Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

Another chart

2013-09-02 18:16:29

A J Hibbard

With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
chart --

https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
.

It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear them.

A J

Re: Another chart

2013-09-02 18:40:30

SandraMachin

AJ, in the RIII Post rebellion column, except for Cornwall (30th December 1483 ) and Norfolk (6th December 1483) all the rest are uniformly 5th December. Why would that be? Chance? The other columns appear to be much more assorted.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: A J Hibbard
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 6:16 PM
To:
Subject: Another chart

With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
chart --

https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
.

It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear them.

A J

Re: Another chart

2013-09-02 19:55:19

Jan Mulrenan

Thank you indeed for your hard work on this database!
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 2 Sep 2013, at 18:16, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
> chart --
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
> .
>
> It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
> interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
> everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
> comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear them.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>

Re: Another chart

2013-09-02 20:15:25

A J Hibbard

I don't know, do you have any ideas? June 26 is the date Richard took as
the start of his reign, & December 5, is suppose, is a date sometime after
the dust settled from the October plots, & was a date when, according to
Edwards' Itinerary, Richard was back in London/Westminster.

I suppose it's always possible that there was some totally trivial reason,
like clerical oversight. Or someone somewhere misread the dates? Since I
don't expect to ever see the originals, I have to trust the published
version. (And if I forgot to say this information comes from the Calendar
of the Patent Rolls, 1467-1477, published in 1900, 1476-1485, published in
1901, & 1485-1494 vol. one, published in 1914). I suspect that some of the
variant name spellings (on top of geniunely different spellings by the
various scribes) arise from difficulties in being sure exactly what the
scribe wrote.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> AJ, in the RIII Post rebellion column, except for Cornwall (30th December
> 1483 ) and Norfolk (6th December 1483) all the rest are uniformly 5th
> December. Why would that be? Chance? The other columns appear to be much
> more assorted.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: A J Hibbard
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 6:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: Another chart
>
>
> With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
> chart --
>
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
> .
>
> It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
> interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
> everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
> comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear them.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Another chart

2013-09-02 20:49:05

SandraMachin

Well, if I had to give a 'sensible' answer, it might be that they were all
supposed to be have done together, but then someone noticed that Norfolk was
an oversight and it was put right within a day. Then, a week or so later
someone realised that Cornwall had slipped through as well. That's a mundane
explanation, of course, but in the absence of anything more interesting and
worthy of digging into, it's all I can offer. But it does intrigue me,
simply because (to me) that column is out of kilter with the others. So it's
back to chance, I guess.

Sandra
=^..^=

-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 8:15 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Another chart

I don't know, do you have any ideas? June 26 is the date Richard took as
the start of his reign, & December 5, is suppose, is a date sometime after
the dust settled from the October plots, & was a date when, according to
Edwards' Itinerary, Richard was back in London/Westminster.

I suppose it's always possible that there was some totally trivial reason,
like clerical oversight. Or someone somewhere misread the dates? Since I
don't expect to ever see the originals, I have to trust the published
version. (And if I forgot to say this information comes from the Calendar
of the Patent Rolls, 1467-1477, published in 1900, 1476-1485, published in
1901, & 1485-1494 vol. one, published in 1914). I suspect that some of the
variant name spellings (on top of geniunely different spellings by the
various scribes) arise from difficulties in being sure exactly what the
scribe wrote.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> AJ, in the RIII Post rebellion column, except for Cornwall (30th December
> 1483 ) and Norfolk (6th December 1483) all the rest are uniformly 5th
> December. Why would that be? Chance? The other columns appear to be much
> more assorted.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: A J Hibbard
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 6:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: Another chart
>
>
> With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
> chart --
>
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
> .
>
> It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
> interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
> everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
> comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear
> them.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 02:43:32

maroonnavywhite

Seconding Jan's thanks!

Tamara

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you indeed for your hard work on this database!
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 2 Sep 2013, at 18:16, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
> > chart --
> >
> > https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
> > .
> >
> > It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
> > interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
> > everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
> > comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear them.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 10:28:24

liz williams

No inspiration I'm afraid but wanted to say that must have taken ages, thank you

Liz

From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 2 September 2013, 18:16
Subject: Another chart

With the idea that one visual is worth 1000 words, I put together another
chart --

https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/commissions-of-the-peace
.

It does, I believe, illustrate a pattern, whose exceptions may be very
interesting. Perhaps Rosemary Horrox has already explained it to
everyone's satisfaction, but at any rate, if you do take a look & have any
comments (hopefully, flashes of inspiration) I'd be delighted to hear them.

