Question re: Proclamations Richard Made Against Henry Tudor

I don't have the sources to answer this (see below), and the persons who are answering it have it entirely wrong. Sooo...would any scholars here like to help this (apparent) student Charli who is asking this question on Yahoo Answers -- UK and Ireland? Four days are left to answer, and the anti-Ricardians are already wide of the mark.

Please note that you'll need a Yahoo account to post an answer there.

The original URL:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131023064212AAaoCuT

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qfbzk82

---------
DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT RICHARD III'S PROCLAMATIONS AGAINST HENRY TUDOR?
I need to know about the proclamations issued on the 7th December and June 2nd 1484. I think one of them has 'bastard blood brother of father side and of mother side' in it???

Does anyone know what they're about / what's in them / why they were issued - please help!!

~Charli


Attempted Answers (2 at this time):

ANSWER 1 FROM "SPIFFER 1":
The era was a time of turmoil.

Richard III began with parliamentary support but Henry (who became Henry VII) had stronger military backing.

The proclamations to which you refer would (if they exist) be simply part of the posturing between the two as they fought over the Crown/Throne of England.

You will need to look for a good biography on Richard's life such as,
Ross, Charles - Richard III (1981)
and/or on the life of Henry Tudor such as,
Alexander, Michael Van Cleave - The First of the Tudors: A Study of Henry VII and His Reign (1980)
SOURCES:
Parry, Melanie (ed) - Chambers Biographical Dictionary: Centenary Edition. Edinburgh: Chambers: 1997, pp. 869-870, 1560

ANSWER 2 FROM LOU BRUSH:
I can only think that you referring to the proclamations of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells ,who had been Chancellor from 1467 to 1475 and was openly hostile to the Woodvilles.

In April 1483 he questioned the validity of Edward IV`s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville . The fact that Edward had been pre-contracted was good enough reason in Canon Law to invalidate any subsequent marriage contracted by Edward during the lifetime of Lady Eleanor Butler.

The Bishops allegation may or may not have been correct , but it served to induce Parliament to declare Elizabeth Woodville`s marriage to Edward invalid and the children of the marriage as bastards

On June, 22,1483 , Shaw preached a sermon at St Pauls Cross ,London , declaring Edward IV`s marriage invalid and his children bastards , this was based on Stillington`s earlier accusation . As a result Richard was offered the crown by Parliament and proclaimed king on 26,June 1483 From the evidence of the time it is clear that Richard tied to win popular support by putting up Shaw and Friar `Penker` to preach discourse .

I can find no record of any proclamations made by Richard against Henry , but I may well be wrong ,if this is so please accept my apologies . I believe you may be referring to Stillington , Shaw , and `Penker `

SOURCES: The life of Richard III , & The Earlier Tudors

Does the person want chapter and verse? I would need to look up the date of the proclamation in question, but I think he is referring to the one that says Henry's moder was doughter unto John duc of Somerset, son unto John Erle of Somerset, son unto dame Kateryne Swynford, and of her in double advoutrow goten'. This seems to be saying that John Beaufort was conceived whilst Katherine and John of Gaunt were both married to other people. This is certainly what Froissart claims, and it may be correct but cannot be proven.

We don't have an exact date of birth for John Beaufort; the best clues we have are two entries in the Patent Rolls for 1372, viz: a grant of 100 marks dated 7th June, making no reference to John's age, cancelled because of a fresh grant made on 10th September in his 21st year. Gaunt married Constance of Castile on 21 September 1371, and Hugh Swynford died on 11 November 1371. There is no dispute about the fact that Gaunt committed adultery in fathering John Beaufort - he admitted to this in his petition for a dispensation to marry Katherine Swynford. But she did not admit to having polluted her marriage by adultery with Gaunt. This is important because it was forbidden to marry a person with whom you had previously committed adultery.

So the dates we have would enable John Beaufort to have been conceived either shortly before or shortly after Sir Hugh Swynford's death, but as Katherine did not request a dispensation for such adultery on her part perhaps the truth is that John Beaufort was conceived shortly after Swynford's death - Gaunt comforts lonely widow scenario.

Certainly, if JB had been conceived before Swynford's death then Gaunt's dispensation to marry Katherine, and the legitimation of their joint offspring, would have been insufficient.

