Rous, Bray and sheep
Rous, Bray and sheep
Because John Rous changed his story about Richard we tend to think he became a 'Tudor' man.
During the early 1490s Reggie Bray and Empson (sometimes with the blessing of MB based at Collyweston) stormed through Northants making compulsory purchases of land and villages to put over to sheep. They flattened 90 dwellings at Edgcote and part of the village of Charwelton (where they introduced 2000 sheep). Their most outspoken critic was - Rous. Now this must have been quite brave. Charwelton was 'owned' by MB's cousins, the Andrews family, at Edgcote it had been the Clarells who also had an affinity to her through the Welles and Andrews family. At Aston le Walls it was the Butler Ormonds, her cousins also through the Welles family.
I've always had the suspicion that Rous was his own man and particularly his own Beauchamp man (his grandfather had been High Sheriff of Warks). Was his story about Richard altered in an attempt to recover Anne Beauchamp/Nevill's lands, not because he had an affinity to HT?
To run the wrath of MB and Bray and Empson must have taken some doing. Hilary
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
"Because John Rous changed his story about Richard we tend to think he became a 'Tudor' man.
During the early 1490s Reggie Bray and Empson (sometimes with the blessing of MB based at Collyweston) stormed through Northants making compulsory purchases of land and villages to put over to sheep. They flattened 90 dwellings at Edgcote and part of the village of Charwelton (where they introduced 2000 sheep). Their most outspoken critic was - Rous. Now this must have been quite brave. Charwelton was 'owned' by MB's cousins, the Andrews family, at Edgcote it had been the Clarells who also had an affinity to her through the Welles and Andrews family. At Aston le Walls it was the Butler Ormonds, her cousins also through the Welles family.
I've always had the suspicion that Rous was his own man and particularly his own Beauchamp man (his grandfather had been High Sheriff of Warks). Was his story about Richard altered in an attempt to recover Anne Beauchamp/Nevill's lands, not because he had an affinity to HT?
To run the wrath of MB and Bray and Empson must have taken some doing."
Doug here:
It looks to me, and apparently you, that Rous being considered a supporter of Henry Tudor was due less to Henry Tudor being Henry Tudor and more because Henry *wasn't* Richard, who had supported his brother's decision to split the Beachamp/Neville lands between himself and George. Thus the changes Rous made to his "Roll" would have been intended to place himself and, most inportantly Edward of Warwick, in the best possible light as a step to regaining at least some of that inheritance for Edward. The galling part is that this information has likely been available to any "historian" who cared to look for the "why" behind those changes! It's not as if HVII could toss 'em in the Tower for treason (although fellow "historians" *may* have sent them to "Onventry"...).
Doug
(Who admits to being a bit hesitant about some of your conclusions based on the inter-marrying of families, but thinks you're on to something here!)
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 17:03
Subject: Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
ÿ Hilary wrote:
"Because John Rous changed his story about Richard we tend to think he became a 'Tudor' man. During the early 1490s Reggie Bray and Empson (sometimes with the blessing of MB based at Collyweston) stormed through Northants making compulsory purchases of land and villages to put over to sheep. They flattened 90 dwellings at Edgcote and part of the village of Charwelton (where they introduced 2000 sheep). Their most outspoken critic was - Rous. Now this must have been quite brave. Charwelton was 'owned' by MB's cousins, the Andrews family, at Edgcote it had been the Clarells who also had an affinity to her through the Welles and Andrews family. At Aston le Walls it was the Butler Ormonds, her cousins also through the Welles family. I've always had the suspicion that Rous was his own man and particularly his own Beauchamp man (his grandfather had been High Sheriff of Warks). Was his story about Richard altered in an attempt to recover Anne Beauchamp/Nevill's lands, not because he had an affinity to HT? To run the wrath of MB and Bray and Empson must have taken some doing." Doug here: It looks to me, and apparently you, that Rous being considered a supporter of Henry Tudor was due less to Henry Tudor being Henry Tudor and more because Henry *wasn't* Richard, who had supported his brother's decision to split the Beachamp/Neville lands between himself and George. Thus the changes Rous made to his "Roll" would have been intended to place himself and, most inportantly Edward of Warwick, in the best possible light as a step to regaining at least some of that inheritance for Edward. The galling part is that this information has likely been available to any "historian" who cared to look for the "why" behind those changes! It's not as if HVII could toss 'em in the Tower for treason (although fellow "historians" *may* have sent them to "Onventry"...). Doug (Who admits to being a bit hesitant about some of your conclusions based on the inter-marrying of families, but thinks you're on to something here!)