A J

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 21:00:50

Durose David

If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to Richard, it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels / potential trouble makers were in exile in Brittany.

David

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 21:03:47

Durose David

If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to Richard, it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels / potential trouble makers were in exile in Brittany.

David

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 21:33:56

A J Hibbard

I'm not making any statement as to for what the commissions might be proxy.
That, in fact, is what I'm curious about; I suspect some changes are
trivial, others might be telling us something interesting or even
important.

As I mentioned before, there's also (to me anyway) a remarkable amount of
continuity from list to list, regardless of the monarch.

A J

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to
> Richard, it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels /
> potential trouble makers were in exile in Brittany.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 22:04:24

Jan Mulrenan

A J, just a thought. Would Lionel Woodville be part of the Council? He was Chancellor of the University of Oxford 1479-1483 & made Bishop of Salisbury in 1482, dying in June 1484. According to the ODNB he was in sanctuary in June 1483 & must have come to some agreement as he was named to the commission of the peace in Dorset & Wiltshire after R3's accession. He was at Thornbury on 22nd Sept 1483, Buckingham's manor & became involved in the October Rebellion. He took sanctuary at Beaulieu. There is no evidence that he fled to join HT, says John A F Thomson who wrote the article. LW was then attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st Dec because Salisbury's dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor. So if he was on the Council his attendance might have been rather patchy.
Sorry if this is just a red herring.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Sep 2013, at 21:33, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> I'm not making any statement as to for what the commissions might be proxy.
> That, in fact, is what I'm curious about; I suspect some changes are
> trivial, others might be telling us something interesting or even
> important.
>
> As I mentioned before, there's also (to me anyway) a remarkable amount of
> continuity from list to list, regardless of the monarch.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to
>> Richard, it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels /
>> potential trouble makers were in exile in Brittany.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: Another chart

2013-09-03 22:50:06

A J Hibbard

Good question & I don't know. The items from the ODNB do fit in with the
list of Lionel's activities I have from the commissions of the peace.

3 Oct 1480, Town of Oxford (20 Edward IV.) [Lionel Widville, chancellor of
the University of Oxford.]
13 Feb 1483, Berkshire (22 Edward IV.) [L bp. of Salisbury]
3 Mar 1483, Dorsetshire (22 Edward IV.) [L bp. of Salisbury
]

26 Jun 1483, Dorsetshire (1 Richard III.) [L bp. of Salisbury]
20 Jul 1483, Wiltshire (1 Richard III.) [L bp. of Salisbury]
Jan 1484 - attainted for his part in Buckingham rebellion (18 Oct 1483)

17 Nov 1485 (1 Henry VII.) - attainder reversed
[
Lionel, then bp of the cathedral church of Salisbury
]

Honestly there's so much material, & I'm not even sure where in official
records, there might be such a list. Someone should do a reference guide
about where to look depending on what kind of record you'd like to find!

A J

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> A J, just a thought. Would Lionel Woodville be part of the Council? He was
> Chancellor of the University of Oxford 1479-1483 & made Bishop of Salisbury
> in 1482, dying in June 1484. According to the ODNB he was in sanctuary in
> June 1483 & must have come to some agreement as he was named to the
> commission of the peace in Dorset & Wiltshire after R3's accession. He was
> at Thornbury on 22nd Sept 1483, Buckingham's manor & became involved in the
> October Rebellion. He took sanctuary at Beaulieu. There is no evidence that
> he fled to join HT, says John A F Thomson who wrote the article. LW was
> then attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st Dec because
> Salisbury's dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor. So if
> he was on the Council his attendance might have been rather patchy.
> Sorry if this is just a red herring.
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 3 Sep 2013, at 21:33, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm not making any statement as to for what the commissions might be
> proxy.
> > That, in fact, is what I'm curious about; I suspect some changes are
> > trivial, others might be telling us something interesting or even
> > important.
> >
> > As I mentioned before, there's also (to me anyway) a remarkable amount of
> > continuity from list to list, regardless of the monarch.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...
> >wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to
> >> Richard, it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels /
> >> potential trouble makers were in exile in Brittany.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: Another chart

2013-09-04 17:02:36

Douglas Eugene Stamate

Jan Mulrenan wrote:

"A J, just a thought. Would Lionel Woodville be part of the Council? He was
Chancellor of the University of Oxford 1479-1483 & made Bishop of Salisbury
in 1482, dying in June 1484. According to the ODNB he was in sanctuary in
June 1483 & must have come to some agreement as he was named to the
commission of the peace in Dorset & Wiltshire after R3's accession. He was
at Thornbury on 22nd Sept 1483, Buckingham's manor & became involved in the
October Rebellion. He took sanctuary at Beaulieu. There is no evidence that
he fled to join HT, says John A F Thomson who wrote the article. LW was then
attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st Dec because Salisbury's
dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor. So if he was on
the Council his attendance might have been rather patchy.
Sorry if this is just a red herring."

