re; JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety

Jessie wrote: I am surprised that you say 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." Doug here: I must admit that I haven't studied William that closely, but I do wonder if "favorites" and "lovers" haven't been conflated? Especially if those favorites aren't given particluar taks/positions to occupy themselves which, if I understand/remember correctly, was true of William's. Being a monarch was an extremely lonely business. It meant, most likely, not having friends; at least in the sense of persons who liked "you", and not "King X"! Hastings was, from what I've read, Edward IV's "friend", but he never seems to have hesitated in not using that "friedship" to his personal advantage. What I recall of William's favorites is that they dont' seem to have done that so, of course, there *must* be another reason for the attachment... Doug (who, most certainly, could be wrong!)

I am suspicious of this. JA-H's "Royal Marriage Secrets" (pp.198-202) does not suggest that William III had any male partners but names two mistresses. He does (p.216, note 2) list the known or alleged homosexual monarchs and omits him.

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

Jessie wrote: I am surprised that you say 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." Doug here: I must admit that I haven't studied William that closely, but I do wonder if "favorites" and "lovers" haven't been conflated? Especially if those favorites aren't given particluar taks/positions to occupy themselves which, if I understand/remember correctly, was true of William's. Being a monarch was an extremely lonely business. It meant, most likely, not having friends; at least in the sense of persons who liked "you", and not "King X"! Hastings was, from what I've read, Edward IV's "friend", but he never seems to have hesitated in not using that "friedship" to his personal advantage. What I recall of William's favorites is that they dont' seem to have done that so, of course, there *must* be another reason for the attachment... Doug (who, most certainly, could be wrong!)

Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 15:49, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Jessie wrote: I am surprised that you say 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." Doug here: I must admit that I haven't studied William that closely, but I do wonder if "favorites" and "lovers" haven't been conflated? Especially if those favorites aren't given particluar taks/positions to occupy themselves which, if I understand/remember correctly, was true of William's. Being a monarch was an extremely lonely business. It meant, most likely, not having friends; at least in the sense of persons who liked "you", and not "King X"! Hastings was, from what I've read, Edward IV's "friend", but he never seems to have hesitated in not using that "friedship" to his personal advantage. What I recall of William's favorites is that they dont' seem to have done that so, of course, there *must* be another reason for the attachment... Doug (who, most certainly, could be wrong!)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo.
Catesby!.......

It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom?  H 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 15:49, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Jessie wrote:
> I am surprised that you say 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."
>  
> Doug here:
> I must admit that I haven't studied William that
> closely, but I do wonder if "favorites" and "lovers" haven't been conflated?
> Especially if those favorites aren't given particluar taks/positions to occupy
> themselves which, if I understand/remember correctly, was true of
> William's.
> Being a monarch was an extremely lonely business.
> It meant, most likely, not having friends; at least in the sense of persons
> who liked "you", and not "King X"! Hastings was, from what I've read, Edward
> IV's "friend", but he never seems to have hesitated in not using that
> "friedship" to his personal advantage.
> What I recall of William's favorites is that they
> dont' seem to have done that so, of course, there *must* be another reason for
> the attachment...
> Doug
> (who, most certainly, could be
> wrong!)
>

Apparently there were rumours at the time he was king that he had male lovers, but these are not accepted by many of his biographers who write off such rumours as Tory propaganda.
It is hard to say at this distance of course what the truth of the matter was, although a predisposition to assume that a "good" man could not be homosexual has to be taken into account when considering bias either way.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: stephenmlark@... <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: re; JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety
Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 4:00:43 PM

 

I am suspicious of this. JA-H's "Royal Marriage Secrets" (pp.198-202) does not suggest that William III had any male partners but names two mistresses. He does (p.216, note 2) list the known or alleged homosexual monarchs and omits him.

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

Jessie wrote: I am surprised that you say 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."   Doug here: I must admit that I haven't studied William that closely, but I do wonder if "favorites" and "lovers" haven't been conflated? Especially if those favorites aren't given particluar taks/positions to occupy themselves which, if I understand/remember correctly, was true of William's. Being a monarch was an extremely lonely business. It meant, most likely, not having friends; at least in the sense of persons who liked "you", and not "King X"! Hastings was, from what I've read, Edward IV's "friend", but he never seems to have hesitated in not using that "friedship" to his personal advantage. What I recall of William's favorites is that they dont' seem to have done that so, of course, there *must* be another reason for the attachment... Doug (who, most certainly, could be wrong!)

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign.  I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son.  I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor.  Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions.  Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about:  lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation.  The violence that therefore would follow the coronation.  Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky.  Also to be considered:  his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position.  I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence.  So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction.  I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction.  Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type!  Maria ejbronte@...   

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
 

Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo.  His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard.   Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc.  I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did?   It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom?  H 

Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved.

I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw.

Oh, if only we had more information.

Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

That's an interesting theory. I tend to agree with you that Richard did believe in the pre-contract. However, I'm not sure it would have been a useful fabrication by another group to put Richard on the throne. Surely there were a lot of risks. What if someone had come forward with concrete evidence to disprove it? That would ensnare Richard in the mess, and if this group wanted him on the throne, that would defeat their object. What about Eleanor's sister? Unless she had been 'bought off' she might have been able to upset the apple cart.
If it was a fabrication, it was one which could have been easily demolished, therefore the risk would be too great and the conspirators would not achieve their objective. I think the potential weakness of the pre-contract as a fabrication is its greatest strength for being true.
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Something that occurred to me when we have discussed the pre-contract previously, E of Y would probably have encouraged Henry. She probably hated being illegitimate and would want to save her parents' honour too.

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Although we do not have a sworn statement from Stillington, or a transcript of what was said to the councildiscussed in Parliament on 24 Jan 84, it is reasonable to infer that Edward IV was already married to Eleanor Butler when he married Elizabeth Grey:1. Richard's title was ratified by Parliament in Titular Regis. Why would they do that if they did not believe the pre-contract was true? The old chestnut that they did it from fear of Richard doesn't bear close examination. Parliament at this time was more independent and influential than it was allowed to be under the 'divine right' style of Tudor rule . And there is no serious suggestion that it was a packed Parliament of Richard's supporters; it was a representative cross-section of the the 'three estates' (the lords temporal and spiritual, and the commons) and being an English Parliament was typically truculent.2. Henry Tudor must have believed it was true; else, why did he try to re-write history by airbrushing Lady Eleanor out of it?3. After his accession, why did Henry forbid a judicial examination of Stillington's claim?4. Edward IV was a notorious womaniser; he had previous form for promising marriage to a woman he wanted to bed (e.g. Elizabeth Grey). The claim of a pre-contract is plausible.5. Why would Stillington lie? He had been a loyal, if unremarkable, royal servant who had nothing to gain and was not rewarded by Richard?
I could go on but that's enough to be getting on withT


Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Nov 2013, at 12:13, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

One of the more bizarre "defenses" of Richard I remember reading recently (I put "defense" in quotation marks because I half-suspect the author was being somewhat snidely facetious in the manner of a very slick and expensive barrister) talked about the problems Richard had with the Council and Three Estates being as they were made up in large part of people hostile to Richard. Yet this same author quickly skims over the whole Titulus Regius issue by assuming that it had to be false, without stating his reasons, much less addressing head-on the question of how a Council largely hostile to Richard would have let TR be ratified in open Parliament unless it was very convincing indeed.

Tamara

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Depends whether Elizabeth thought her brothers were dead. And that's both of them.

Marie

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

Something that occurred to me when we have discussed the pre-contract previously, E of Y would probably have encouraged Henry. She probably hated being illegitimate and would want to save her parents' honour too.

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

We also have another dog that didn't bark in Titilus Regius. While her marriage to Edward was being examined, she was living only a few feet away in sanctuary. She had access to religious canon experts and could easily have used them to mount a defense of her marriage and disprove the claim that Edward was a bigamist and her children illegitimate. She did not.

Even after Bosworth, she never claimed Richard or Stillington lied. One of the first things Henry did after the battle was order Stillington arrested and brought to him.

Even Henry didn't dare proclaim the foundation of Titilus Regius was rotten. Another doggy that didn't bark and had every need to do so.

~Weds

---In , <misty1983@...> wrote:

Although we do not have a sworn statement from Stillington, or a transcript of what was said to the councildiscussed in Parliament on 24 Jan 84, it is reasonable to infer that Edward IV was already married to Eleanor Butler when he married Elizabeth Grey:1. Richard's title was ratified by Parliament in Titular Regis. Why would they do that if they did not believe the pre-contract was true? The old chestnut that they did it from fear of Richard doesn't bear close examination. Parliament at this time was more independent and influential than it was allowed to be under the 'divine right' style of Tudor rule . And there is no serious suggestion that it was a packed Parliament of Richard's supporters; it was a representative cross-section of the the 'three estates' (the lords temporal and spiritual, and the commons) and being an English Parliament was typically truculent.2. Henry Tudor must have believed it was true; else, why did he try to re-write history by airbrushing Lady Eleanor out of it?3. After his accession, why did Henry forbid a judicial examination of Stillington's claim?4. Edward IV was a notorious womaniser; he had previous form for promising marriage to a woman he wanted to bed (e.g. Elizabeth Grey). The claim of a pre-contract is plausible.5. Why would Stillington lie? He had been a loyal, if unremarkable, royal servant who had nothing to gain and was not rewarded by Richard?
I could go on but that's enough to be getting on withT


Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Nov 2013, at 12:13, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Marie and Maria,
I don't think at the time of the council meeting of the 13th there was a 'Tudor Faction'. Nobody at that point was proposing Henry as a possible king.

Remember that Stanley later played a central role in maintaining Richard in power during the Buckingham rebellion.

Regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: re; JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety
Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 10:21:21 PM

 

Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved.

 

I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw.

 

Oh, if only we had more information.

 

Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign.  I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son.  I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor.  Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions.  Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about:  lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation.  The violence that therefore would follow the coronation.  Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky.  Also to be considered:  his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position.  I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence.  So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction.  I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction.  Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type!  Maria ejbronte@...   