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
//snip// "I don't think the Nevilles ever established the same power base in Warks as the Beauchamps (not surprising) A lot of minor key players from Yorks now moved south (sheep?) and they were the new middle class //snip// Doug here: Didn't the Beauchamps' prominence date back to the Conqueror, or almost; while the Nevilles' dated to Edward I or thereabouts? The passage of time alone would provide quite a few chances for the Beauchamps to pick up the odd manor, etc and with property came responsibilites, followed by even more prominence. The "now" you refer to, was that during the Lancastrian period, or after? Sheep may very well have been behind the move south, but was it because the markets for wool were in the south or was it because the funds provided by the wool from the sheep grown in the north allowed people to re-locate closer to where the "action", so to speak, was? Sort of a medieval version of moving to the suburbs? Doug
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2013, 17:18
Subject: Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
ÿ Hilary Jones wrote:
//snip// "I don't think the Nevilles ever established the same power base in Warks as the Beauchamps (not surprising) A lot of minor key players from Yorks now moved south (sheep?) and they were the new middle class //snip// Doug here: Didn't the Beauchamps' prominence date back to the Conqueror, or almost; while the Nevilles' dated to Edward I or thereabouts? The passage of time alone would provide quite a few chances for the Beauchamps to pick up the odd manor, etc and with property came responsibilites, followed by even more prominence. The "now" you refer to, was that during the Lancastrian period, or after? Sheep may very well have been behind the move south, but was it because the markets for wool were in the south or was it because the funds provided by the wool from the sheep grown in the north allowed people to re-locate closer to where the "action", so to speak, was? Sort of a medieval version of moving to the suburbs? Doug
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
I know that Rous wrote scathingly about enclosures, and listed the affected villages, but that was in his Historia, finished by the end of 1488. Also, Rous died in January 1491, or possibly 1492*, so although totally I agree that the explanation for his change of emphasis in his political works after Bosworth is complicated, and probably far more due to concerns for the countess and her grandson than to being a toady (and possibly also due to pressure from the new king, though this can't be proved), he can't have been standing up against enclosures any later than 1490/1. Do you have any more details on these enclosures, Hilary? I'm interested in Rous.
Marie
*Most sources say he died on 24 Jan 1491, but Leland has the same date 1492. Of course it might have been 1491 old style - ie our 1492 - but according to the CPR Rous' successor at Guy's Cliffe was appointed, owing to Rous' death, on 19 January 1492, and CPR corrects dates to modern usage.
---In , <> wrote:
Because John Rous changed his story about Richard we tend to think he became a 'Tudor' man.
During the early 1490s Reggie Bray and Empson (sometimes with the blessing of MB based at Collyweston) stormed through Northants making compulsory purchases of land and villages to put over to sheep. They flattened 90 dwellings at Edgcote and part of the village of Charwelton (where they introduced 2000 sheep). Their most outspoken critic was - Rous. Now this must have been quite brave. Charwelton was 'owned' by MB's cousins, the Andrews family, at Edgcote it had been the Clarells who also had an affinity to her through the Welles and Andrews family. At Aston le Walls it was the Butler Ormonds, her cousins also through the Welles family.
I've always had the suspicion that Rous was his own man and particularly his own Beauchamp man (his grandfather had been High Sheriff of Warks). Was his story about Richard altered in an attempt to recover Anne Beauchamp/Nevill's lands, not because he had an affinity to HT?
To run the wrath of MB and Bray and Empson must have taken some doing. Hilary
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 18:39
Subject: RE: Rous, Bray and sheep
I know that Rous wrote scathingly about enclosures, and listed the affected villages, but that was in his Historia, finished by the end of 1488. Also, Rous died in January 1491, or possibly 1492*, so although totally I agree that the explanation for his change of emphasis in his political works after Bosworth is complicated, and probably far more due to concerns for the countess and her grandson than to being a toady (and possibly also due to pressure from the new king, though this can't be proved), he can't have been standing up against enclosures any later than 1490/1. Do you have any more details on these enclosures, Hilary? I'm interested in Rous.Marie*Most sources say he died on 24 Jan 1491, but Leland has the same date 1492. Of course it might have been 1491 old style - ie our 1492 - but according to the CPR Rous' successor at Guy's Cliffe was appointed, owing to Rous' death, on 19 January 1492, and CPR corrects dates to modern usage. ---In , <> wrote:Because John Rous changed his story about Richard we tend to think he became a 'Tudor' man. During the early 1490s Reggie Bray and Empson (sometimes with the blessing of MB based at Collyweston) stormed through Northants making compulsory purchases of land and villages to put over to sheep. They flattened 90 dwellings at Edgcote and part of the village of Charwelton (where they introduced 2000 sheep). Their most outspoken critic was - Rous. Now this must have been quite brave. Charwelton was 'owned' by MB's cousins, the Andrews family, at Edgcote it had been the Clarells who also had an affinity to her through the Welles and Andrews family. At Aston le Walls it was the Butler Ormonds, her cousins also through the Welles family. I've always had the suspicion that Rous was his own man and particularly his own Beauchamp man (his grandfather had been High Sheriff of Warks). Was his story about Richard altered in an attempt to recover Anne Beauchamp/Nevill's lands, not because he had an affinity to HT?To run the wrath of MB and Bray and Empson must have taken some doing. Hilary
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
I think at least some of the relocations from Yorkshire to Warwickshire were of retainers of Richard Neville who simply went with him and then acquired land in Warwickshire. Sometimes by dubious means, as with the false genealogy created by the Shirwoods to lay claim to Alspath.