Doug here:
Was "dying in June 1484" a typo, because further down you posted "LW was
then attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st December because
Salisbury's dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor."
FWIW, it "looks" as if some of those appointed to Commissions under Richard
got those appointments solely because of their prominence. Their later
actions then determined whether or not they retained a position on the
Commissions.
A bureaucratic form of "innocent until poven guilty", perhaps?
Doug

Re: Another chart

2013-09-04 17:18:01

Jan Mulrenan

I think that should be 1st Dec 1484. I'll have another look at ODNB because I may have copied the error from it.I'll be back.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 4 Sep 2013, at 18:02, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

Re: Another chart

2013-09-04 18:08:07

J MULRENAN

Not a typo but my reading Wikipedia first & then going to ODNB for better information. Forget the June 1484 date of death as that's Wikipedia.
Small quote from ODNB: "he was still alive on 22 July, but must have died by 1 December, when licence was granted to the dean and chapter of Salisbury to elect a successor. A late seventeenth-century manuscript from Salisbury states that he was buried at Beaulieu."Thanks for pulling me up on that.Jan.

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 18:02
Subject: Re: Re: Another chart

Jan Mulrenan wrote:

"A J, just a thought. Would Lionel Woodville be part of the Council? He was
Chancellor of the University of Oxford 1479-1483 & made Bishop of Salisbury
in 1482, dying in June 1484. According to the ODNB he was in sanctuary in
June 1483 & must have come to some agreement as he was named to the
commission of the peace in Dorset & Wiltshire after R3's accession. He was
at Thornbury on 22nd Sept 1483, Buckingham's manor & became involved in the
October Rebellion. He took sanctuary at Beaulieu. There is no evidence that
he fled to join HT, says John A F Thomson who wrote the article. LW was then
attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st Dec because Salisbury's
dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor. So if he was on
the Council his attendance might have been rather patchy.
Sorry if this is just a red herring."

Doug here:
Was "dying in June 1484" a typo, because further down you posted "LW was
then attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st December because
Salisbury's dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor."
FWIW, it "looks" as if some of those appointed to Commissions under Richard
got those appointments solely because of their prominence. Their later
actions then determined whether or not they retained a position on the
Commissions.
A bureaucratic form of "innocent until poven guilty", perhaps?
Doug

Re: Another chart

2013-09-04 19:35:46

mariewalsh2003

I have these notes on Lionel Woodville:-

26 June 1483 He was dropped from the commission of the peace for Berkshire (CPR pp. 553-4).

20 July 1483 He was appointed for the first time to the commission of the peace for Wiltshire (CPR p. 577).

Note. Bishop Beauchamp of Salisbury had also been a JP for Wiltshire. Lionel remained a member of this commission until 5th December 1483 .

24 July 1483 As Chancellor of the University, Bishop Woodville welcomed Richard III and his entourage into Oxford (A Register of the Members of St Mary Magdalen College Oxford, WD Macray, 1894, Vol 1, Fellows to the Year 1520, p.12.)

22 September 1483 He was at Buckingham's chief seat of Thornbury in Gloucestershire (Gill).

23 October 1483 A proclamation was issued giving a list of rebels, headed by his nephew Dorset, who have assembled the people by the comfort of the great rebel the late duke of Bukyngham and bishops of Ely and Salisbury , and offering rewards for their capture (CPR p. 371).

15 March 1484 Grant to Thomas, bishop of St Davids, of the temporalities of the bishopric of Salisbury with advowsons pertaining to it, forfeited by Lionel, bishop of Salisbury , for his rebellion, so long as they remain in the king's hand. [Foedera.] By K. (CPR p. 387)

1484 He attempted to exercise his jurisdiction over his diocese from Beaulieu sanctuary (Bishop John Morton, the Holy See, and the Accession of Henry VII , CSL Davies, EHR CII, 1987, p.11).

