a holiday. Off to Rivendell!

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

As far as Buckingham is concerned, Marie, I agree with you. Why would he pass over his own claim in favour of Henry Tudor? The truth behind the rebellion must have come as a very disagreeable shock. I also want to thank you for Jane Talbot's will, which I could never have deciphered. You are utterly brilliant! If you are going away for a pleasant reason, I wish you every well. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:59 AM To: Subject: RE: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Middle-Earth? =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:00 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Marie responds,

Really glad if the will is of help.

Yes, finally a holiday. Off to Rivendell!

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

As far as Buckingham is concerned, Marie, I agree with you. Why would he pass over his own claim in favour of Henry Tudor? The truth behind the rebellion must have come as a very disagreeable shock. I also want to thank you for Jane Talbot's will, which I could never have deciphered. You are utterly brilliant! If you are going away for a pleasant reason, I wish you every well. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:59 AM To: Subject: RE: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Just to let you know that I eventually found the text of the Bodmin indictment in an article by Ian Arthurson, and have translated it and posted it in the Files section. If anyone would like to see the actual article I took it from, it is available to RIII Soc members via the Papers Library.

I can't see a discrepancy between Buckingham's stated role of having given direct orders to one of the men tried, and his being the actual pretender. In fact, isn't raising men in their cause the very thing pretenders were supposed to do? I just find it quite hard to believe that Buckingham would have allowed his own claim to be passed over in favour of Henry's Tudor's.

P.S. I also posted the will of Jane Talbot, widow of Sir Humphrey, last night.

Probably won't be about much for at least three weeks as I'm getting ready to go away.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds,

I wish I could find the proper details for this indictment to be sure I have quoted it correctly. I take your point about under Buckingham's orders, but the thing is that no contemporary sources tell us who was supposed to have been claiming the throne (not that unusual, I've seen the same thing in other rebellions; the government doesn't want to give the rival free publicity, and if the rebellion has failed then chroniclers will go along with the same policy). Of course, the later Tudor sources all say it was Henry Tudor, but this has been called into question in recent years. According to some recent books quoting Breton accounts, HT did not even get the money from Brittany for his fleet until it was almost all over bar the shouting, and then of course he failed to make a landing at Plymouth. Not perhaps the normal behaviour of a pretender to the throne.

I think Chris Skidmore has come to this from a background in Tudor history, but I stand to be corrected. If so, that is possibly making him less inclined to question the traditional account.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a "scaffold" (ie a platform) would also have been erected for a beheading so that the onlookers could get a good view.

Of course St Leger's wife (Richard's sister Anne) had died way back in January 1476. It sounds from the record as though Richard's dislike of St Leger had a lot to do with the diversion of the duchy of Exeter away from the last duke's heirs general to his own daughter, and the way he and Dorset had got possession for life between them of all the estates that went with it.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I shall take a lead from Ricardian logic and draw a conclusion from what is not said. The indictment says under the orders of the Duke of Buckingham and mentions nothing about the person the rebels were trying to put on the throne. It is entirely consistent with the idea that they were in favour of Henry. I don't think anyone has actually established that Buckingham was definitely going to claim the throne himself.

There is indeed a lot of traffic across the channel - much probably owned by the local gentry. However, Vannes is not across the channel - it is on the opposite (southern) coast of Brittany, so it seems to be significant that they all made the journey there.

I don't know much about Henry Bodrugan, but he seems to be a very colourful character, who had many enemies in the area.

I noticed that Skidmore also mentioned St Leger's wife, so he was probably copying from another secondary source. But I have looked further into it and a site on the history of Exeter saying that many historians reported he had been beheaded, but the receivers accounts for 1483 show expenditure for the erection of a scaffold.

Regards

David From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 11:54:30 AM

David wrote

"According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king."

Marie responds:

There may well have been a swearing of allegiance at Bodmin to Henry Tudor on 3 November , but this is not quite what the indictments say. It was claimed only that the rebels there "had arrayed in order to overthrow' and to utterly destroy the King' and to set up another. . . . in his place, by the command and order of Henry Duke of Buckingham. Since this was only the day following Buckingham's execution at Salisbury, 150 miles away, these men would not have yet known that the Duke was dead so it isn't possible to be sure who they wanted to place on the throne.

Marie

David wrote:

"Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body."

Marie responds:

This is well established, and not really surprising. These are the very men, many with links to the Woodvilles (who of course had been at the top of the power structure for nearly two decades) who would have felt they had most to lose by the deposition of Edward V.

Marie

David wrote:

"The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry."

Marie responds:

There was, of course, plenty of cross Channel shipping in that part of the world, and fleeing rebels always seem to have found a boat. What is more, I would imagine that many of these rebellious members of the Devon & Cornwall gentry dabbled in trade and owned their own boats.

Marie

David wrote

"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."

Marie responds:

Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.

The position of county sheriff was, of course, an annual appointment, so over the years many gentlemen would have held that position. Willoughby may well have been commissioned to arrest Oxford when he held St Michael's Mount, but it was Sir Henry Bodrugan who pulled this one off and earned Edward's gratitude. Bodrugan did not rebel against Richard, probably because his enemy Sir Richard Eggecombe did.

Marie

David wrote to Carol:
"I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him."

Marie responds:

Well, that is assuming that they had risked all for Henry Tudor. They had originally risen for Edward V, and we don't really know who they were planning to put on the throne after the word went round that he was dead. It may be that the different factions were playing each other false. I would agree that HT thought it politically necessary to promise to marry Elizabeth, and that he felt a great sense of loyalty to some of the exiles, but I would suggest that by the time Bosworth came Henry's relations with Elizabeth's own family, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Woodville, were at a low and Henry was keen to forget him promise.

Marie

David wrote

"Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.
I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering."

Marie responds:

Richard definitely did dislike St Leger - you've only got to read the Act of Attainder to see that he believed he was a rogue on the make. But I don't yet have Skidmore's book: could I possibly ask you what source he gives for St Leger having been hanged, drawn and quartered rather than beheaded?

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol
Just to pick up some of the questions you ask - especially regarding timing.

According to Chris Skidmore's recent book, all of the rebels arriving in Brittany did so much later - probably towards the end of November. There appears to be some kind of oath swearing that took place at Bodmin in early November at which allegiance was sworn to Henry as king.

Many of the people I have identified so far seem to be strongly linked to Edward - several had positions in his household, such as knights of the body.

The rebels seem to have been helped by friends while Richard's forces searched the countryside for them. They must have found people willing to ship them across the channel. Because of Henry's circuitous route (via France) the main body of the rebels were in Vannes before Henry.

Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.

The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county.

Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford.

I think you are right about the marriage to EoY. It was essential to Henry because of the preponderance of loyal Yorkist / Edwardians among his exiles. Skidmore suggests that Henry felt a strong sense of loyalty to this group of people who had risked everything and lost everything in attempting to support him.

Did Richard have something against his brother-in-law. In re-reading about the rebellion? it seems that Sir Thomas St Leger seems to have been singled out for harsh treatment.

I would have thought that his position would have qualified him for the aristocratic method of beheading, rather than hanging, drawing and quartering.

Kind regards
David From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 5:47:33 PM

David, one quick question. When did these two men go to Brittany? Before or after Buckingham's Rebellion? If they fled before September or October (before the rumor was spread that the "Princes" were dead, they probably intended to join Sir Edward Woodville rather than his pseudo-Lancastrian "ally," Henry Tudor, who at that point was probably still trying to get back the earldom of Richmond. He certainly would not have asserted his "claim" before the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And any Edwardian Yorkists who fled to Brittany before, say, mid-September would have done so with the aim of restoring Edward V, not of supporting a no-name, no-claim half-English invader. The only reason they threw their support to him was that they wanted a descendant of Edward IV on the throne. No doubt they thought that Henry would claim the throne through Elizabeth of York (whom he promised to marry only as, in someone's (Kendall's?) words, "a sop to the Yorkists." They didn't know what they were in for (and got, IMO, what they deserved).

My poor, pathetic point is only that, until September or October, any Edwardian Yorkist who fled to Brittany did so not to support Henry Tudor but to restore Edward V. Tudor was only ever a poor substitute for those who opposed Richard for whatever reason.

One more question. I'm wondering why you don't consider those men minor officials. They certainly weren't major officials like, say, Brackenbury, Lovell, or the egregious Buckingham.

Carol, top-posting out of desperation (or sheer laziness, as you prefer)

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi I wa s going to post this earlier in response to the North / South divide question- but since it has cropped up again...

I would highlight two people from the southern gentry as an example of the problem to which I am referring.

Giles Daubeney and Robert Willoughby

Both were what you might call knights of the shires, both rebelled against Richard. Daubeney had been part of Edward's household and both had served as High Sheriff. Now these people were not 'minor officials' and I have seen no indication of their motives for rebellion.

However, after the failure of the rebellion, both - along with many others - had sufficient friends and affinity to make an escape to the continent, to be at Vannes apparently waiting for the return of Henry. This story is common to a large number of the southern gentry.

Now, in times or trouble these are precisely the people who would be in charge of commissions of array - organising the county into arms to support the king. Both of my examples also appear in the Bosworth roll call.

They had not spent their years of attainder at home with their grievances, but together in Brittany forming a 'band of brothers' around Henry Tudor. It was the fact that this group were mainly loyal to Edward that led to the oath in the cathedral.

Accepting that they had brought punishment upon themselves, it is still contradictory to state that the counties were not rebellious toward Richard, whilst at the same time he could not find local people suitably qualified and willing to fill these positions from within the county. I can imagine that for the mass of ordinary people, having 'foreign' northern (say) tax collectors would feel like a severe imposition.

So we find, for example, Brackenbury as High Sheriff of Kent.