I had a piece about this published in the Bulletin a couple of years back, but I can't recall the date.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I don't have the sources to answer this (see below), and the persons who are answering it have it entirely wrong. Sooo...would any scholars here like to help this (apparent) student Charli who is asking this question on Yahoo Answers -- UK and Ireland? Four days are left to answer, and the anti-Ricardians are already wide of the mark.

Please note that you'll need a Yahoo account to post an answer there.

The original URL:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131023064212AAaoCuT

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qfbzk82

---------
DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT RICHARD III'S PROCLAMATIONS AGAINST HENRY TUDOR?
I need to know about the proclamations issued on the 7th December and June 2nd 1484. I think one of them has 'bastard blood brother of father side and of mother side' in it???

Does anyone know what they're about / what's in them / why they were issued - please help!!

~Charli


Attempted Answers (2 at this time):

ANSWER 1 FROM "SPIFFER 1":
The era was a time of turmoil.

Richard III began with parliamentary support but Henry (who became Henry VII) had stronger military backing.

The proclamations to which you refer would (if they exist) be simply part of the posturing between the two as they fought over the Crown/Throne of England.

You will need to look for a good biography on Richard's life such as,
Ross, Charles - Richard III (1981)
and/or on the life of Henry Tudor such as,
Alexander, Michael Van Cleave - The First of the Tudors: A Study of Henry VII and His Reign (1980)
SOURCES:
Parry, Melanie (ed) - Chambers Biographical Dictionary: Centenary Edition. Edinburgh: Chambers: 1997, pp. 869-870, 1560

ANSWER 2 FROM LOU BRUSH:
I can only think that you referring to the proclamations of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells ,who had been Chancellor from 1467 to 1475 and was openly hostile to the Woodvilles.

In April 1483 he questioned the validity of Edward IV`s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville . The fact that Edward had been pre-contracted was good enough reason in Canon Law to invalidate any subsequent marriage contracted by Edward during the lifetime of Lady Eleanor Butler.

The Bishops allegation may or may not have been correct , but it served to induce Parliament to declare Elizabeth Woodville`s marriage to Edward invalid and the children of the marriage as bastards

On June, 22,1483 , Shaw preached a sermon at St Pauls Cross ,London , declaring Edward IV`s marriage invalid and his children bastards , this was based on Stillington`s earlier accusation . As a result Richard was offered the crown by Parliament and proclaimed king on 26,June 1483 From the evidence of the time it is clear that Richard tied to win popular support by putting up Shaw and Friar `Penker` to preach discourse .

I can find no record of any proclamations made by Richard against Henry , but I may well be wrong ,if this is so please accept my apologies . I believe you may be referring to Stillington , Shaw , and `Penker `

SOURCES: The life of Richard III , & The Earlier Tudors

I think she wants to know where she can find the text of the original proclamations so she can read them for herself.

~Weds

---In , <> wrote:

Does the person want chapter and verse? I would need to look up the date of the proclamation in question, but I think he is referring to the one that says Henry's moder was doughter unto John duc of Somerset, son unto John Erle of Somerset, son unto dame Kateryne Swynford, and of her in double advoutrow goten'. This seems to be saying that John Beaufort was conceived whilst Katherine and John of Gaunt were both married to other people. This is certainly what Froissart claims, and it may be correct but cannot be proven.

We don't have an exact date of birth for John Beaufort; the best clues we have are two entries in the Patent Rolls for 1372, viz: a grant of 100 marks dated 7th June, making no reference to John's age, cancelled because of a fresh grant made on 10th September in his 21st year. Gaunt married Constance of Castile on 21 September 1371, and Hugh Swynford died on 11 November 1371. There is no dispute about the fact that Gaunt committed adultery in fathering John Beaufort - he admitted to this in his petition for a dispensation to marry Katherine Swynford. But she did not admit to having polluted her marriage by adultery with Gaunt. This is important because it was forbidden to marry a person with whom you had previously committed adultery.

So the dates we have would enable John Beaufort to have been conceived either shortly before or shortly after Sir Hugh Swynford's death, but as Katherine did not request a dispensation for such adultery on her part perhaps the truth is that John Beaufort was conceived shortly after Swynford's death - Gaunt comforts lonely widow scenario.