19 December 1484 Licence for the locumtenens and chapter of the cathedral church of Salisbury to elect a bishop in the place of Lionel Widevyle, deceased. (CPR p. 488)

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Jan Mulrenan wrote:

"A J, just a thought. Would Lionel Woodville be part of the Council? He was
Chancellor of the University of Oxford 1479-1483 & made Bishop of Salisbury
in 1482, dying in June 1484. According to the ODNB he was in sanctuary in
June 1483 & must have come to some agreement as he was named to the
commission of the peace in Dorset & Wiltshire after R3's accession. He was
at Thornbury on 22nd Sept 1483, Buckingham's manor & became involved in the
October Rebellion. He took sanctuary at Beaulieu. There is no evidence that
he fled to join HT, says John A F Thomson who wrote the article. LW was then
attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st Dec because Salisbury's
dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor. So if he was on
the Council his attendance might have been rather patchy.
Sorry if this is just a red herring."

Doug here:
Was "dying in June 1484" a typo, because further down you posted "LW was
then attainted & was alive on 22nd July but dead by 1st December because
Salisbury's dean & chapter got a licence then to elect his successor."
FWIW, it "looks" as if some of those appointed to Commissions under Richard
got those appointments solely because of their prominence. Their later
actions then determined whether or not they retained a position on the
Commissions.
A bureaucratic form of "innocent until poven guilty", perhaps?
Doug

Re: Another chart

2013-09-04 19:41:27

A J Hibbard

Thanks Marie.
A J

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I have these notes on Lionel Woodville:-

26 June 1483 He was dropped from the commission of the peace for Berkshire (CPR pp. 553-4).

20 July 1483 He was appointed for the first time to the commission of the peace for Wiltshire (CPR p. 577).

Note. Bishop Beauchamp of Salisbury had also been a JP for Wiltshire. Lionel remained a member of this commission until 5th December 1483 .

22 September 1483 He was at Buckingham's chief seat of Thornbury in Gloucestershire (Gill).

1484 He attempted to exercise his jurisdiction over his diocese from Beaulieu sanctuary (Bishop John Morton, the Holy See, and the Accession of Henry VII , CSL Davies, EHR CII, 1987, p.11).

19 December 1484 Licence for the locumtenens and chapter of the cathedral church of Salisbury to elect a bishop in the place of Lionel Widevyle, deceased. (CPR p. 488)

Marie

Re: Another chart

2013-09-05 15:19:45

Douglas Eugene Stamate

ÿ J MULRENAN wrote:
"Not a typo but my reading Wikipedia first & then going to ODNB for better information. Forget the June 1484 date of death as that's Wikipedia.
Small quote from ODNB: "he was still alive on 22 July, but must have died by 1 December, when licence was granted to the dean and chapter of Salisbury to elect a successor. A late seventeenth-century manuscript from Salisbury states that he was buried at Beaulieu." Thanks for pulling me up on that." Doug here: Not at all! When I compose a post, I often fo "bullets" of what I want to mention and then flesh them out, have then caught one of my first bullets being contradicted by something in one of my later ones and then have had to go back and either change or delete the earlier point. *Usually* I catch them... Although I haven't used it *that* often, Wikipedia is convenient. I'll keep in mind that it's not 100% accurate. Doug

Re: Another chart

2013-09-05 15:44:42

A J Hibbard

Someone on another group actually referred to Wikipedia wars. It will not surprise you to hear it's in reference to 15th century history, where the "editor" keeps going back & removing corrections. So, yes, I guess, treat Wikipedia very carefully, including evaluating possible bias on the part of the author / editor.
A J

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

J MULRENAN wrote:
"Not a typo but my reading Wikipedia first & then going to ODNB for better information. Forget the June 1484 date of death as that's Wikipedia.
Small quote from ODNB: "he was still alive on 22 July, but must have died by 1 December, when licence was granted to the dean and chapter of Salisbury to elect a successor. A late seventeenth-century manuscript from Salisbury states that he was buried at Beaulieu." Thanks for pulling me up on that." Doug here: Not at all! When I compose a post, I often fo "bullets" of what I want to mention and then flesh them out, have then caught one of my first bullets being contradicted by something in one of my later ones and then have had to go back and either change or delete the earlier point. *Usually* I catch them... Although I haven't used it *that* often, Wikipedia is convenient. I'll keep in mind that it's not 100% accurate. Doug

Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 03:57:05

Durose David

If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to Richard, it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels / potential trouble makers were in exile in Brittany.

David

Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 15:33:11

Douglas Eugene Stamate

Durose David wrote:

"If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to Richard,
it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels / potential
trouble makers were in exile in Brittany."

