J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY’S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.

  As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII]. It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years. CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances.  The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament might have been used to write the ordinances.  Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.  As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood.  Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple. As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project.  There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3.  CDOY must have been collecting them for some time. CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good ladyship to her servants.  She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies.  Sting in the tail? Jan.

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
A J

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 

  As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII]. It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years. CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances.  The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament might have been used to write the ordinances.  Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.  As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood.  Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple. As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project.  There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3.  CDOY must have been collecting them for some time. CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good ladyship to her servants.  She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies.  Sting in the tail? Jan.

In my little mind, I always see her as an Eleanor of Aquitane kind of lady&..loving, but made of stern stuff.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jessie Skinner
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:56 PM
To: @yahoogroups com; ajhibbard@...
Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

Thanks Jan. As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence. Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect. Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage. And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?

A J

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII].

It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of York , which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942. JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years.

CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances. The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament might have been used to write the ordinances. Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.

As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood. Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple.

As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared. JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project. There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s. She had a quantity of rich vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3. CDOY must have been collecting them for some time.

CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted. Her testament was a great example of good ladyship to her servants. She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament

The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies. Sting in the tail?

Jan.

This book: Crawford, Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters. One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.

It gave me a lot to think about. I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard. I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard. If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.

I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th. If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death. Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him? Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.

Marion

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

This book:  Crawford, Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 

It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.

I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    

Marion

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her.  H. 

On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
  I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
A J

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
  This book:  Crawford, Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.   It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.  I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.       Marion

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

  Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
A J

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 
  As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII]. It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years. CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances.  The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament might have been used to write the ordinances.  Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.  As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood.  Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple. As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project.  There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3.  CDOY must have been collecting them for some time. CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good ladyship to her servants.  She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies.  Sting in the tail? Jan.

Thank you Marion, I will have a look at that.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

This book:  Crawford, Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily. 

It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.

I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.    

Marion

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Oh if only we could DNA test them all............

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I really do have issues over Jones's view that Edward IV was illegitimate.  He interprets Cicely's actions in the light of that belief, so I am not sure how much credence to place on his interpretation of her behaviour. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wriote:

Yes. I think he acknowledges that her influence has been much neglected. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when she and EW were in the same room.


On Monday, 11 November 2013, 10:49, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
  Is that from Michael Jones book on Bosworth? Jess Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: J L LAYNESMIT H ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 9:32:17 AM

  FWIT I have Cicely as the strongest of the Yorkists (even her husband). She was after all the 22nd or 23rd child of her father so she must have had a lot of empathy with Richard about being the youngest. I have her as a 'woman with a past' (she might have done something or nothing but the 'Rose' certainly had allure), an incorrigable spendthrift (she had to have her own accountant to keep her in check) and a fierce protector of the sovereign claim of the House of York - not just Edward and his sons. She is to me about as far from the black-robed widow she's often portrayed as as Helen Mirren is from a nun. I 'know' her best through Michael Jones. And yes, I love her.  H. 

On Monday, 11 November 2013, 2:17, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
  I was under the impression that Cicely wasn't actually at Barnard Castle in the early part of 1483.  But would be happy to be corrected.
A J

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <phaecilia@...> wrote:
  This book:  Crawford, Anne (ed.) Letters of Medieval Women.  Stroud, Gloucestershire:  Sutton Pub., c2002 has at least three long quotes from Cecily's letters.  One is to Richard, one is to Margaret of Anjou, and I think one was about a woman's petition for help to Cecily.   It gave me a lot to think about.  I'd like to see letters from Cecily to Clarence for comparison to her letter to Richard.  I'd also like to see letters from Cecily to Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, who may have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward and Richard.  If they still exist, they could tell us a lot about Cecily's relationships with her children.  I've often thought that Cecily could have sent Richard messages between Edward IV's death on April 9th and Richard's arrival in London @ May 5th.  If she was willing to 1) host a meeting between Richard and Edward's executors at her London house, and 2) for London's delegation to offer Richard the crown there, it seems reasonable that she'd be willing to send him information about conditions just after Edward's death.   Why couldn't Cecily's information be as helpful to Richard as anything Buckingham could send him?  Hastings' information may have been eye-witness, but Richard may have valued Cecily's opinions as a reality check.       Marion