Certainly, if JB had been conceived before Swynford's death then Gaunt's dispensation to marry Katherine, and the legitimation of their joint offspring, would have been insufficient.

I had a piece about this published in the Bulletin a couple of years back, but I can't recall the date.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I don't have the sources to answer this (see below), and the persons who are answering it have it entirely wrong. Sooo...would any scholars here like to help this (apparent) student Charli who is asking this question on Yahoo Answers -- UK and Ireland? Four days are left to answer, and the anti-Ricardians are already wide of the mark.

Please note that you'll need a Yahoo account to post an answer there.

The original URL:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131023064212AAaoCuT

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qfbzk82

---------
DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT RICHARD III'S PROCLAMATIONS AGAINST HENRY TUDOR?
I need to know about the proclamations issued on the 7th December and June 2nd 1484. I think one of them has 'bastard blood brother of father side and of mother side' in it???

Does anyone know what they're about / what's in them / why they were issued - please help!!

~Charli


Attempted Answers (2 at this time):

ANSWER 1 FROM "SPIFFER 1":
The era was a time of turmoil.

Richard III began with parliamentary support but Henry (who became Henry VII) had stronger military backing.

The proclamations to which you refer would (if they exist) be simply part of the posturing between the two as they fought over the Crown/Throne of England.

You will need to look for a good biography on Richard's life such as,
Ross, Charles - Richard III (1981)
and/or on the life of Henry Tudor such as,
Alexander, Michael Van Cleave - The First of the Tudors: A Study of Henry VII and His Reign (1980)
SOURCES:
Parry, Melanie (ed) - Chambers Biographical Dictionary: Centenary Edition. Edinburgh: Chambers: 1997, pp. 869-870, 1560

ANSWER 2 FROM LOU BRUSH:
I can only think that you referring to the proclamations of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells ,who had been Chancellor from 1467 to 1475 and was openly hostile to the Woodvilles.

In April 1483 he questioned the validity of Edward IV`s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville . The fact that Edward had been pre-contracted was good enough reason in Canon Law to invalidate any subsequent marriage contracted by Edward during the lifetime of Lady Eleanor Butler.

The Bishops allegation may or may not have been correct , but it served to induce Parliament to declare Elizabeth Woodville`s marriage to Edward invalid and the children of the marriage as bastards

On June, 22,1483 , Shaw preached a sermon at St Pauls Cross ,London , declaring Edward IV`s marriage invalid and his children bastards , this was based on Stillington`s earlier accusation . As a result Richard was offered the crown by Parliament and proclaimed king on 26,June 1483 From the evidence of the time it is clear that Richard tied to win popular support by putting up Shaw and Friar `Penker` to preach discourse .

I can find no record of any proclamations made by Richard against Henry , but I may well be wrong ,if this is so please accept my apologies . I believe you may be referring to Stillington , Shaw , and `Penker `

SOURCES: The life of Richard III , & The Earlier Tudors

Sounds to me like she also wanted an explanation of the context and what was meant by the adultery on both sides. Anyway, this is the proc. of 7th December 1484, in modernised spelling. Or at least it's the Privy Seal warrant to the Chancellor to issue the proclamation:

