Original Text: Attainder of Margaret Beaufort

I've added Richard III's act of Parliament to attaint Margaret Beaufort to the Titulus Regius site. You'll find it on the menu at the bottom of http://partyparcel.co.uk/
Despite being called an Attainder in the margin notes, is specifically is not: in essence, though it entirely strips Margaret of title and property in the normal way, it bequeaths it all to her husband Thomas Stanley. It casts an interesting light on the relationship of Stanley to the Yorkists at Court.
Unfamiliar words may be: chevisance, vb. to make a contract; sease vb. archaic spelling of seize, meaning to have possession of.
Alistair

Thank you again, Alistair. I had a look at Henry VII's annulment of Titulus Regius, and find him referred to as King Harry. I don't think I've seen this before. Or perhaps I simply haven't noticed. Sandra =^..^= From: alistair.potts@... Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:38 PM To: Subject: Original Text: Attainder of Margaret Beaufort

I've added Richard III's act of Parliament to attaint Margaret Beaufort to the Titulus Regius site. You'll find it on the menu at the bottom of http://partyparcel.co.uk/ Despite being called an Attainder in the margin notes, is specifically is not: in essence, though it entirely strips Margaret of title and property in the normal way, it bequeaths it all to her husband Thomas Stanley. It casts an interesting light on the relationship of Stanley to the Yorkists at Court. Unfamiliar words may be: chevisance, vb. to make a contract; sease vb. archaic spelling of seize, meaning to have possession of. Alistair

Thanks again Alistair - I always like to see what was actually said instead of being told by someone else what it says.  And I know the amount of work it takes to transcribe these documents into digital versions.  
A J

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, <alistair.potts@...> wrote:
 

I've added Richard III's act of Parliament to attaint Margaret Beaufort to the Titulus Regius site. You'll find it on the menu at the bottom of http://partyparcel.co.uk/

Despite being called an Attainder in the margin notes, is specifically is not: in essence, though it entirely strips Margaret of title and property in the normal way, it bequeaths it all to her husband Thomas Stanley. It casts an interesting light on the relationship of Stanley to the Yorkists at Court.
Unfamiliar words may be: chevisance, vb. to make a contract; sease vb. archaic spelling of seize, meaning to have possession of.
Alistair

My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get off with her treason so lightly...Eileen

Well, he was our' Rupert Graves in a previous life. Of course he was a charmer. Even with the funny beard. <g> From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:10 PM To: Subject: Re: Original Text: Attainder of Margaret Beaufort

My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get off with her treason so lightly...Eileen

I wonder about the mental state of women who marry and bear children while still in essence being children themselves -- particularly in times and places where the sphere of women is quite circumscribed.

I get the impression that, having often not quite the educational attainments or options of older women (much less men), and not having matured enough to have a stable "center" that keeps them grounded and secure in their own selves, they find their energies channelled into plotting and backbiting -- both to provide the sense of security by eliminating threats and simply because it's just all their half-formed minds knew how to do.

Tamara

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Well, he was ‘our’ Rupert Graves in a previous life. Of course he was a charmer. Even with the funny beard. <g>
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:10 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Original Text: Attainder of Margaret Beaufort
>
>
> My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get off with her treason so lightly...Eileen
>

Ross also seems at a loss as to how Stanley got out of the trouble he was in at the time of the Hastings "affair."
A J

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
 

My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get off with her treason so lightly...Eileen

It's a mystery.....It's not as if Richard acted on his own...he was surrounded by advisers and counsel. Ah there's the rub......his counsel....!


--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Ross also seems at a loss as to how Stanley got out of the trouble he was
> in at the time of the Hastings "affair."
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not
> > punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I
> > presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action
> > because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now
> > know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess
> > Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get
> > off with her treason so lightly...Eileen
> >
> >
> >
>

What struck me while reading it was why haven't " so called historians " made more of this. I have read quite a bit over the years and as I have said in another post my memory is not good because it is quite some time since I read these books. However, I don't remember reading that there was a Bill of Attainder on MB actually saying that she committed treason. The only thing that I remember was reading that MB and her possessions were given in to Stanley's custody because she was involved in plotting and passing messages to EW. Geoffrey Richardson has speculated that she was more involved than had been previously thought but other people seem to have swept it under the carpet. Where were Hicks, Pollard and Weir, to name but a few? Obviously not doing thorough research.Why on earth did Richard allow her to carry Anne's train at the Coronation?

--- In , <> wrote:

My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get off with her treason so lightly...Eileen

ÿ Have you just used the words "Weir" and "research" in consecutive sentences? ----- Original Message ----- From: maryfriend@... To: Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:20 PM Subject: RE: Re: Original Text: Attainder of Margaret Beaufort

What struck me while reading it was why haven't " so called historians " made more of this. I have read quite a bit over the years and as I have said in another post my memory is not good because it is quite some time since I read these books. However, I don't remember reading that there was a Bill of Attainder on MB actually saying that she committed treason. The only thing that I remember was reading that MB and her possessions were given in to Stanley's custody because she was involved in plotting and passing messages to EW. Geoffrey Richardson has speculated that she was more involved than had been previously thought but other people seem to have swept it under the carpet. Where were Hicks, Pollard and Weir, to name but a few? Obviously not doing thorough research.Why on earth did Richard allow her to carry Anne's train at the Coronation?

--- In , <> wrote:

My first reaction on reading this is...again..why oh why did Richard not punish MB more severely. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. I presume that possibly Richard would have not chosen this course of action because of the risks involved in alienating the Stanleys...Of course we now know that the result of not taking that risk was far far worse....I guess Stanley must have been quite a charmer to fool Richard into letting MB get off with her treason so lightly...Eileen