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

Cecily fascinates me, and I would like to better understand her. As a mother and grandmother myself, I know how I feel about my family, but how did she feel?
She seems to have been quite supportive of Richard as he often seemed to stay with her, but was she really?
Would she have still been supportive if she thought he had killed her grandsons?
I wouldn't, but I live in a different society.
How much does human nature and basic instinct change?
She must have suffered when her husband and son were killed in battle?
How did she feel about Clarence, his shenanigans, and his ultimate fate at effectively the hands of his brothers?
An understanding of Cecily would help a lot with understanding the dynamics of this family. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J L LAYNESMITH ON CECILY'S REPUTATION FOR PIETY.
Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 6:33:57 PM

  Thanks Jan.  As I've learned more about Richard & his age, I have developed a jaundiced view of Cecily that tends towards the idea that she was happy to send out her sons & then perhaps even her grandsons in the pursuit of the family's significance & prominence.  Much harder to judge by the actions of those high-born folks how much real affection they had for their children; I suppose they had the same instincts as we do today, but reality was that so many children died (half of Cecily's did) before reaching adulthood that it doesn't seem too far a stretch that parents needed to develop some defenses against that prospect.  Added to that the necessity of using them to make the most strategic alliances by marriage.  And what real evidence do we have that Cecily felt warmly towards any of her children, most (or least) of all Richard?
A J

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
 
  As an extravagance I bought The Yorkist Age ed. H Kleineke & C Steer, in the Harlaxton Medieval Series [Vol XXIII]. It has an article by J L Laynesmith on Cecily Duchess of York, which picks hard at the reputation for piety that C A J Armstrong gave to her in a seminal article of 1942.  JLL is developing her unpublished MA dissertation in this article; she argues that CAJ A's conclusion is only relevant to CDOY's last 10 years. CDOY's reputation is based on 2 sources, her testament & her household ordinances.  The books mentioned in these sources correlate exactly, so JLL suggests the testament might have been used to write the ordinances.  Cutting a long article short, JLL suggests that CDOY was open to the influence of her mother, Joan Beaufort, who was interested in mysticism & the Carthusians.  As wife to the Duke of York she presumably supported the institutions he did, although there is little evidence apart from her activity during her widowhood.  Recently a manuscript of The Golden Legend was found in Sir Walter Scott's library & S Horobin has written about it suggesting it was written by Osbern Bokenham for the ducal couple. As mother to E4 she promoted her household clerics, including Thomas Banns & Richard Lessy, of apparently dubious reputation, & enjoyed her role as virtual queen till EW appeared.  JLL suggests that CDOY surrendered Fotheringhay to E4 so that he could supervise the glazing that was actually his father's project.  There is no proof that CDOY was living at Fotheringhay during the 1460s.  She had a quantity of rich vestments for her own chapel, plus plenty of religious jewellery, which JLL thinks could not all have been obtained after the death of R3.  CDOY must have been collecting them for some time. CDOY did not become a recluse after 1485, keeping a household at Baynard's Castle as well as at Berkhamsted.  Her testament was a great example of good ladyship to her servants.  She supported most generously the institutions that reflected the dynastic importance of the House of York, Fotheringhay & Stoke by Clare, which benefitted from her testament The devastating events of 1483-5, as well as old age, may well have provoked her to seek consolation in contemplation during her seventies.  Sting in the tail? Jan.

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.

Marie

How much of this behaviour as regards their sons, in both Cecily Neville and Margaret Beaufort's cases was driven by the lack of authority and power which was accorded to women at that period?
They obviously had great influence on affairs of state but always had to work through a male representative to have their views heard.
This seems to have led to an unhealthy level of connivance on their part.
Almost like puppet masters pulling strings.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.

Marie

It's possible to interpret even Cecily's sending George and Richard to Burgundy for safety as being dynastically, rather than maternally, inspired. She also had Margaret with her in London, and you would think that a fourteen-year-old girl would actually have been at more risk of harm from Margaret's soldiers than her two younger brothers. But as the youngest daughter Margaret was of no dynastic importance. Anyway, whatever the reason, she was left in London with her mother.