Regards
David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pamela,
I forgot to adds that the book I refer to also states that George le Grec would have been the Byzantine emperor.

David


------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 18:38 BST Pamela Bain wrote:

>Wow, every day brings another gem. I love this group and all of you very very intelligent people.
>Happy Friday
>
>On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:03 PM, "Durose David" <daviddurose2000@...<mailto:daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>Pamela
>There is a genuine Byzantine connection with Bosworth. It is widely known that the commanding admiral of the French fleet that landed Henry in Wales was Guillaume de Casenove - nicknamed Coulon.
>
>What is less well is that his second in command was George le Grec - or George the Greek. This person was a Greek exile from the Turkish takeover of Constantinople. (Aka Coulon the Younger)
>
>Geroge Paleologue de Bissipat served in the French navy and later settled in northern France - I think at the Chateau de Troissereux.
>
>Source: Histoire de la Marine Francaise, de la Ronciere.
>
>Regards
>David
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>;
>To: <<mailto:>;
>Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
>Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 7:49:44 PM
>
>
>
>So interesting and Byzantine.......
>
>On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:29 PM, "Wolfand Boar" <wolfandboarfics@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>I agree with Marie Re: Lovell It appears he was a young man very much on the rise since entering into his inheritance (although there were a lot of court battles over certain parts he had claimed, even against King Edward himself). It was Edward IV who made him a Viscount in January 1483 so it's possible that he was being groomed for bigger things after being knighted by Richard on the Scotland campaign years before Richard's accession. Born into a family which leaned toward the Lancastrian side in the wars but raised by Warwick and married into the household of Warwick's sister Alice, he had a unique background and claimed lands in many counties so it's possible he could have prospered under whomever gained control of the crown although probably not rising as high as with Richard.
>
>________________________________
>From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 7:54 AM
>Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
>
>
> David wrote
>"Many of the rebels were from families that were the leading families in their respective counties. Leaving aside Buckingham as a Duke with close blood links to the royals, Lovell and Brackenbury were very much minor players until Richard's accession. It could be said that Brackenbury reached the position of being one of the richest people in the land, purely on the basis of Richard's patronage. Whereas Daubeney and Willoughby had fulfilled the offices of High Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall under Edward.The High Sheriff is the King's representative in the county. Sir Robert Willoughby actually received a commission from Edward to arrest the Earl of Oxford."
>
>Marie responds:
>Lovell was a baron eight times over, and may have had a great career anyway; remember, he was still a very young man, only in his mid twenties when Richard became king. Brackenbury wasn't exactly top of the tree even in Richard's government (and surely not one of the richest people in the land) - he was just Constable of the Tower. The men who joined Buckingham's rebellion were of the gentry class; they were not from the aristocracy (other than Buckingham and Dorset), and there doesn't seem to have been a massive popular uprising. Every county had a number of gentry families, all vying with each other for status, patronage, etc. No one gentry family could be said to be "the leading family" in their county.
>
>
>
>

Durose David asked:

"Is there a reason that contributors seem to be desperate to establish that the rising was not in favour of Henfy?"

Carol responds:
Nothing desperate about it. We know from Crowland that it was originally in favor of Edward V and diverted to Henry after the rumor about Edward's sons being dead "arose" or was spread (whether by Buckingham's adherents or Tudor's is unclear). We also know that the attainder of Buckingham et al. doesn't even mention Tudor. It's only later proclamations like the one from June 21, 1484, that mention "Henry Tidder, which of his&insatiable covetousness&usurpeth upon him the name and title of royal estate of this Roialme." If he had been claiming the crown in October 1483, Richard would surely have said so and declared him a traitor, but his name does not appear in the January 1484 attainder passed by Richard's Parliament.

Forgive me for asking, David, but have you read any pro-Richard sources or are you basing your arguments solely on traditionalist sources like Skidmore? Just curious.

Hope that Yahoo doesn't mangle my format! There appears to be some glitch that I can't get rid of.

Carol

ÿ Durose David wrote:
"Buckingham seems to have had some problems getting his own followers in order and may have had a realistic view of his own popularity. He may also not have shared the legitimist view to succession.
While I can see Francis II financing an invasion in favour of Edward V - who was engaged to his daughter - I can't see him dong the same in favour of Buckingham. Certainly, in the belief that Edward was dead, he could expect Henry to provide a rule favourable to Brittany's interests.
If Francis was supporting Buckingham or Edward, I would have thought Henry would be the last person to put at the head of the force - a man with no miltary training or experience.
Is there a reason that contributors seem to be desperate to establish that the rising was not in favour of Henfy?" Doug here: As bet I can tell, in the late summer of 1483 there were two other possiblilties to Richard's being King: a return of Edward (V) with Buckingham as Protector or Buckingham replacing Richard on the throne. My personal view, at this time and barring new discoveries, is that Buckingham, egged on by Morton, was aiming at the throne. The return of Edward (V) was used to get people roused and in arms. An attempt was to be made to "rescue" the boys, but it was, in actuality, to ensure they didn't survive, either when the "rescue" was underway or shortly thereafter. Once that was accomplished, then the boys' deaths were to be blamed on Richard and the rebellion re-directed to replacing Richard with Buckingham. Your mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor. It also gave Buckingham a reason for *not* immediately trying to claim the throne - he was trying to double-cross almost everyone who was supporting him. So we end up with Francis providing support to Buckingham which, in this case, meant allowing Tudor to gather men and materiel and make his way to England to support a rebellion aimed at replacing Francis' future son-in-law back on the throne. A by-product of the success of the rebellion would be Henry being allowed to return to England and regaining his earldom (whether or not it would still be "Richmond", I don't know). Francis could better expect his, and Brittany's, interests to be treated favorably by someone who was both his son-in-law and had been returned to his throne with Francis' help, than by someone whose debt was limited to Francis' having helped him gain the throne. Francis may well have "put" Henry at the head of the forces he (Francis) had paid for simply because that placed am "English" gloss on what was, in effect, an attempt by the ruler of Brittany to meddle in English affairs. Francis was, after all, only a prospective father-in-law! To be honest, the only "desperation" I've noticed is by "historians" who, working backwards from Henry's usurpation, attempt to portray that act as inevitable. If Buckingham's Rebellion was to place Henry on the throne, why wasn't that the proclaimed aim *at the time of the rebellion*? Where are the proclamations calling for uprisings to support the true king, Hnery Tudor? References in letters, if any survive, mentioning *why* the rebellion was undertaken? More importantly, where are accusations of Henry Tudor attempting to overthrow Richard during the late summer of 1483? Unlike Titulus Regius, there'd have been no reason to destroy/hide them after Bosworth! In fact, they'd be immensely valuable in providing substantiation that what Henry and his supporters later claimed - that the rebellion was in Henry's favor from the beginning. But then there'd be the problem of all those people who *hadn't* supported Henry, but *had* supported the rebellion in order to return Edward (V) to his throne... Doug

Doug wrote:

"Your {Durose David's} mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor"

Carol responds:

I hadn't heard that, either, to my recollection. DD (Durose David), do you know Skidmore' source for this information?

Thanks,
Carol

Marie responds:

It's true that there was a treaty with Brittany whereby Edward Prince of Wales (EV) was to marry Francis' daughter. It doesn't necessarily mean they were engaged/ betrothed as such, though. It was discussed on the forum a couple of years back so the posts should still be there.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Doug wrote:

"Your {Durose David's} mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor"

Carol responds:

I hadn't heard that, either, to my recollection. DD (Durose David), do you know Skidmore' source for this information?

Thanks,
Carol

Thanks Doug,
Your comments raise a number of issues, which will probably take me a few days to check out properly. I for one co not think Henry's accession to the throne was inevitable. Even quite late in the day the French seemed to be less keen on the expedition. I will check my references and respond in a few days.

Regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sat, Sep 14, 2013 4:50:20 PM

ÿ Durose David wrote:
"Buckingham seems to have had some problems getting his own followers in order and may have had a realistic view of his own popularity. He may also not have shared the legitimist view to succession.
While I can see Francis II financing an invasion in favour of Edward V - who was engaged to his daughter - I can't see him dong the same in favour of Buckingham. Certainly, in the belief that Edward was dead, he could expect Henry to provide a rule favourable to Brittany's interests.
If Francis was supporting Buckingham or Edward, I would have thought Henry would be the last person to put at the head of the force - a man with no miltary training or experience.
Is there a reason that contributors seem to be desperate to establish that the rising was not in favour of Henfy?" Doug here: As bet I can tell, in the late summer of 1483 there were two other possiblilties to Richard's being King: a return of Edward (V) with Buckingham as Protector or Buckingham replacing Richard on the throne. My personal view, at this time and barring new discoveries, is that Buckingham, egged on by Morton, was aiming at the throne. The return of Edward (V) was used to get people roused and in arms. An attempt was to be made to "rescue" the boys, but it was, in actuality, to ensure they didn't survive, either when the "rescue" was underway or shortly thereafter. Once that was accomplished, then the boys' deaths were to be blamed on Richard and the rebellion re-directed to replacing Richard with Buckingham. Your mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor. It also gave Buckingham a reason for *not* immediately trying to claim the throne - he was trying to double-cross almost everyone who was supporting him. So we end up with Francis providing support to Buckingham which, in this case, meant allowing Tudor to gather men and materiel and make his way to England to support a rebellion aimed at replacing Francis' future son-in-law back on the throne. A by-product of the success of the rebellion would be Henry being allowed to return to England and regaining his earldom (whether or not it would still be "Richmond", I don't know). Francis could better expect his, and Brittany's, interests to be treated favorably by someone who was both his son-in-law and had been returned to his throne with Francis' help, than by someone whose debt was limited to Francis' having helped him gain the throne. Francis may well have "put" Henry at the head of the forces he (Francis) had paid for simply because that placed am "English" gloss on what was, in effect, an attempt by the ruler of Brittany to meddle in English affairs. Francis was, after all, only a prospective father-in-law! To be honest, the only "desperation" I've noticed is by "historians" who, working backwards from Henry's usurpation, attempt to portray that act as inevitable. If Buckingham's Rebellion was to place Henry on the throne, why wasn't that the proclaimed aim *at the time of the rebellion*? Where are the proclamations calling for uprisings to support the true king, Hnery Tudor? References in letters, if any survive, mentioning *why* the rebellion was undertaken? More importantly, where are accusations of Henry Tudor attempting to overthrow Richard during the late summer of 1483? Unlike Titulus Regius, there'd have been no reason to destroy/hide them after Bosworth! In fact, they'd be immensely valuable in providing substantiation that what Henry and his supporters later claimed - that the rebellion was in Henry's favor from the beginning. But then there'd be the problem of all those people who *hadn't* supported Henry, but *had* supported the rebellion in order to return Edward (V) to his throne... Doug

Carol,
Anne of Brittany's engagement to Edward V is something I have read so often, in various books it is almost assumed to be right. I am not sure if Skidmore mentions it. But both wikipedia pages for Anne and Edward say they were engaged.