Doug here:
My understanding (thus giving myself a very large loophole), was that the
Commissions were the precursors to the later Justices of the Peace. If
that's so, then appointing Commissioners would be a normal act of governing.
Including people such as Bishop Woodville would also be the norm, coopting
well-known persons to serve as the, likely, titular head of Commissions
where the actual work would be done by those who actually lived in the
locality. It was those latter people who were later to become the JPs.
Which is why we have instances of Buckingham, and Woodville, being appointed
to Commissions all over England, only to be replaced *after* they'd
rebelled.
How many of those who'd fled to Brittany remained there until Tudor returned
with his French mercenaries? If the numbers were dropping, that *might* be a
reason for Tudor's invasion happening when it did - he had to get back to
England before he'd lost even more support.
Doug

Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 18:34:53

A J Hibbard

It's a work in progress, but it looks as if there are various "categories" of individuals named to these commissions with respect to the impact of the October rebellion - some were attainted, while others were dropped from the commissions (some of these reappearing on commissions under HT).
I'm also going (slowly) through the parliament rolls to see what was said about the function of these commissions. There are references in Edward IV's reign to justices of the peace & sessions of the peace, also to gaol delivery sessions. My guess at this point is that what exactly these commissions were & what they did depended on the "definition" in place at the time. And that eventually they were replaced by justices of the peace. But I could be all wet, & would be happy to hear from someone who really knows about this subject.
A J

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 18:44:45

mariewalsh2003

It's just a brief thought. (First to back Doug - these commissions, as I understand it too, remained in place until the next one was appointed, and the commissioners were simply the local Justices of the Peace; they were even described as that in official docs.)

Anyway, I was thinking - nothing to do with Buckingham's Rebellion, but wouldn't Clarence have been on the commissions of the peace in many of these counties? If so, does that mean that he officially remained a member of them until 1483? I suppose what I'm saying is, perhaps the long time lapse between the two sets of commissions, 1477 to 1483, is unusual in its own way because many members must have died during that period and not been replaced. How often were commissions appointed earlier in Edward's reign? Just a thought.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

It's a work in progress, but it looks as if there are various "categories" of individuals named to these commissions with respect to the impact of the October rebellion - some were attainted, while others were dropped from the commissions (some of these reappearing on commissions under HT).
I'm also going (slowly) through the parliament rolls to see what was said about the function of these commissions. Â There are references in Edward IV's reign to justices of the peace & sessions of the peace, also to gaol delivery sessions. Â My guess at this point is that what exactly these commissions were & what they did depended on the "definition" in place at the time. Â And that eventually they were replaced by justices of the peace. Â But I could be all wet, & would be happy to hear from someone who really knows about this subject.
A J

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Â
Durose David wrote:

"If the number of commissions is meant as a proxy for resistance to Richard,
it again needs to be borne in mind that many of the rebels / potential
trouble makers were in exile in Brittany."

Doug here:
My understanding (thus giving myself a very large loophole), was that the
Commissions were the precursors to the later Justices of the Peace. If
that's so, then appointing Commissioners would be a normal act of governing.
Including people such as Bishop Woodville would also be the norm, coopting
well-known persons to serve as the, likely, titular head of Commissions
where the actual work would be done by those who actually lived in the
locality. It was those latter people who were later to become the JPs.
Which is why we have instances of Buckingham, and Woodville, being appointed
to Commissions all over England, only to be replaced *after* they'd
rebelled.
How many of those who'd fled to Brittany remained there until Tudor returned
with his French mercenaries? If the numbers were dropping, that *might* be a
reason for Tudor's invasion happening when it did - he had to get back to
England before he'd lost even more support.
Doug

Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 19:41:03

Durose David

Hi Doug,
I have a few questions to answer - so I will start with the simplest...
I am fairly sure that the numbers with Henry in Vannes were steadily increasing. I know of only one 'backslider' and that was the Marquess of Dorset. He had escaped with others from Exeter (I will find out the names of as many as I can). Between Buckingham's rebellion and Bosworth there was a steady stream of people making their way there. The most important of which was the Earl of Oxford.

Dorset seems to have come to an accommodation with Richard and, because it was just before Henry's leaving the Seine, he was intercepted and encouraged to sit out the campaign in Calais.

The point of my post was that when you look at the list of those who fought for Henry, the names of the southern gentry, such as Edward Courtenay - a descendant of the Earls of Devon - they had not turned up to the battle from Devon, but were forming the core of Henry's army landing in Wales. So they had spent nearly two years in Vannes and then France with Henry.