Proclamation Forasmuch as the King our soverain lord hath certain knowledge that Piers Bishop of Exeter, Thomas Grey late Marquis Dorset, Jasper Tydder son of Owen Tidder calling himself Earl of Pembroke, John late Earl of Oxonford and Sir Edward Wideville, with other diverse his rebeles and traitors disabled and attainted by authority of the high court of parliament (of whom many ben known for open murderers, adulterers & extortioners, contrary to the pleasure of God and against all truth, honour & nature), have forsaken their natural country, taking them first to be under th'obeissaunce of the duke of Brittany, and to him promised certain thinges which by him & his council were thought things too greatly unnatural and abominable for them to grant, observe, keep and perform, and therefore the same utterly refused. The said traitors, seeing that the said duke and his council would not aid and succour them nor follow their ways, privily departed out of his country into France, there taking them to be under th'obeissance of the King's ancient enemy Charles calling himself king of France; and, to abuse and blind the commons of this said realm, the said rebels & traitors have chosen to be their captain one Henry Tydder, son of Edmond Tydder, son of Owen Tidder, which of his ambitious & insatiable covetise, stirred and excited by the confederacy of the King's said rebels and traitors, encroacheth upon him the name and title of royal estate of this realm of England, whereunto he hath no manner interest, right or colour, as every man well knoweth. And, to th'intent to achieve the same by the aid, support and assistance of the King's said ancient enemies and of this his realm, hath covenanted and bargained with him and with all the council of France to give up and release in perpetuity all the title and claim that the kings of England have had and ought to have to the crown and realm of France, together with the duchies of Normandy, Gascony and Guienne, castles and towns of Calais, Guisnes, Hammes with the marches pertaining to the same. And over this, and beside the alienation / of all the premises into the possession of the king's said ancient enemies, to the greatest aneyntesment, shame and rebuke that ever might fall to this land, the said Herry Earl of Richmond and all the other the king's rebels and traitors aforesaid have intended at their coming to do the most cruel murders, slaughters, robberies and disherisons that ever were seen in any Christian realm. For the which, and other inestimable dangers to be eschewed, and to th'intent that the King's said rebels and traitors may either be utterly put from their said malicious purposes or soon discomfited if they enforce to land, the King our said sovereign lord desireth, willeth and chargeth all and everyche of the natural subjects of this his realm to call the premises to their mind and, like good and true Englishmen, to endeavour themselves at all their powers for the defence of themselves, their wives, children, goods and inheritances against the said malicious purposes and conspirations which the ancient enemies of this land have made with the King's said rebels for the final destruction of the same land as is aforesaid. And our said sovereign lord, as a well-willed, diligent and courageous prince, will put his most royal person to all labour and pain necessary in this behalf for the resistence and subduing of his said enemies, rebels and traitors, to the most comfort, wele and surety of all and singular his true and faithful liegemen and subjects. And these our letters shall be therein your warrant. Given under our Signet at our palace of Westminster the 7 day of December the 2nd year of our reign.

To the right reverend father in God our right trusty and wellbeloved the Bishop of Lincoln, our chancellor of England. (Harley 433, vol III, pp. 124-5)

---In , <> wrote:

I think she wants to know where she can find the text of the original proclamations so she can read them for herself.

~Weds

---In , <> wrote:

Does the person want chapter and verse? I would need to look up the date of the proclamation in question, but I think he is referring to the one that says Henry's moder was doughter unto John duc of Somerset, son unto John Erle of Somerset, son unto dame Kateryne Swynford, and of her in double advoutrow goten'. This seems to be saying that John Beaufort was conceived whilst Katherine and John of Gaunt were both married to other people. This is certainly what Froissart claims, and it may be correct but cannot be proven.

We don't have an exact date of birth for John Beaufort; the best clues we have are two entries in the Patent Rolls for 1372, viz: a grant of 100 marks dated 7th June, making no reference to John's age, cancelled because of a fresh grant made on 10th September in his 21st year. Gaunt married Constance of Castile on 21 September 1371, and Hugh Swynford died on 11 November 1371. There is no dispute about the fact that Gaunt committed adultery in fathering John Beaufort - he admitted to this in his petition for a dispensation to marry Katherine Swynford. But she did not admit to having polluted her marriage by adultery with Gaunt. This is important because it was forbidden to marry a person with whom you had previously committed adultery.

So the dates we have would enable John Beaufort to have been conceived either shortly before or shortly after Sir Hugh Swynford's death, but as Katherine did not request a dispensation for such adultery on her part perhaps the truth is that John Beaufort was conceived shortly after Swynford's death - Gaunt comforts lonely widow scenario.

Certainly, if JB had been conceived before Swynford's death then Gaunt's dispensation to marry Katherine, and the legitimation of their joint offspring, would have been insufficient.

I had a piece about this published in the Bulletin a couple of years back, but I can't recall the date.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

I don't have the sources to answer this (see below), and the persons who are answering it have it entirely wrong. Sooo...would any scholars here like to help this (apparent) student Charli who is asking this question on Yahoo Answers -- UK and Ireland? Four days are left to answer, and the anti-Ricardians are already wide of the mark.