It would certainly have made sense for both England and Brittany.

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sat, Sep 14, 2013 8:39:58 PM

 

 

Doug wrote:

"Your {Durose David's} mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor"

Carol responds:

I hadn't heard that, either, to my recollection. DD (Durose David), do you know  Skidmore' source for this information?

Thanks,
Carol

Thanks, David. If you come across a reference to the marriage treaty in a more reliable source than Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your mentioning it if you remember. (No big deal if you don't.) I've read a great deal about Richard III (not much, I confess, on Francis of Brittany), and I honestly can't recall its ever being mentioned.

Carol

--- In , <> wrote:

Carol,
Anne of Brittany's engagement to Edward V is something I have read so often, in various books it is almost assumed to be right. I am not sure if Skidmore mentions it. But both wikipedia pages for Anne and Edward say they were engaged.

It would certainly have made sense for both England and Brittany.

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sat, Sep 14, 2013 8:39:58 PM

Doug wrote:

"Your {Durose David's} mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor"

Carol responds:

I hadn't heard that, either, to my recollection. DD (Durose David), do you know Skidmore' source for this information?

Thanks,
Carol

David, Ross Edward IV page 285 'With Brittany herself England's relations became closer. Plans for a marriage between Edward Prince of Wales and Anne the heiress of Brittany were already under discussion in the summer of 1480, and some king of treaty of amity was drawn up in November.' Earlier in the book Ross comments on the views of the Breton observers. H.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 14 September 2013, 22:09
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Marie responds:It's true that there was a treaty with Brittany whereby Edward Prince of Wales (EV) was to marry Francis' daughter. It doesn't necessarily mean they were engaged/ betrothed as such, though. It was discussed on the forum a couple of years back so the posts should still be there.Marie --- In , <> wrote: Doug wrote: "Your {Durose David's} mention of Edward (V) being engaged to Francis II's daughter (which I hadn't known) certainly gives Francis a reason to support a rebellion that, as far as Francis knew, was in Edward (v)'s, and his daughter's, favor"

Carol responds:

I hadn't heard that, either, to my recollection. DD (Durose David), do you know Skidmore' source for this information?

Thanks,
Carol

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edward's sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stow's account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Morton's captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckingham's letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husband's friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IV's young servants, who swore to uphold the ladies' plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis II's permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

ÿ I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

I'm not very clever with the rights and wrongs of these points, and know I am butting in, but I understand that the rescue' was led by or certainly involved, John Welles, Henry's half-uncle. Would this be an indication of it being in Henry's cause? If so, it surely must mean that it was a fake, intended to eliminate the princes and have Richard blamed, not to save them from Richard and spirit them away with an intention to one day restoring Edward V to the throne? Although I also understand that at one time Welles was in Edward IV's household, I still feel he would be more likely to support his half-nephew than the questionably legitimate sons of the former king. Nor would he wish to help restore the Woodvilles to power. Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

ÿ I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

Quote from ODNB re John Welles the rebel, written by Prof Hicks, making no mention of Welles being involved in the attempt related by Stowe:
"His pardon in 1478 as of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, and Maxey, Lincolnshire, both properties of the duchess, suggests that he depended on his mother until her death in 1482. Apparently in the royal household at Edward IV's death, he was commissioned to victual the fleet sent against Sir Edward Woodville, but was already in rebellion against Richard III by 13 August 1483, when his property was seized. Knighted and recognized as Lord Welles by Henry Tudor on his landing at Milford Haven on 7 August 1485, he fought at Bosworth, and by February 1486 had been restored to his inheritance, created Viscount Welles, and elected knight of the Garter. Such favours recognized his special status as the king's uncle, half-brother to the king's mother......"
I don't know if anybody else has evidence for Welles' involvement.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 22 Sep 2013, at 20:07, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

I'm not very clever with the rights and wrongs of these points, and know I am butting in, but I understand that the rescue' was led by or certainly involved, John Welles, Henry's half-uncle. Would this be an indication of it being in Henry's cause? If so, it surely must mean that it was a fake, intended to eliminate the princes and have Richard blamed, not to save them from Richard and spirit them away with an intention to one day restoring Edward V to the throne? Although I also understand that at one time Welles was in Edward IV's household, I still feel he would be more likely to support his half-nephew than the questionably legitimate sons of the former king. Nor would he wish to help restore the Woodvilles to power. Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

ÿ

I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

Hi Sandra,
Please but in at any time. I have no amazing new information, but I understand that John Welles was indeed one of the rebels he led a small uprising at Maxey, which was put down and he fled to Henry in Brittany.

Chris Skidmore's new book names 4 persons that were later identified as being subject to indictment and subsequent execution. None of whom was John Welles (obviously). However, since a french chronicler Basin estimated the numbers at around 50, that does not preclude Welles' involvement. I am not sure that Henry was the centre of any movement at that time. As the rumours of the boys' fate had not yet circulated.


Regards
David


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2013 7:07:01 PM

 

I'm not very clever with the rights and wrongs of these points, and know I am butting in, but I understand that the rescue' was led by or certainly involved, John Welles, Henry's half-uncle. Would this be an indication of it being in Henry's cause? If so, it surely must mean that it was a fake, intended to eliminate the princes and have Richard blamed, not to save them from Richard and spirit them away with an intention to one day restoring Edward V to the throne? Although I also understand that at one time Welles was in Edward IV's household, I still feel he would be more likely to support his half-nephew than the questionably legitimate sons of the former king. Nor would he wish to help restore the Woodvilles to power.   Sandra =^..^=     From: Stephen Lark Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth    

ÿ

I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth   

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

ÿ Durose David wrote:
(Doug here: I thought it best to post my answers/rebuttals immediately after each paragraph. I hope it doesn't cause any confusion.)
"I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.
Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edward's sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stow's account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers." Doug here: I prefaced the paragraph in which that assertion was made with "My personal view, and barring new discoveries..." and that view came from my readings concerning those involved in Buckingham's Rebellion. That those involved in any "rescue" attempt had been members of Edward IV's household does not preclude their moving their allegiance after his death. As I said earlier, it's my personal view only and certainly shouldn't be taken as "fact".

"There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead." Doug here: Croyland has the "rumor" of the boys' deaths being spread *after* the rebellion had already begun and, interestingly enough, immediately *after* Buckingham's announcement that he was joining the rebellion. That says to me that "all those concerned" didn't *originally* think the boys were dead. Originally they thought the boys were alive and it was only with the spread of the rumors about the boys' deaths that the rebels would turn to some other person as a substitute for Edward (V). It's my thesis that the "substitute" was to be Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, directly and legitimately descended from Edward III and *not* Henry Tudor, who had no legitimate descent from *any* of Edward III's offspring.
"1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Morton's captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckingham's letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous." Doug here: And it's exactly that ambiguity that leads me to believe that it was Buckingham who, *at that point*, was aiming at the throne and *not* Henry Tudor. If Buckingham actually supported Tudor's claim to the throne why not say so? He'd already committed treason by rebelling against Richard and certainly had nothing more to lose. However, if what Henry Stafford was aiming at was the crown, it certainly behooved to be "ambiguous" in his dealings with Tudor because the more people Buckingham could get on his side, the better his chances of actually gaining the crown would be.

"2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry." Doug here: I'm in complete agreement with your first sentence, but have to disagree with the conclusion you've come to in your next one. EW agreeing to the marriage of EoY to Henry Tudor makes just as much sense if the presumption is that her sons were alive as presuming the opposite. A marriage between Henry Tudor and EoY could bring Lancastrian support to the effort to return Edward to the throne. I don't dispute that MB and EW were trying to brng about a marriage between their children, there's 'way too much evidence for one thing. However, I do dispute that the marriage was to be between EoY as the *eldest surviving child of Edward IV* and Henry Tudor as the *Lancastrian claimant to the throne*. There literally is *no* evidence to support that being the idea for the marriage *at the time it was proposed*. Which leads me to my conclusion that the original intent of the marriage was to unite two different groups behind the restoration of Edward (V), not to place Henry Tudor on the throne.
"Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husband's friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IV's young servants, who swore to uphold the ladies' plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry." Doug here: Which fits in perfectly with the idea that EW and MB were trying to gather support to return Edward to the throne, marry EoY to Henry and allow him to return to England, if not as "Earl of Richmond" then with a different title.