Marie
---In , <> wrote:
The Beauchamps. Yes to all you say. To put it simply the Beauchamps and the counties of Warks/Worcs shared an identity and lots of gentry dealt with them through the years. They were seen as the 'lords of the manor'. Richard Neville (ironically given his Warwick the Kingmaker title) acquired their lands by marriage and was never seen in quite the same way; his power base was in the North, he was allied to Yorkist kings. Richard Beauchamp had been a servant of Henry V/VI. Would Clarence have obtained a similary identity? That's a question - he is thought of quite kindly in these parts. It was up to the Dudleys to provide the next 'real' Earls of Warwick. Sheep - the movement of Yorkshire gentry south seems to have reached a zenith during the 1480/90s. You ask good questions. Yes, Northants/Warks/the Cotswolds had their wool markets but perhaps Yorkshire was better at rearing sheep - thinking of some of the Cistercian Abbeys? Were they persuaded to move some of their expertise south - or to speculate in the south when new lands were acquired on an almost industrial basis. Stupidly, because sheep farming is the preserve of the Economic Historian and Richard is in 'political' history Rous's rants about village destruction seem to have been semi-ignored by the latter bunch who say he criticised 'enclosures'. But this was not the same thing at all as the enclosures of the eighteenth century which basically meant fencing off common land. And they don't seem to have picked up that in doing this he criticised the new Tudor regime.
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2013, 17:18
Subject: Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
ÿ Hilary Jones wrote:
//snip// "I don't think the Nevilles ever established the same power base in Warks as the Beauchamps (not surprising) A lot of minor key players from Yorks now moved south (sheep?) and they were the new middle class //snip// Doug here: Didn't the Beauchamps' prominence date back to the Conqueror, or almost; while the Nevilles' dated to Edward I or thereabouts? The passage of time alone would provide quite a few chances for the Beauchamps to pick up the odd manor, etc and with property came responsibilites, followed by even more prominence. The "now" you refer to, was that during the Lancastrian period, or after? Sheep may very well have been behind the move south, but was it because the markets for wool were in the south or was it because the funds provided by the wool from the sheep grown in the north allowed people to re-locate closer to where the "action", so to speak, was? Sort of a medieval version of moving to the suburbs? Doug
Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 12:09
Subject: RE: Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
I think at least some of the relocations from Yorkshire to Warwickshire were of retainers of Richard Neville who simply went with him and then acquired land in Warwickshire. Sometimes by dubious means, as with the false genealogy created by the Shirwoods to lay claim to Alspath.Marie ---In , <> wrote:The Beauchamps. Yes to all you say. To put it simply the Beauchamps and the counties of Warks/Worcs shared an identity and lots of gentry dealt with them through the years. They were seen as the 'lords of the manor'. Richard Neville (ironically given his Warwick the Kingmaker title) acquired their lands by marriage and was never seen in quite the same way; his power base was in the North, he was allied to Yorkist kings. Richard Beauchamp had been a servant of Henry V/VI. Would Clarence have obtained a similary identity? That's a question - he is thought of quite kindly in these parts. It was up to the Dudleys to provide the next 'real' Earls of Warwick. Sheep - the movement of Yorkshire gentry south seems to have reached a zenith during the 1480/90s. You ask good questions. Yes, Northants/Warks/the Cotswolds had their wool markets but perhaps Yorkshire was better at rearing sheep - thinking of some of the Cistercian Abbeys? Were they persuaded to move some of their expertise south - or to speculate in the south when new lands were acquired on an almost industrial basis. Stupidly, because sheep farming is the preserve of the Economic Historian and Richard is in 'political' history Rous's rants about village destruction seem to have been semi-ignored by the latter bunch who say he criticised 'enclosures'. But this was not the same thing at all as the enclosures of the eighteenth century which basically meant fencing off common land. And they don't seem to have picked up that in doing this he criticised the new Tudor regime.
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2013, 17:18
Subject: Re: Rous, Bray and sheep
ÿ Hilary Jones wrote:
//snip// "I don't think the Nevilles ever established the same power base in Warks as the Beauchamps (not surprising) A lot of minor key players from Yorks now moved south (sheep?) and they were the new middle class //snip// Doug here: Didn't the Beauchamps' prominence date back to the Conqueror, or almost; while the Nevilles' dated to Edward I or thereabouts? The passage of time alone would provide quite a few chances for the Beauchamps to pick up the odd manor, etc and with property came responsibilites, followed by even more prominence. The "now" you refer to, was that during the Lancastrian period, or after? Sheep may very well have been behind the move south, but was it because the markets for wool were in the south or was it because the funds provided by the wool from the sheep grown in the north allowed people to re-locate closer to where the "action", so to speak, was? Sort of a medieval version of moving to the suburbs? Doug