The Hornby Situation....

I first became aware of this story when I read Jones' Bosworth. Jones described this as a 'vicious local feud with the rival Harrington family' and a 'long running dispute was a struggle for domination in northern Lancashire and the Stanley's were determined to win it' and how Richard having played an important part in the dispute left the Stanley's with an abiding suspicion of him. While Edward seems to have taken a pragmatic approach to the dispute, Richard in defiance of his brothers wishes 'wholeheartedly backed the Harrington family at some rick to himself' and on one occasion 'actually joined the Harringtons in Hornby Castle' and his 'men engaged in a number of skirmishes with the Stanley's....Me: Oh dear....

Later on the Harringtons fought on Richard's side at Bosworth...

Only last night I was reading in the Coronation of King Richard lll A F Sutton & P Hammond that things turned out badly for the Harringtons...Sir James was attainted after Bosworth, later pardoned but his lands went to Sir Edward Stanley and that he lived in poverty date of death unknown.

Sir Robert Harrington younger brother of Sir James attainted after Bosworth, pardoned but did it regain lands. Later attainted in 1487 and possible executed. His son and heir James later Dean of York did not regain lands.

Can someone explain to me what this means..."The Hs only gave in when the DoG headed commission against them in 1473". Im confused with that as Richard was on their side..? eileen

Didn't someone post at length about the Harringtons a few months back? I remember it being believed that seeing the Harringtons charging alongside Richard at Bosworth was one reason for Stanley throwing in his lot with Henry at the eleventh hour. He had other reasons too, not least his dear lady wife, and came up smelling of roses afterward. Excuse the pun. But it makes me wonder if, had Richard handled that ongoing feud a little differently (i.e. mediated and appeared even-handed to both sides, instead of lining up firmly with the one) the outcome of Bosworth might have been different. In other words, if Richard hadn't managed to alienate this important magnate because of that local feud, no matter how justified he thought the Harringtons might be, would Stanley have remained loyal and to hell with Henry? And to hell with Margaret, come to that. Surely it was always wiser to keep powerful men sweet? Or was Richard a little too principled and inclined to do what he thought just and right, instead of occasionally doing what was shrewd, far-sighted and wise? =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:01 PM To: Subject: The Hornby Situation....

I first became aware of this story when I read Jones' Bosworth. Jones described this as a 'vicious local feud with the rival Harrington family' and a 'long running dispute was a struggle for domination in northern Lancashire and the Stanley's were determined to win it' and how Richard having played an important part in the dispute left the Stanley's with an abiding suspicion of him. While Edward seems to have taken a pragmatic approach to the dispute, Richard in defiance of his brothers wishes 'wholeheartedly backed the Harrington family at some rick to himself' and on one occasion 'actually joined the Harringtons in Hornby Castle' and his 'men engaged in a number of skirmishes with the Stanley's....Me: Oh dear....

Later on the Harringtons fought on Richard's side at Bosworth...

Only last night I was reading in the Coronation of King Richard lll A F Sutton & P Hammond that things turned out badly for the Harringtons...Sir James was attainted after Bosworth, later pardoned but his lands went to Sir Edward Stanley and that he lived in poverty date of death unknown.

Sir Robert Harrington younger brother of Sir James attainted after Bosworth, pardoned but did it regain lands. Later attainted in 1487 and possible executed. His son and heir James later Dean of York did not regain lands.

Can someone explain to me what this means..."The Hs only gave in when the DoG headed commission against them in 1473". Im confused with that as Richard was on their side..? eileen

Dild I really head this The Hornby Situation.....Why? I really do need to get a grip...Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Didn’t someone post at length about the Harringtons a few months back? I remember it being believed that seeing the Harringtons charging alongside Richard at Bosworth was one reason for Stanley throwing in his lot with Henry at the eleventh hour. He had other reasons too, not least his dear lady wife, and came up smelling of roses afterward. Excuse the pun. But it makes me wonder if, had Richard handled that ongoing feud a little differently (i.e. mediated and appeared even-handed to both sides, instead of lining up firmly with the one) the outcome of Bosworth might have been different. In other words, if Richard hadn’t managed to alienate this important magnate because of that local feud, no matter how justified he thought the Harringtons might be, would Stanley have remained loyal and to hell with Henry? And to hell with Margaret, come to that. Surely it was always wiser to keep powerful men sweet? Or was Richard a little too principled and inclined to do what he thought just and right, instead of occasionally doing what was shrewd, far-sighted and wise?
>
> =^..^=
>
> From: EILEEN BATES
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: The Hornby Situation....
>
>
> I first became aware of this story when I read Jones' Bosworth. Jones described this as a 'vicious local feud with the rival Harrington family' and a 'long running dispute was a struggle for domination in northern Lancashire and the Stanley's were determined to win it' and how Richard having played an important part in the dispute left the Stanley's with an abiding suspicion of him. While Edward seems to have taken a pragmatic approach to the dispute, Richard in defiance of his brothers wishes 'wholeheartedly backed the Harrington family at some rick to himself' and on one occasion 'actually joined the Harringtons in Hornby Castle' and his 'men engaged in a number of skirmishes with the Stanley's....Me: Oh dear....
>
> Later on the Harringtons fought on Richard's side at Bosworth...
>
> Only last night I was reading in the Coronation of King Richard lll A F Sutton & P Hammond that things turned out badly for the Harringtons...Sir James was attainted after Bosworth, later pardoned but his lands went to Sir Edward Stanley and that he lived in poverty date of death unknown.
>
> Sir Robert Harrington younger brother of Sir James attainted after Bosworth, pardoned but did it regain lands. Later attainted in 1487 and possible executed. His son and heir James later Dean of York did not regain lands.
>
> Can someone explain to me what this means..."The Hs only gave in when the DoG headed commission against them in 1473". Im confused with that as Richard was on their side..? eileen
>

Sandra wrote:

Didn'€™t someone post at length about the Harringtons a few months back? I remember it being believed that seeing the Harringtons charging alongside Richard at Bosworth was one reason for Stanley throwing in his lot with Henry at the eleventh hour. He had other reasons too, not least his dear lady wife, and came up smelling of roses afterward. <snip>

Carol responds:

Apologies if this point has already been addressed. Lord Thomas Stanley, husband of MB and father-in-law of the Tudor, did not join the charge at Bosworth. Only his brother, Sir William, did, leading to Richard's death in battle.

I'm wondering if the Harrington connection hasn't been overplayed. I think that Sir William was at heart an Edwardian Yorkist (though, of course, he held his self-interest dear and didn't charge until he was sure that he could trap Richard) whereas Lord Thomas--MB, the Harringtons, and his own son in Richard's custody notwithstanding--sat out the battle. That he seems to have rushed to put Richard's crown on Henry's head does not make him part of the charge that killed Richard. (I'm not defending Lord Stanley--far from it--but it seems that he was noncommittal to the last as regards Richard. His role may have been enlarged or glorified by the ballads his followers composed.--I don't have time to check at the moment.

Also, do we know for sure that he was involved in the scuffle (if there was one) at the council meeting in which Hastings was accused of treason and sent to the block? The Croyland Continuator doesn't mention him. (I don't have access to Mancini to check him.) Does Stanley's arrest and slight injury come form More?

Carol