"She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.
After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis II's permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.
So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead." Doug here: My only query about the above several paragraphs is to the terms of the oath sworn at Vannes. Do you have a copy of it and if so, could you post it? Doug
(hopefully my replying in this manner mades sense)

Hi David. I'm always loath to go on about something when I seem to be out on a limb, but I understood that John Welles was arrested on 13th August 1483 for plotting and rebellion, and that the plot in question was the attempt to rescue' the boys from the Tower. Maybe you are right, and it was at Maxey. He was then attainted and had his lands confiscated, and was set free. Another example of Richard erring on the side of leniency, because Welles promptly took himself off to join Buckingham, after which he fled to Henry. Finally, of course, he was with Henry at Bosworth. Now, I'm not sure how all this works in with whom he supported or why, just that he was up to his neck in it all, was Margaret Beaufort much loved half-brother and Henry's half-uncle. I cannot believe he was ever intent upon anything but promoting Henry's cause. Why he would apparently support Buckingham does not, of course, fit in with my theory, because I do not think Buckingham was acting for anyone but Buckingham. Unless Welles too believed Buckingham was acting for Henry? And maybe I'm wrong about Buckingham, and he was supporting Henry all along. But to be truthful, I think pigs would have flown around Gloucester Cathedral before that happened. I feel that Welles' activities and whereabouts, and with whom, indicate his support for Henry from the outset, i.e. from the moment Richard ascended to the throne.There was a chance to do away with the boys and burden Richard with the blame, and so Welles (Margaret and whoever else) took that chance. It failed, but might easily have succeeded. They might even have been able to produce the boys' bodies, with neon arrows pointing to poor old Uncle Richard. Elizabeth Woodville allowed her daughters to leave sanctuary because the failure of the plot to get at the boys had not succeeded and Richard was still able to prove to her that her sons were alive. What would have happened if the plot HAD succeeded---you will be glad to know---has not yet come under my amateur scrutiny. Except perhaps that the production of the boys' bodies would have resulted in national outrage and a huge rebellion that might have unseated Richard well before Bosworth. Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 8:53 PM To: Subject: Re : Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Hi Sandra,
Please but in at any time. I have no amazing new information, but I understand that John Welles was indeed one of the rebels he led a small uprising at Maxey, which was put down and he fled to Henry in Brittany.

Chris Skidmorex27;s new book names 4 persons that were later identified as being subject to indictment and subsequent execution. None of whom was John Welles (obviously). However, since a french chronicler Basin estimated the numbers at around 50, that does not preclude Wellesx27; involvement. I am not sure that Henry was the centre of any movement at that time. As the rumours of the boysx27; fate had not yet circulated.


Regards
David

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2013 7:07:01 PM

I'm not very clever with the rights and wrongs of these points, and know I am butting in, but I understand that the rescue' was led by or certainly involved, John Welles, Henry's half-uncle. Would this be an indication of it being in Henry's cause? If so, it surely must mean that it was a fake, intended to eliminate the princes and have Richard blamed, not to save them from Richard and spirit them away with an intention to one day restoring Edward V to the throne? Although I also understand that at one time Welles was in Edward IV's household, I still feel he would be more likely to support his half-nephew than the questionably legitimate sons of the former king. Nor would he wish to help restore the Woodvilles to power. Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

ÿ

I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

Hello Stephen,

I think you may be confusing the ceremony that I am referring to at Vannes, with the later one - thought to be at Rennes - at which Henry swore to marry Elizabeth, in order to cement the support of the 500 or so exiles there with him, since most of them were loyal to Edward IV's family. This later one happened after the failure of the rebellion. This one occurred before Francis provided support. I am sorry I said it happened in front of Anne - I should have said the Duchess and her chaplain Arthur Jacques.

At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.

I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didn't happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.

A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth.

I do not find the reconciliation of Elizabeth Wydeville with Richard surprising. Let me do what John Ashdown-Hill tries to do in The Last Days... and make no assumption that Bosworth is in the future. At the later date, Richard was on the throne and there was no obvious prospect of a change of régime. It was simply a matter of adapting to the circumstances as they existed in the best way for her and her family. At that later date Henry's prospects were pretty low.

It is certainly impossible to infer from the reconciliation that the boys must be alive - it is an instance of a false dichotomy. There are a number of more probable inferences that can be drawn.

The purpose of my argument was to show that the organized rebellion in the south of England was in favour of Henry. Admittedly, some of the smaller sponaneous risings may have had other motives.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2013 6:04:30 PM

 

ÿ

I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did.  ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
 

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

Durose David wrote:

"<snip> At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.

"I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didn't happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.

A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth."

Carol responds:

First, pardon my formatting if there are any glitches. Yahoo hates me and vice versa.

William Herbert was, of course, a staunch Yorkist and a supporter of Edward IV killed by Warwick and George of Clarence in an attempt to strip Edward of key supporters and favorites. The idea of such a marriage would have been to cement Henry Tudor's *Yorkist* loyalties. Unfortunately, the murder of Herbert made that impossible. Imagine how different history would have been had that child marriage succeeded and Herbert lived!

Second, it seems to me that you or your source is/are relying very heavily on Vergil's interpretation of events, as I meant to say in an earlier post. We don't really know what was going on in terms of communication between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for example. Vergil assumes, based on hindsight, that it related to a marriage that would make Elizabeth of York queen if Henry became king, but, surely, while EW knew or believed her sons to be alive, she would have had no such thought or intention. (Whether she briefly believed the rumors, we don't know, but I agree with those who say that she would never have given her daughters into Richard's custody or asked her other son, Dorset, to come home and come to terms with Richard, if she believed that he had killed Edward and Richard.

I'm not certain (though Marie will probably know), but I don't think that Edward IV ever really considered or even pretended to consider a marriage between Tudor or any of his daughters to lure Tudor home. Tudor wasn't that important, and I doubt that anyone (except maybe Uncle Jasper and Margaret Beaufort) even thought of him as a potential pretender until much later (after Buckingham's Rebellion). That idea appears to stem from the second dispensation for EoY's and Tudor's marriage, in which people *unrelated to EoY* testified something that suggested that Edward IV and Margaret Beaufort had once discussed their relationship to one another as if, maybe, they might have been considering a marriage between their respective children. It was all to get over the abduction impediment (EoY being kept against her will by MB before the marriage). I'm doing a bad job of explaining all this because I'm simply remembering recent posts by Marie on the topic.

Sorry I can't post in more detail. I need to read Skidmore to counter him more effectively. He appears to be relying quite heavily on Vergil, who, of course, was writing from hindsight and from a Tudor perspective. One thing he says is very telling, however--when Margaret Beaufort "after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen [i.e.,. after the rumor of their deaths was spread], began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth." If true, her rejoicing at the (supposed) deaths of two boys says volumes about MB and her ambitions for her son.

Carol

ÿ I think that's it - the same Vergil who came to England in 1502 is a very unreliable source. ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 5:32 PM Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Durose David wrote:

"<snip> At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.

"I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didn't happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.

A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth."

Carol responds:

First, pardon my formatting if there are any glitches. Yahoo hates me and vice versa.

William Herbert was, of course, a staunch Yorkist and a supporter of Edward IV killed by Warwick and George of Clarence in an attempt to strip Edward of key supporters and favorites. The idea of such a marriage would have been to cement Henry Tudor's *Yorkist* loyalties. Unfortunately, the murder of Herbert made that impossible. Imagine how different history would have been had that child marriage succeeded and Herbert lived!

Second, it seems to me that you or your source is/are relying very heavily on Vergil's interpretation of events, as I meant to say in an earlier post. We don't really know what was going on in terms of communication between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for example. Vergil assumes, based on hindsight, that it related to a marriage that would make Elizabeth of York queen if Henry became king, but, surely, while EW knew or believed her sons to be alive, she would have had no such thought or intention. (Whether she briefly believed the rumors, we don't know, but I agree with those who say that she would never have given her daughters into Richard's custody or asked her other son, Dorset, to come home and come to terms with Richard, if she believed that he had killed Edward and Richard.

I'm not certain (though Marie will probably know), but I don't think that Edward IV ever really considered or even pretended to consider a marriage between Tudor or any of his daughters to lure Tudor home. Tudor wasn't that important, and I doubt that anyone (except maybe Uncle Jasper and Margaret Beaufort) even thought of him as a potential pretender until much later (after Buckingham's Rebellion). That idea appears to stem from the second dispensation for EoY's and Tudor's marriage, in which people *unrelated to EoY* testified something that suggested that Edward IV and Margaret Beaufort had once discussed their relationship to one another as if, maybe, they might have been considering a marriage between their respective children. It was all to get over the abduction impediment (EoY being kept against her will by MB before the marriage). I'm doing a bad job of explaining all this because I'm simply remembering recent posts by Marie on the topic.

Sorry I can't post in more detail. I need to read Skidmore to counter him more effectively. He appears to be relying quite heavily on Vergil, who, of course, was writing from hindsight and from a Tudor perspective. One thing he says is very telling, however--when Margaret Beaufort "after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen [i.e.,. after the rumor of their deaths was spread], began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth." If true, her rejoicing at the (supposed) deaths of two boys says volumes about MB and her ambitions for her son.

Carol

Stephen and Carol
I think it is a little presumptuous to dismiss Vergil out of hand, simply because he only arrived in the country in 1502. When did (say) John Ashdown-Hill arrive?

Vergil was one of the great scholars of his time, had access to some of the people who were involved in the events and presumably had some original documents that have not survived.

Also, while writing in a Tudor period, he proved himself to be resistant to pressure regarding his writing. He was tasked with examining Geoffrey of Monmouth and establishing the Tudor descent from King Arthur. He came out with the view that Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings were unreliable and even transcribed Gildas to establish that King Arthur was a mythic figure.