I believe that this group of 500 are vitally important to understanding what is going on, because their absence gives Richard's reign a false appearance of quiet.

It would be good if the list also had an indicator of which had been in Brittany.

There was obviously some form of bonding occurring in exile, because Henry put absolute faith in those who had been in Brittany - except of course for Dorset.

Regards
David

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Another chart
Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 3:33:22 PM

Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 19:43:44

mariewalsh2003

If you look through the patent rolls you will see the appointment of gaol delivery commissions scattered through, quite separate from commissions of the peace. The commissions of the peace furnished the local JPs, who sat to hear cases every so often. The gaol delivery commissions appointed people to bring prisoners from the gaols for trial. I don't know in detail how the system worked, but there are books on the history of English law and the medieval legal system.

The gaol delivery, oyer and terminer, walls & ditches and other commissions were one-offs: they did their work and then disbanded. The commissions of the peace were, I think, the only ongoing appointments.

Marie

Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 20:28:27

mariewalsh2003

My impression - may well be wrong as I haven't studied it in detail - is that for the first year after the rebellion there was a process of the rebels trying to make an accommodation to Richard's regime, and beginning the process of rehabilitation. Then, in about November 1484, when Tudor announced his intention to invade the following summer, there was a fresh spate of defections, including the garrison of Hammes, which resulted in Oxford's release to join Tudor.

One rebel I have studied a bit is Sir William Berkeley of Beverstone. Although he was one of Edward's household, he seems to have joined Buckingham's Rebellion because of his links with Buckingham rather than Edward IV (he was a member of Buckingham's council). In fact, he'd vigorously assisted the sea campaign against Sir Edward Woodville during the Protectorate. He was attainted and lost his lands, but later managed to get a pardon, his brother-in-law Lord Stourton standing surety for him. Given time and good behaviour he could have expected to be restored to his estates. Then at the end of 1484 he did a runner and joined Henry Tudor (leaving bro-in-law to pick up the bill, I suppose). He came over with Tudor, but died in October, probably of the sweating sickness. There is perhaps something odd about the codicil he made to his will just before he died. He wasn't with Henry's court at Woking, but at Fulham (possibly with the Bishop of London, who had a palace there), and he dated the codicil by AD rather than Henry's regnal year, and in fact made no reference to his new king. His attainder was not reversed that December, so his heirs missed out for many years. Maybe he had had second thoughts about Tudor having got to know him, and they parted on bad terms?

That's just an example, to show how fluid and difficult to pin down some of these people's feelings probably were.

I seem to recall that Davies' article 'Bishop Morton and the Holy See' has a lot to say about Morton's role in the end-of-1484 defections, but it could be I read about that somewhere else.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I have a few questions to answer - so I will start with the simplest...
I am fairly sure that the numbers with Henry in Vannes were steadily increasing. I know of only one 'backslider' and that was the Marquess of Dorset. He had escaped with others from Exeter (I will find out the names of as many as I can). Between Buckingham's rebellion and Bosworth there was a steady stream of people making their way there. The most important of which was the Earl of Oxford.

Dorset seems to have come to an accommodation with Richard and, because it was just before Henry's leaving the Seine, he was intercepted and encouraged to sit out the campaign in Calais.

The point of my post was that when you look at the list of those who fought for Henry, the names of the southern gentry, such as Edward Courtenay - a descendant of the Earls of Devon - they had not turned up to the battle from Devon, but were forming the core of Henry's army landing in Wales. So they had spent nearly two years in Vannes and then France with Henry.

I believe that this group of 500 are vitally important to understanding what is going on, because their absence gives Richard's reign a false appearance of quiet.

It would be good if the list also had an indicator of which had been in Brittany.

There was obviously some form of bonding occurring in exile, because Henry put absolute faith in those who had been in Brittany - except of course for Dorset.

Regards
David

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Another chart
Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 3:33:22 PM

Re: Another chart

2013-09-06 22:08:19

A J Hibbard

Clarence did not appear on any commissions issued after his execution, hence my thought that some of the changes in commissions may have been simply book-keeping. None of the names I recognize (Hastings, Buckingham, Rivers, Vaughan) appear on the commissions named next after their executions.
And thanks Marie for your posts about the commissions & rebellions, especially the information about Sir William Berkeley of Beverstone; I can't help believing that there are many other similar stories & that if we knew them all we might have a better idea about why things happened the way they did.
A J

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Marie

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.