Marie

Carol responds:

But dynastic concerns don't necessarily preclude maternal concerns and vice versa. Also, Margaret would have been in as much danger among sailors and other men abroad as she would have been at home with her mother. It may well have been her preference to stay at home as well. Just thoughts, of course. It's impossible to determine the unexpressed thoughts of another person even in our own time. But I'll concede that Cecily was a dynast (or whatever the correct word is for someone concerned with preserving his or her own bloodline as rulers). So, of course, was Margaret of Anjou--and even Margaret Beaufort, if you count her blood as Lancastrian.

I've often wondered where Margaret (of York) was when the Lancastrians attacked Ludlow. Cecily and the little boys are always mentioned as being there (evidently taken in captivity and then placed with Cecily's Lancastrian sister Anne, Duchess of Buckingham), but Margaret is never mentioned until Cecily left all her children to be with her husband and "the Earl of March came every day to see them" (Margaret, George, and Richard).

Carol

Carol

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple.  It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history.  It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.  
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
  Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul
Carol responds:
But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.
Carol

I am surprised that you say that Mary loved William very much because it is my understanding that he was gay and had a string of favourites.
I have much more information on this but I am away from home at the moment so don't have access to my files.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

William and Mary were joint rulers because William insisted he would not be consort to his wife, who was James II's Protestant heir.  At the time, it was the expectation of many that Mary would rule alone, with William as her consort.  However, due to both his refusal and Mary's desire to please a husband she loved very much, they were eventually offered the crown jointly, with the provision that William would reign alone if Mary died before him (as indeed she did).
William was merely the grandson of Charles I, through his mother, Mary, Princess of Orange, whereas Mary was the elder daughter of James II and as the 'warming pan' son of James was both Catholic and suspected of being a substituted child, his claims were ignored.
From: Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
  A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple.  It appears that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at different times in English history.  It will probably be a couple of generations before that possibility is faces again.  
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.
  Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul
Carol responds:
But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund Mortimer as Richard II's heir.
Carol

I read somewhere that the Tudors executed 72,000 people and other benefits would have been, no Henry VIII no dissolution of the monestaries. No Charles I no Civil War and no Kaiser Wilhelm no WW1 and therefore no WW2. Yes Henry Tudor you have an awful lot to answer for.

Carol

Hiliary, I thought Stephen did have at least one son - Eustace. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:


Carol, yes HII was descended through his mother Matilda from HI, but Matilda herself was not acceptable (she acted too much like a man) and her cousin Stephen waded in. HII was accepted because like Eliz I, Mary, Anne etc there was no-one else close enough left (Stephen had no children). Primogenture in this country did not change from the end of the 14th century until last year.

On Friday, 15 November 2013, 23:42, Evelyn Hanson <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I'm not a historian but interested in
learning all I can. My notes were from a translation of "The Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown" of 1689". My notes said this included the monarch ruling jointly
with Parliament (I never use Wikipedia). Both Princeton and Yale
universities' translations talk to what the monarch may not do without the
consent of Parliament.

From: [[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Reign, not rule. No monarch has really ruled since Anne refused certain
bills from parliament. The Hanoverians were terrified of being sent home so
tended to always do what they were told.
Paul

On 14/11/2013 20:06, Evelyn Hanson wrote:

A couple of other royalty points to remember - William and Mary were joint
rulers because their lineage was of equal status, but both Victoria and
Elizabeth II ruled/rule alone with consort, to name a couple. It appears
that both rules of precidence (male or female) and expediency had a place at
different times in English history. It will probably be a couple of
generations before that possibility is faces again.

From: <mailto:justcarol67@...> "justcarol67@..."
<mailto:justcarol67@...> <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Re: J L LA YNESMITH ON CE CILY'S
REPUTAT ION FOR PIETY.

Paul wrote:

Stephen became king by dashing across the Channel from Henry's death bed and
getting himself crowned as the late king's nephew before anybody could think
about the alternative. It was the greatest achievement of his life.
Paul

Carol responds:

But my point is that both he and Henry II were descended from William the
Conqueror through a female line, so there was already a precedent for Edmund
Mortimer as Richard II's heir.

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!