I agree that the "marriage" of Henry to Elizabeth of York was purely a sham to enable Edward to get his hands on Henry. So Richmond was very right to suspect a trick and escape to Saint Malo cathedral in 1476. This incident may have contributed to Stillington's bad reputation as reflected by Commynes - this bad bishop.

The actions of Elizabeth Wydeville in the so-called reconciliation can not be used to infer her beliefs in 1483, because the reconciliation, if it can be described as such, happened about a year and a half after the failure of the rebellion at which time there appeared to be no prospect of a change of regime.

It was also suggested that HT was an unimportant figure. While it is true domestically he was unknown, powerless and penniless. His importance was in foreign policy. He was a pawn that could be played by Brittany - threatening to allow them to go to France where they could be used by Louis. Now it is interesting that a promise that France would not invade Brittany was extracted from Louis at Picquigny, so that, when Edward's embassy attempted to obtain Henry in the following year, they could expect Francis II to be grateful and point out that Brittany was not in danger. This shows that Edward was playing a strategic game of chess aimed at getting his hands on Henry.

Kind regards
David
Still struggling with the new Yahoo format


------------------------------
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 17:59 BST Stephen Lark wrote:

>I think that's it - the same Vergil who came to England in 1502 is a very unreliable source.
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: justcarol67@...
>  To:
>  Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 5:32 PM
>  Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
>
>
>   
>
>  Durose David wrote:
>
>
>
>     
>
>  " At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.
>
>  "I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didn't happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.
>
>  A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth."
>
>  Carol responds:
>
>  First, pardon my formatting if there are any glitches. Yahoo hates me and vice versa.
>
>  William Herbert was, of course, a staunch Yorkist and a supporter of Edward IV killed by Warwick and George of Clarence in an attempt to strip Edward of key supporters and favorites. The idea of such a marriage would have been to cement Henry Tudor's *Yorkist* loyalties. Unfortunately, the murder of Herbert made that impossible. Imagine how different history would have been had that child marriage succeeded and Herbert lived!
>
>  Second, it seems to me that you or your source is/are relying very heavily on Vergil's interpretation of events, as I meant to say in an earlier post. We don't really know what was going on in terms of communication between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for example. Vergil assumes, based on hindsight, that it related to a marriage that would make Elizabeth of York queen if Henry became king, but, surely, while EW knew or believed her sons to be alive, she would have had no such thought or intention. (Whether she briefly believed the rumors, we don't know, but I agree with those who say that she would never have given her daughters into Richard's custody or asked her other son, Dorset, to come home and come to terms with Richard, if she believed that he had killed Edward and Richard.
>
>  I'm not certain (though Marie will probably know), but I don't think that Edward IV ever really considered or even pretended to consider a marriage between Tudor or any of his daughters to lure Tudor home. Tudor wasn't that important, and I doubt that anyone (except maybe Uncle Jasper and Margaret Beaufort) even thought of him as a potential pretender until much later (after Buckingham's Rebellion). That idea appears to stem from the second dispensation for EoY's and Tudor's marriage, in which people *unrelated to EoY* testified something that suggested that Edward IV and Margaret Beaufort had once discussed their relationship to one another as if, maybe, they might have been considering a marriage between their respective children. It was all to get over the abduction impediment (EoY being kept against her will by MB before the marriage). I'm doing a bad job of explaining all this because I'm simply remembering recent posts by Marie on the topic.
>
>  Sorry I can't post in more detail. I need to read Skidmore to counter him more effectively. He appears to be relying quite heavily on Vergil, who, of course, was writing from hindsight and from a Tudor perspective. One thing he says is very telling, however--when Margaret Beaufort "after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen [i.e.,. after the rumor of their deaths was spread], began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth." If true, her rejoicing at the (supposed) deaths of two boys says volumes about MB and her ambitions for her son.
>
>  Carol
>     
>
>
>

I disagree. JA-H has accessed sources from well before 1502. Vergil, like others, was paid by "Tudor" to write propaganda much later and should be judged on that basis. He is also possibly the "Human Shredder" who destroyed documents that subsequent real historians cannot read. Furthermore, due to the 1461, there was no Earl of Richmond - the land being reallocated by Edward IV to his brothers. "Tudor" was a descendant of Gaunt's mistress (legitimised later excepta dignitate regalis), his father was illegitimate and probably his mother's first cousin. He had no claim except by force but persuaded some who wanted to believe in him. The stepchildren of a King simply cannot inherit a claim from him. Elizabeth Woodville's beliefs in early 1485 can easily be deduced. If her earlier beliefs are different, we have insufficient evidence to come to this conclusion. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:12 PM Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Stephen and Carol
I think it is a little presumptuous to dismiss Vergil out of hand, simply because he only arrived in the country in 1502. When did (say) John Ashdown-Hill arrive?

Vergil was one of the great scholars of his time, had access to some of the people who were involved in the events and presumably had some original documents that have not survived.

Also, while writing in a Tudor period, he proved himself to be resistant to pressure regarding his writing. He was tasked with examining Geoffrey of Monmouth and establishing the Tudor descent from King Arthur. He came out with the view that Geoffrey of Monmouthx27;s writings were unreliable and even transcribed Gildas to establish that King Arthur was a mythic figure.

I agree that the "marriage" of Henry to Elizabeth of York was purely a sham to enable Edward to get his hands on Henry. So Richmond was very right to suspect a trick and escape to Saint Malo cathedral in 1476. This incident may have contributed to Stillingtonx27;s bad reputation as reflected by Commynes - this bad bishop.

The actions of Elizabeth Wydeville in the so-called reconciliation can not be used to infer her beliefs in 1483, because the reconciliation, if it can be described as such, happened about a year and a half after the failure of the rebellion at which time there appeared to be no prospect of a change of regime.

It was also suggested that HT was an unimportant figure. While it is true domestically he was unknown, powerless and penniless. His importance was in foreign policy. He was a pawn that could be played by Brittany - threatening to allow them to go to France where they could be used by Louis. Now it is interesting that a promise that France would not invade Brittany was extracted from Louis at Picquigny, so that, when Edwardx27;s embassy attempted to obtain Henry in the following year, they could expect Francis II to be grateful and point out that Brittany was not in danger. This shows that Edward was playing a strategic game of chess aimed at getting his hands on Henry.

Kind regards
David
Still struggling with the new Yahoo format


------------------------------
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 17:59 BST Stephen Lark wrote:

>I think thatx27;s it - the same Vergil who came to England in 1502 is a very unreliable source.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 5:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
>
>
>
>
> Durose David wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> " At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.
>
> "I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didnx27;t happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.
>
> A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edwardx27;s intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edwardx27;s men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> First, pardon my formatting if there are any glitches. Yahoo hates me and vice versa.
>
> William Herbert was, of course, a staunch Yorkist and a supporter of Edward IV killed by Warwick and George of Clarence in an attempt to strip Edward of key supporters and favorites. The idea of such a marriage would have been to cement Henry Tudorx27;s *Yorkist* loyalties. Unfortunately, the murder of Herbert made that impossible. Imagine how different history would have been had that child marriage succeeded and Herbert lived!
>
> Second, it seems to me that you or your source is/are relying very heavily on Vergilx27;s interpretation of events, as I meant to say in an earlier post. We donx27;t really know what was going on in terms of communication between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for example. Vergil assumes, based on hindsight, that it related to a marriage that would make Elizabeth of York queen if Henry became king, but, surely, while EW knew or believed her sons to be alive, she would have had no such thought or intention. (Whether she briefly believed the rumors, we donx27;t know, but I agree with those who say that she would never have given her daughters into Richardx27;s custody or asked her other son, Dorset, to come home and come to terms with Richard, if she believed that he had killed Edward and Richard.
>
> Ix27;m not certain (though Marie will probably know), but I donx27;t think that Edward IV ever really considered or even pretended to consider a marriage between Tudor or any of his daughters to lure Tudor home. Tudor wasnx27;t that important, and I doubt that anyone (except maybe Uncle Jasper and Margaret Beaufort) even thought of him as a potential pretender until much later (after Buckinghamx27;s Rebellion). That idea appears to stem from the second dispensation for EoYx27;s and Tudorx27;s marriage, in which people *unrelated to EoY* testified something that suggested that Edward IV and Margaret Beaufort had once discussed their relationship to one another as if, maybe, they might have been considering a marriage between their respective children. It was all to get over the abduction impediment (EoY being kept against her will by MB before the marriage). Ix27;m doing a bad job of explaining all this because Ix27;m simply remembering recent posts by Marie on the topic.
>
> Sorry I canx27;t post in more detail. I need to read Skidmore to counter him more effectively. He appears to be relying quite heavily on Vergil, who, of course, was writing from hindsight and from a Tudor perspective. One thing he says is very telling, however--when Margaret Beaufort "after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen [i.e.,. after the rumor of their deaths was spread], began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth." If true, her rejoicing at the (supposed) deaths of two boys says volumes about MB and her ambitions for her son.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

Durose David wrote:

Stephen and Carol
I think it is a little presumptuous to dismiss Vergil out of hand, simply because he only arrived in the country in 1502. When did (say) John Ashdown-Hill arrive?

Vergil was one of the great scholars of his time, had access to some of the people who were involved in the events and presumably had some original documents that have not survived. <snip>

Carol responds:

No one is dismissing Vergil out of hand. As longtime members of this forum, Stephen and I are quite aware of Vergil's merits and as well as his deficiencies. Forgive me, but it seems presumptuous of a newcomer to condescend to those whose many contributions to this forum he is perhaps unfamiliar with. Enough said.