Please note that you'll need a Yahoo account to post an answer there.

The original URL:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131023064212AAaoCuT

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qfbzk82

---------
DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT RICHARD III'S PROCLAMATIONS AGAINST HENRY TUDOR?
I need to know about the proclamations issued on the 7th December and June 2nd 1484. I think one of them has 'bastard blood brother of father side and of mother side' in it???

Does anyone know what they're about / what's in them / why they were issued - please help!!

~Charli


Attempted Answers (2 at this time):

ANSWER 1 FROM "SPIFFER 1":
The era was a time of turmoil.

Richard III began with parliamentary support but Henry (who became Henry VII) had stronger military backing.

The proclamations to which you refer would (if they exist) be simply part of the posturing between the two as they fought over the Crown/Throne of England.

You will need to look for a good biography on Richard's life such as,
Ross, Charles - Richard III (1981)
and/or on the life of Henry Tudor such as,
Alexander, Michael Van Cleave - The First of the Tudors: A Study of Henry VII and His Reign (1980)
SOURCES:
Parry, Melanie (ed) - Chambers Biographical Dictionary: Centenary Edition. Edinburgh: Chambers: 1997, pp. 869-870, 1560

ANSWER 2 FROM LOU BRUSH:
I can only think that you referring to the proclamations of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells ,who had been Chancellor from 1467 to 1475 and was openly hostile to the Woodvilles.

In April 1483 he questioned the validity of Edward IV`s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville . The fact that Edward had been pre-contracted was good enough reason in Canon Law to invalidate any subsequent marriage contracted by Edward during the lifetime of Lady Eleanor Butler.

The Bishops allegation may or may not have been correct , but it served to induce Parliament to declare Elizabeth Woodville`s marriage to Edward invalid and the children of the marriage as bastards

On June, 22,1483 , Shaw preached a sermon at St Pauls Cross ,London , declaring Edward IV`s marriage invalid and his children bastards , this was based on Stillington`s earlier accusation . As a result Richard was offered the crown by Parliament and proclaimed king on 26,June 1483 From the evidence of the time it is clear that Richard tied to win popular support by putting up Shaw and Friar `Penker` to preach discourse .

I can find no record of any proclamations made by Richard against Henry , but I may well be wrong ,if this is so please accept my apologies . I believe you may be referring to Stillington , Shaw , and `Penker `

SOURCES: The life of Richard III , & The Earlier Tudors

Wednesday wrote:

"I don't have the sources to answer this (see below), and the persons who are answering it have it entirely wrong. Sooo...would any scholars here like to help this (apparent) student Charli who is asking this question on Yahoo Answers -- UK and Ireland? Four days are left to answer, and the anti-Ricardians are already wide of the mark."

[Quoted source}

"DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT RICHARD III'S PROCLAMATIONS AGAINST HENRY TUDOR?
"I need to know about the proclamations issued on the 7th December and June 2nd 1484. I think one of them has 'bastard blood brother of father side and of mother side' in it???

"Does anyone know what they're about / what's in them / why they were issued - please help!!"

Carol responds:

Well, the obvious reason that they were issued is that Henry "Tydder" was about to invade the kingdom with the intent to depose and kill the crowned and anointed king, Richard III, and was "usurp[ing] upon him" the title of king, signing proclamations with a royal signet and the initials HR (for Henricus Rex).

At least one of the proclamations can be found online. Not the clearest and most legible copy in the world, but try this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yBYNAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA170&dq=%22usurpeth+upon+him%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v2xoUqZlo5uMAoHlgLAM&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22usurpeth%20upon%20him%22&f=false

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/n95foh7

It contains the exact phrase that the person is looking for (though, oddly, it's Owen Tudor, not his son Edmund, who is regarded as illegitimate:

"For he [Henry Tudor] is descended of bastard blood, both of father's side, and of mother's side, for the said Owen the grandfather was bastard born; and his mother was daughter unto John, duke of Somerset, son unto John, earl of Somerset, son unto dame Katherine Swynford, and of their indouble avoutry [double adultery] gotten; whereby it evidently appeareth, that no title can nor may in him [etc.]."

Carol