Carol

Carol,I for one, have learned so much from you and Stephen,and I thank you!Vickie


Sent from my iPad
On Sep 28, 2013, at 11:55 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Durose David wrote:

Stephen and Carol
I think it is a little presumptuous to dismiss Vergil out of hand, simply because he only arrived in the country in 1502. When did (say) John Ashdown-Hill arrive?

Vergil was one of the great scholars of his time, had access to some of the people who were involved in the events and presumably had some original documents that have not survived. <snip>

Carol responds:

No one is dismissing Vergil out of hand. As longtime members of this forum, Stephen and I are quite aware of Vergil's merits and as well as his deficiencies. Forgive me, but it seems presumptuous of a newcomer to condescend to those whose many contributions to this forum he is perhaps unfamiliar with. Enough said.

Carol

Stephen wrote:
I disagree [with Durose David]. JA-H has accessed sources from well before 1502. Vergil, like others, was paid by "Tudor" to write propaganda much later and should be judged on that basis. He is also possibly the "Human Shredder" who destroyed documents that subsequent real historians cannot read. <snip>

Carol responds:

I suspect that the "human shredder" was Bishop Morton's nephew Robert, as suggested by Audrey Williamson, though admittedly there's no evidence to support the charge (other than the gaps in the record, especially the records of Richard's council meetings) except that Robert's position as Master of the Rolls would have given him access to whatever documents were available. If he destroyed them, it must have been on Henry's orders as he certainly would not have dared to destroy documents without permission. I agree with the rest of your post, which I snipped.

In any case, I doubt that Vergil had access to original records that are now missing, as Durose David suggested. Vergil himself complained about the absence of documents for the period (though much has come to light since that he was unaware of, including the documents unearthed by J A-H. Certainly, we can't blame Vergil for being unaware of the contents of Titulus Regius, which Henry Tudor had ordered all copies burned unread. The result for Vergil is an absolute ignorance of Eleanor Butler and the real nature of Richard's claim to the throne. He does seem to have had access to the wardrobe accounts, which he apparently used to time the "murder" of the "princes" to coincide with Sir James Tyrrell's ride to London relating to Edward of Middleham's investiture as Prince of Wales.

As for the dates of his Anglica Historia, he began writing not when he first arrived in England in 1502 as David mentioned but in 1512-13, by which time Henry VII (his main source for events relating to Bosworth and Buckingham's Rebellion) was already dead--as were John de la Pole, Perkin Warbeck, Edward of Warwick, and, but April 1513, Edmund de la Pole. The crown was safely in Tudor hands and few would have dared to present Richard's perspective. Even William Stanley, to whom Henry owed his life and crown, had been executed for supporting a Yorkist pretender (as had Sir James Tyrrell, associated with Richard and perhaps the rescuer rather than the murderer of the "Princes"). Would anyone--say Thomas Howard, finally restored to his father's titles after loyally serving the crown of England, regardless of the head it sat on, for all those years? Richard's perspective is nowhere in evidence in Vergil's work. He operates on the assumption that Richard was a wicked man, both a ururper and a murderer, and his interpretation of events, even where he knows the facts and is not relying on rumor, reflects that assumption.

So, David, Vergil undoubtedly did his best, but he was handicapped by lack of materials, biased sources, and his own assumptions, having arrived in England at a time when Henry Tudor had been king--and Richard had been dead--for seventeen years and beginning his work still later. For all these reasons, his work should be treated with caution.

Primary sources--that is, original documents such as legislation, letters, and expense accounts--disprove many of his conclusions about a man he never had the chance to meet. Had he come to Richard's court rather than Henry's in 1502, assuming that Richard had won Bosworth and survived to the age of fifty, we would have had a very different history and a very different view of Richard, in part because Vergil would have had no altered Rous Roll and perhaps a very different Historia Regum Angliae (or none at all) to use as a source for Richard's (supposed) appearance and character (two years in his mother's womb and all).

Yahoo may be messing with my formatting. On that point, I agree with you, DD!

Carol

ÿ What I said is that Polydore Vergil was a paid liar who didn't have a clue what had happened in England before 1502. He wasn't even Henry VII's paid liar but Henry VIII's. I hold by what I have said and Carson's "Maligned King" bears this out in much greater detail. Whether he was the Human Shredder or whether it was Robert Morton, the objective sources have not survived and we don't even know where Edward of Middleham lays. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:13 PM Subject: Réf.: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Carol,
I am sorry if I implied that you had dismissed Vergil. You clearly had not. I was trying to reply to two posts that had made similar point at the same time. The one that was dismissive was Stephen's one liner.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
Le sam. 28 sept. 2013 23:58 UTC+01:00, justcarol67@... a écrit :

>
>
>Stephen wrote: I disagree [with Durose David]. JA-H has accessed sources from well
>before 1502. Vergil, like others, was paid by "Tudor" to write propaganda
>much later and should be judged on that basis. He is also possibly the "Human
>Shredder" who destroyed documents that subsequent real historians cannot
>read. <snip> Carol responds: I suspect that the "human shredder" was Bishop Morton's nephew Robert, as suggested by Audrey Williamson, though admittedly there's no evidence to support the charge (other than the gaps in the record, especially the records of Richard's council meetings) except that Robert's position as Master of the Rolls would have given him access to whatever documents were available. If he destroyed them, it must have been on Henry's orders as he certainly would not have dared to destroy documents without permission. I agree with the rest of your post, which I snipped. In any case, I doubt that Vergil had access to original records that are now missing, as Durose David suggested. Vergil himself complained about the absence of documents for the period (though much has come to light since that he was unaware of, including the documents unearthed by J A-H. Certainly, we can't blame Vergil for being unaware of the contents of Titulus
Regius, which Henry Tudor had ordered all copies burned unread. The result for Vergil is an absolute ignorance of Eleanor Butler and the real nature of Richard's claim to the throne. He does seem to have had access to the wardrobe accounts, which he apparently used to time the "murder" of the "princes" to coincide with Sir James Tyrrell's ride to London relating to Edward of Middleham's investiture as Prince of Wales. As for the dates of his Anglica Historia, he began writing not when he first arrived in England in 1502 as David mentioned but in 1512-13, by which time Henry VII (his main source for events relating to Bosworth and Buckingham's Rebellion) was already dead--as were John de la Pole, Perkin Warbeck, Edward of Warwick, and, but April 1513, Edmund de la Pole. The crown was safely in Tudor hands and few would have dared to present Richard's perspective. Even William Stanley, to whom Henry owed his life and crown, had been executed for
supporting a Yorkist pretender (as had Sir James Tyrrell, associated with Richard and perhaps the rescuer rather than the murderer of the "Princes"). Would anyone--say Thomas Howard, finally restored to his father's titles after loyally serving the crown of England, regardless of the head it sat on, for all those years? Richard's perspective is nowhere in evidence in Vergil's work. He operates on the assumption that Richard was a wicked man, both a ururper and a murderer, and his interpretation of events, even where he knows the facts and is not relying on rumor, reflects that assumption. So, David, Vergil undoubtedly did his best, but he was handicapped by lack of materials, biased sources, and his own assumptions, having arrived in England at a time when Henry Tudor had been king--and Richard had been dead--for seventeen years and beginning his work still later. For all these reasons, his work should be treated with caution. Primary sources--that is,
original documents such as legislation, letters, and expense accounts--disprove many of his conclusions about a man he never had the chance to meet. Had he come to Richard's court rather than Henry's in 1502, assuming that Richard had won Bosworth and survived to the age of fifty, we would have had a very different history and a very different view of Richard, in part because Vergil would have had no altered Rous Roll and perhaps a very different Historia Regum Angliae (or none at all) to use as a source for Richard's (supposed) appearance and character (two years in his mother's womb and all). Yahoo may be messing with my formatting. On that point, I agree with you, DD! Carol
>

Stephen sorry to stick my nose in but Thomas Penn is very good on Vergil. He reckons that he was brought to Henry's attention by Richard Fox (who had of course met Henry in Paris) and that Fox's view of the happenings of 1483/5 coloured Vergil's later accounts. Also he says that Vergil had a great dislike for the Geoffrey of Monmouth/Arthurian influences on British history. That of course would have clashed with Richard's beliefs, if we are to believe the substance of his readings. Even Annette is not that harsh on Vergil; only certain information was available, or permissable to quote (that is if you could find it). He had after all come from Italy where the corruption of the Borgias was well known. In fact Vergil gives a very harsh account of the dealings of Empson and Dudley. As Penn is not writing about Richard at all (and is very objective on Henry) I think his views on Vergil (and indeed on the politics around More and Erasmus as well) are very worth taking into account. Regards H. From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 29 September 2013, 16:07
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
ÿ What I said is that Polydore Vergil was a paid liar who didn't have a clue what had happened in England before 1502. He wasn't even Henry VII's paid liar but Henry VIII's. I hold by what I have said and Carson's "Maligned King" bears this out in much greater detail. Whether he was the Human Shredder or whether it was Robert Morton, the objective sources have not survived and we don't even know where Edward of Middleham lays. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:13 PM Subject: Réf.: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Carol,
I am sorry if I implied that you had dismissed Vergil. You clearly had not. I was trying to reply to two posts that had made similar point at the same time. The one that was dismissive was Stephen's one liner.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
Le sam. 28 sept. 2013 23:58 UTC+01:00, justcarol67@... a écrit :

>
>
>Stephen wrote: I disagree [with Durose David]. JA-H has accessed sources from well
>before 1502. Vergil, like others, was paid by "Tudor" to write propaganda
>much later and should be judged on that basis. He is also possibly the "Human
>Shredder" who destroyed documents that subsequent real historians cannot
>read. <snip> Carol responds: I suspect that the "human shredder" was Bishop Morton's nephew Robert, as suggested by Audrey Williamson, though admittedly there's no evidence to support the charge (other than the gaps in the record, especially the records of Richard's council meetings) except that Robert's position as Master of the Rolls would have given him access to whatever documents were available. If he destroyed them, it must have been on Henry's orders as he certainly would not have dared to destroy documents without permission. I agree with the rest of your post, which I snipped. In any case, I doubt that Vergil had access to original records that are now missing, as Durose David suggested. Vergil himself complained about the absence of documents for the period (though much has come to light since that he was unaware of, including the documents unearthed by J A-H. Certainly, we can't blame Vergil for being unaware of the contents of Titulus
Regius, which Henry Tudor had ordered all copies burned unread. The result for Vergil is an absolute ignorance of Eleanor Butler and the real nature of Richard's claim to the throne. He does seem to have had access to the wardrobe accounts, which he apparently used to time the "murder" of the "princes" to coincide with Sir James Tyrrell's ride to London relating to Edward of Middleham's investiture as Prince of Wales. As for the dates of his Anglica Historia, he began writing not when he first arrived in England in 1502 as David mentioned but in 1512-13, by which time Henry VII (his main source for events relating to Bosworth and Buckingham's Rebellion) was already dead--as were John de la Pole, Perkin Warbeck, Edward of Warwick, and, but April 1513, Edmund de la Pole. The crown was safely in Tudor hands and few would have dared to present Richard's perspective. Even William Stanley, to whom Henry owed his life and crown, had been executed for
supporting a Yorkist pretender (as had Sir James Tyrrell, associated with Richard and perhaps the rescuer rather than the murderer of the "Princes"). Would anyone--say Thomas Howard, finally restored to his father's titles after loyally serving the crown of England, regardless of the head it sat on, for all those years? Richard's perspective is nowhere in evidence in Vergil's work. He operates on the assumption that Richard was a wicked man, both a ururper and a murderer, and his interpretation of events, even where he knows the facts and is not relying on rumor, reflects that assumption. So, David, Vergil undoubtedly did his best, but he was handicapped by lack of materials, biased sources, and his own assumptions, having arrived in England at a time when Henry Tudor had been king--and Richard had been dead--for seventeen years and beginning his work still later. For all these reasons, his work should be treated with caution. Primary sources--that is,
original documents such as legislation, letters, and expense accounts--disprove many of his conclusions about a man he never had the chance to meet. Had he come to Richard's court rather than Henry's in 1502, assuming that Richard had won Bosworth and survived to the age of fifty, we would have had a very different history and a very different view of Richard, in part because Vergil would have had no altered Rous Roll and perhaps a very different Historia Regum Angliae (or none at all) to use as a source for Richard's (supposed) appearance and character (two years in his mother's womb and all). Yahoo may be messing with my formatting. On that point, I agree with you, DD! Carol
>

David wrote:

"The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry."

Marie replies:

Forgive me as I've now got Skidmore's book but haven't had time to read it. On what evidence do you say that the Beaufort/Wydeville conspiracy was "definitely" in favour of Henry and his marriage to Elizabeth? It seems to me it would be a very odd type of mother who so easily presumed her missing children to be dead.

David wrote:

"Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husband's friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IV's young servants, who swore to uphold the ladies' plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry."

Marie replies:

Indeed. But this to me suggests a conspiracy in favour of Edward V.

David wrote:

" Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered."

Marie replies:

But this tells us only that people in Brittany were to be involved; Vergil has of course retrospectively represented the whole thing as a first attempt to place Henry Tudor on the throne. The Breton exiles, however, included not only Henry Tudor but also Sir Edward Woodville and his followers. I suspect Hugh Conway may have been a supporter of Buckingham more than of Tudor, mainly because shortly after the executions of Warwick and Warbeck, whilst Henry VII was lying sick at Wanstead, he allegedly attempted to persuade certain individuals that Henry was about to die and they should think of putting the young duke of Buckingham on the throne when the time came.

I await with interest Vergil's original MS relating to Richard's reign, of which Chris Skidmore obtained a copy from the Vatican Archives and which the Society is about to have transcribed and translated. Chris obviously used it for his book and I understand that it differs in many respects from the published versions. I for one will be interested to see whether it misdates Buckingham's Rebellion to 1484 like the published versions. That misdating, of course, gave time for the protagonists to assure themselves of Edward V's death, a luxury that still seems to me to be lacking from the actual timeframe of events.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edward's sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stow's account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Morton's captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckingham's letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husband's friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IV's young servants, who swore to uphold the ladies' plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis II's permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

Stephen, I totally agree that we cannot regard henry's promises (for which I don't know the evidence) as evidence of EW's connivance. If Elizabeth Woodville and her daughter had really agreed to the Tudor marriage, and it was for a purpose as important as placing Elizabeth and Henry on the throne (which it may not have been), then might we not expect a solemn betrothal with Elizabeth being represented by a proxy? Instead all we get are one-sided promises.

The depositions to the papal legate in January 1486 suggest that Margaret Beaufort had been angling since before Edward IV's death for a marriage between her son and Elizabeth of York, but those depositions make no reference whatsoever to any negotiations on the subject having been conducted between MB and Elizabeth Woodville. Why the silence? Did MB actually not try for such an agreement as part of the joint conspiracy? Or did EW totally reject the offer?

My point is that Skidmore, despite all his research, seems to have relied very heavily on Vergil - he put in a plea at the Leicester conference that, now it had been proved Richard had a crooked spine, we should trust the Tudor writers after all. I don't take that view: we really have to tease apart the contemporary sources and where they do not confirm the Tudor accounts we should be asking searching questions.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

ÿ I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

I think there were at least two early conspiracies. The one referred to by Stowe involved some Tower staff and was an attempt to spring the boys from the Tower with the aid of a small distraction in the form of a fire deliberately started by the conspirators in the surrounding suburbs. This may be the conspiracy referred to by the French chronicler Basin, and it seems to have occurred before the beginning of August. Welles' rebellion at Maxey in mid August was therefore a different thing.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi David. I'm always loath to go on about something when I seem to be out on a limb, but I understood that John Welles was arrested on 13th August 1483 for plotting and rebellion, and that the plot in question was the attempt to rescue' the boys from the Tower. Maybe you are right, and it was at Maxey. He was then attainted and had his lands confiscated, and was set free. Another example of Richard erring on the side of leniency, because Welles promptly took himself off to join Buckingham, after which he fled to Henry. Finally, of course, he was with Henry at Bosworth. Now, I'm not sure how all this works in with whom he supported or why, just that he was up to his neck in it all, was Margaret Beaufort much loved half-brother and Henry's half-uncle. I cannot believe he was ever intent upon anything but promoting Henry's cause. Why he would apparently support Buckingham does not, of course, fit in with my theory, because I do not think Buckingham was acting for anyone but Buckingham. Unless Welles too believed Buckingham was acting for Henry? And maybe I'm wrong about Buckingham, and he was supporting Henry all along. But to be truthful, I think pigs would have flown around Gloucester Cathedral before that happened. I feel that Welles' activities and whereabouts, and with whom, indicate his support for Henry from the outset, i.e. from the moment Richard ascended to the throne.There was a chance to do away with the boys and burden Richard with the blame, and so Welles (Margaret and whoever else) took that chance. It failed, but might easily have succeeded. They might even have been able to produce the boys' bodies, with neon arrows pointing to poor old Uncle Richard. Elizabeth Woodville allowed her daughters to leave sanctuary because the failure of the plot to get at the boys had not succeeded and Richard was still able to prove to her that her sons were alive. What would have happened if the plot HAD succeeded---you will be glad to know---has not yet come under my amateur scrutiny. Except perhaps that the production of the boys' bodies would have resulted in national outrage and a huge rebellion that might have unseated Richard well before Bosworth. Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 8:53 PM To: Subject: Re : Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Hi Sandra,
Please but in at any time. I have no amazing new information, but I understand that John Welles was indeed one of the rebels he led a small uprising at Maxey, which was put down and he fled to Henry in Brittany.

Chris Skidmorex27;s new book names 4 persons that were later identified as being subject to indictment and subsequent execution. None of whom was John Welles (obviously). However, since a french chronicler Basin estimated the numbers at around 50, that does not preclude Wellesx27; involvement. I am not sure that Henry was the centre of any movement at that time. As the rumours of the boysx27; fate had not yet circulated.


Regards
David

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2013 7:07:01 PM

I'm not very clever with the rights and wrongs of these points, and know I am butting in, but I understand that the rescue' was led by or certainly involved, John Welles, Henry's half-uncle. Would this be an indication of it being in Henry's cause? If so, it surely must mean that it was a fake, intended to eliminate the princes and have Richard blamed, not to save them from Richard and spirit them away with an intention to one day restoring Edward V to the throne? Although I also understand that at one time Welles was in Edward IV's household, I still feel he would be more likely to support his half-nephew than the questionably legitimate sons of the former king. Nor would he wish to help restore the Woodvilles to power. Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

ÿ

I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

David wrote:

"A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth."

Marie replies:

Does this come from Vergil? The problem is that there is no corroborating evidence, and at the time in question Elizabeth of York was promised to the Dauphin. I would be very sorry if it turns out that Skidmore's much-vaunted book is nothing more than a rehash of Vergil without any discussion of the discrepancies between V's account and what is actually known to have been happening at the dates in question. But I shall read it and see.

---In , <> wrote:

Hello Stephen,

I think you may be confusing the ceremony that I am referring to at Vannes, with the later one - thought to be at Rennes - at which Henry swore to marry Elizabeth, in order to cement the support of the 500 or so exiles there with him, since most of them were loyal to Edward IV's family. This later one happened after the failure of the rebellion. This one occurred before Francis provided support. I am sorry I said it happened in front of Anne - I should have said the Duchess and her chaplain Arthur Jacques.

At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.

I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didn't happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.

A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth.

I do not find the reconciliation of Elizabeth Wydeville with Richard surprising. Let me do what John Ashdown-Hill tries to do in The Last Days... and make no assumption that Bosworth is in the future. At the later date, Richard was on the throne and there was no obvious prospect of a change of régime. It was simply a matter of adapting to the circumstances as they existed in the best way for her and her family. At that later date Henry's prospects were pretty low.

It is certainly impossible to infer from the reconciliation that the boys must be alive - it is an instance of a false dichotomy. There are a number of more probable inferences that can be drawn.

The purpose of my argument was to show that the organized rebellion in the south of England was in favour of Henry. Admittedly, some of the smaller sponaneous risings may have had other motives.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
Sent: Sun, Sep 22, 2013 6:04:30 PM

ÿ

I have some reservations about the reliability of your conclusions: Whilst we all know that Henry "Tudor" promised to marry Elizabeth, we cannot know that this was with her or her mother's approval. We do know that he made other plans at various stages. We also know that EW and Richard were reconciled in 1484/5, which would surely only have been possible if her sons were alive, in relative safety somewhere. Her brothers had been involved but one sought to return later. The 6 July "rescue" was a probable fake, as Carson's cogent analysis of the sources concludes. It was aimed at eliminating the ex-Princes, after which they must have been moved. Staffords, of whom I have experience, just do not rebel for other people and you have adduced no evidence that this one did. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth

Doug,

I promised to respond to the points that you made concerning whom the risings of 1483 were suporting when I got back to my books.

Firstly, although not directly concerned with the question, you state as fact that the "rescue attempt" of 6th July was a fake and was actually aimed at eliminating Edwardx27;s sons. I would like to know on what basis this can be stated. All the books I have say that there is very little information about it, beyond the fact that there was a small number of executions after the attempt. The names offered in Stowx27;s account of the 4 men executed are loyal household servants of Edward IV - more likely to be genuine rescuers.

There seems to have been a number of small risings in a very confused period. However, I think there were two conspiracies of substance as you suggest, although neither was aimed at the restoration of Edward V, since by that time all those concerned in conspiracy seem to be convinced that the boys were dead.

1 The Buckingham / Morton conspiracy resulting from Mortonx27;s captivity with Buckingham after the famous council meeting. It is impossible to say that this was in favour of Henry even after the conspiracies had merged, because Buckinghamx27;s letter to him in Brittany was very ambiguous.

2 The Beaufort / Wydeville conspiracy, formed via secret messengers to Elizabeth in sanctuary, was definitely in favour of Henry and his marriage with Elizabeth. The fact that Elizabeth W was involved, indicates that she must have thought her son was dead, to consider a conspiracy in favour of Henry.

Elizabeth W promised to encourage her and her husbandx27;s friends and servants to join the conspiracy and Margaret Beaufort used Bray to contact Edward IVx27;s young servants, who swore to uphold the ladiesx27; plans - Daubeney, Richard Guildford, Thomas Rameney and John Cheyne would become leaders of the rebellion of the southern gentry.

She then advised Henry of the plans made with EW. Hugh Conway was sent to Brittany with money and messages and Richard Guildford and Thomas Rameney went to Brittany by other routes to ensure the message was delivered.

After receiving the Messages, Henry needed Francis IIx27;s permission and support in staging his expedition. There was an oath swearing ceremony in Vannes cathedral in the presence of Anne of Brittany to seal the agreement.

So with the previous involvement of its leaders and the oath swearing at Vannes, I feel pretty confident in stating that the rebellion of the southern gentry and the support of Francis of Brittany was definitely aimed at supporting Henry in the belief that Edward V was dead.

Kind regards

David

I'm sorry, David, but Vergil is by no means always accurate and clearly knew the limits when dealing with very recent history. I could cite you several examples where his source seems to be identifiable but Vergil has changed the details in significant ways to suit the Tudor purpose - in some cases the changes are very radical. So Vergil must be treated with extreme caution. I know a ready-made story is tempting, but there really is no way to find out what was really going on other than by trawling through archives.

Also, the reconciliation between RIII and EW took place in March 1484, only 4 months after the end of the rebellion, and there is no evidence from any primary source (I don't count chronicles, still less later histories, as primary sources) of any agreement between EW and MB regarding a marriage between HT and EoY; not a passing reference even in the depositions to the papal legate for the second dispensation for the marriage in Jan 1487.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Stephen and Carol
I think it is a little presumptuous to dismiss Vergil out of hand, simply because he only arrived in the country in 1502. When did (say) John Ashdown-Hill arrive?

Vergil was one of the great scholars of his time, had access to some of the people who were involved in the events and presumably had some original documents that have not survived.

Also, while writing in a Tudor period, he proved himself to be resistant to pressure regarding his writing. He was tasked with examining Geoffrey of Monmouth and establishing the Tudor descent from King Arthur. He came out with the view that Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings were unreliable and even transcribed Gildas to establish that King Arthur was a mythic figure.

I agree that the "marriage" of Henry to Elizabeth of York was purely a sham to enable Edward to get his hands on Henry. So Richmond was very right to suspect a trick and escape to Saint Malo cathedral in 1476. This incident may have contributed to Stillington's bad reputation as reflected by Commynes - this bad bishop.

The actions of Elizabeth Wydeville in the so-called reconciliation can not be used to infer her beliefs in 1483, because the reconciliation, if it can be described as such, happened about a year and a half after the failure of the rebellion at which time there appeared to be no prospect of a change of regime.

It was also suggested that HT was an unimportant figure. While it is true domestically he was unknown, powerless and penniless. His importance was in foreign policy. He was a pawn that could be played by Brittany - threatening to allow them to go to France where they could be used by Louis. Now it is interesting that a promise that France would not invade Brittany was extracted from Louis at Picquigny, so that, when Edward's embassy attempted to obtain Henry in the following year, they could expect Francis II to be grateful and point out that Brittany was not in danger. This shows that Edward was playing a strategic game of chess aimed at getting his hands on Henry.

Kind regards
David
Still struggling with the new Yahoo format


------------------------------
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 17:59 BST Stephen Lark wrote:

>I think that's it - the same Vergil who came to England in 1502 is a very unreliable source.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 5:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: Re: Combatants at Bosworth
>
>
>
>
> Durose David wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> " At the stage to which I am referring, Elizabeth Wydeville was still in sanctuary and passing messages via intermediaries - I would be unlikely if there were written confirmation of her consent.
>
> "I know of no other plans of Henry to marry, other than to Cecily if Elizabeth should die. William Herbert had planned to marry him to his daughter Maud while he was a small boy in his custody. But this didn't happen and I think she went on to marry someone else.
>
> A marriage with Elizabeth of York had been proposed in 1476 as part of a plan to get Henry back to England. Henry was actually packed off to Saint Malo on his way home, but Henry was dubious of Edward's intentions and Jean du Quelennec persuaded Francis to change his mind. Henry slipped into sanctuary in a church and was saved by the abuse of sanctuary by Edward's men. They tried to take him by force and the townspeople rose up against them. The leader of the English delegation was Robert Stillington. This may have some bearing on his treatment after Bosworth."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> First, pardon my formatting if there are any glitches. Yahoo hates me and vice versa.
>
> William Herbert was, of course, a staunch Yorkist and a supporter of Edward IV killed by Warwick and George of Clarence in an attempt to strip Edward of key supporters and favorites. The idea of such a marriage would have been to cement Henry Tudor's *Yorkist* loyalties. Unfortunately, the murder of Herbert made that impossible. Imagine how different history would have been had that child marriage succeeded and Herbert lived!
>
> Second, it seems to me that you or your source is/are relying very heavily on Vergil's interpretation of events, as I meant to say in an earlier post. We don't really know what was going on in terms of communication between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for example. Vergil assumes, based on hindsight, that it related to a marriage that would make Elizabeth of York queen if Henry became king, but, surely, while EW knew or believed her sons to be alive, she would have had no such thought or intention. (Whether she briefly believed the rumors, we don't know, but I agree with those who say that she would never have given her daughters into Richard's custody or asked her other son, Dorset, to come home and come to terms with Richard, if she believed that he had killed Edward and Richard.
>
> I'm not certain (though Marie will probably know), but I don't think that Edward IV ever really considered or even pretended to consider a marriage between Tudor or any of his daughters to lure Tudor home. Tudor wasn't that important, and I doubt that anyone (except maybe Uncle Jasper and Margaret Beaufort) even thought of him as a potential pretender until much later (after Buckingham's Rebellion). That idea appears to stem from the second dispensation for EoY's and Tudor's marriage, in which people *unrelated to EoY* testified something that suggested that Edward IV and Margaret Beaufort had once discussed their relationship to one another as if, maybe, they might have been considering a marriage between their respective children. It was all to get over the abduction impediment (EoY being kept against her will by MB before the marriage). I'm doing a bad job of explaining all this because I'm simply remembering recent posts by Marie on the topic.
>
> Sorry I can't post in more detail. I need to read Skidmore to counter him more effectively. He appears to be relying quite heavily on Vergil, who, of course, was writing from hindsight and from a Tudor perspective. One thing he says is very telling, however--when Margaret Beaufort "after the slaughter of king Edwardes children was knowen [i.e.,. after the rumor of their deaths was spread], began to hope well of hir soones fortune, supposing that that dede wold withowt dowt proove for the profyt of the commonwelth." If true, her rejoicing at the (supposed) deaths of two boys says volumes about MB and her ambitions for her son.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>