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
  Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo.  His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard.   Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc.  I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did?   It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom?  H 

Indeed. It became expedient in Tudor times to rewrite Stanley's role.

Marie

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Marie and Maria,
I don't think at the time of the council meeting of the 13th there was a 'Tudor Faction'. Nobody at that point was proposing Henry as a possible king.

Remember that Stanley later played a central role in maintaining Richard in power during the Buckingham rebellion.

Regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: re; JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety
Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 10:21:21 PM

Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved.

I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw.

Oh, if only we had more information.

Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

There may not have been a formal Tudor faction, but I've mulled over Morton for a while now; I believe that he accepted Edward IV only because Edward had successfully conquered, but that he always viewed the Yorkists as usurpers; I believe that he believed he owed no loyalty to the son of Edward IV (let alone the son of Elizabeth Woodville) and that, indeed, he *would* have been casting lines for Henry Tudor very early after Edward IV's death, and that, possibly, he (and/or Margaret Beaufort) may have been tentatively fishing for recruits like Hastings.
Maria ejbronte@...

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:19 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Indeed. It became expedient in Tudor times to rewrite Stanley's role.

Marie

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Marie and Maria,
I don't think at the time of the council meeting of the 13th there was a 'Tudor Faction'. Nobody at that point was proposing Henry as a possible king.

Remember that Stanley later played a central role in maintaining Richard in power during the Buckingham rebellion.

Regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: re; JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety
Sent: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 10:21:21 PM

 

Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved.

 

I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw.

 

Oh, if only we had more information.

 

Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign.  I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son.  I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor.  Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions.  Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about:  lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation.  The violence that therefore would follow the coronation.  Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky.  Also to be considered:  his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position.  I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence.  So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction.  I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction.  Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type!  Maria ejbronte@...   

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
  Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo.  His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard.   Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc.  I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did?   It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom?  H 

Marie wrote:

Depends whether Elizabeth thought her brothers were dead. And that's both of them.

Marie

Carol responds:

Whom are you responding to here, Marie?

Carol

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

Something that occurred to me when we have discussed the pre-contract previously, E of Y would probably have encouraged Henry. She probably hated being illegitimate and would want to save her parents' honour too.

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Marie wrote:

Marie wrote

"Depends whether Elizabeth thought her brothers were dead. And that's both of them."

Carol responded:"

Whom are you responding to here, Marie?"

Marie responds:

Can't recall who any longer, but it was whoever suggested that Elizabeth of York would have encouraged Henry VII's plan to marry her because she would have been anxious to have her illegitimacy reversed. Sorry, should have snipped the relevant post in, but was short of time.

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Depends whether Elizabeth thought her brothers were dead. And that's both of them.

Marie

Carol responds:

Whom are you responding to here, Marie?

Carol

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

Something that occurred to me when we have discussed the pre-contract previously, E of Y would probably have encouraged Henry. She probably hated being illegitimate and would want to save her parents' honour too.

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Looking at the statements Richard made during his reign, what is striking is his confidence in his right to be king. I don't think this was all just for public consumption. So, although evidence of the precontract eludes us now, I do think Richard absolutely believed that Edward's marriage was invalid. I think there must have been credible witnesses produced other than Stillington, people who had either witnessed the exchange of promises or been told of the marriage by Eleanor herself. Again, this is something Henry VII never had the courage to face head on. He merely repealed the resulting Act of parliament, unread, had all copies destroyed and kept a close watch on Stillington.

Marie

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

If we're going out on limbs can I ask something else? Firstly I believe Richard believed there was a pre-contract; I wouldn't be a Ricardian if I didn't. He was too religious, straight and honest to dream that one up, despite what some writers have said.But what if there were those in, shall we say, government circles, who really didn't want a child ruler on the throne, particularly one dominated by Woodville interests. Evidence of possible early Woodville plotting to wrest the child away from Richard would confirm their fears. They know Richard to be a loyal honest man who loved his brother, even though he did not always agree with him or his lifestyle. How could they convince a strong man - Richard - to take the throne; and one that was still loyal to his brother's memory? It would have to be a really foolproof story; there would be no second chance.Were there people in that circle who could have dreamed up evidence of the pre-contract, or tracked it down, or even used rumours about Eleanor and firmed them up a bit more? Doesn't have to have been Stillington - as we've said as a good lawyer he could just have been used later to draft TR. What's more, once Richard had accepted the throne and the boys declared bastards he could never go back, even if he later found to his horror it had all been a fabrication.Perhaps a limb too far, but it's one I've pondered for a while. H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 22:21, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Stanley's arrest seems to have been written into the account in the Tudor period. There is no actual evidence that he was in any way involved. I do agree that Hastings may have felt very sidelined by young Buckingham's sudden influence. Personal relationships have a big influence on politics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hastings didn't loathe the young Buck. Richard's attempts to protect his own position after the coronation - extending his protectorship, for instance - may have alarmed Hastings, particularly if he saw Richard as now wholly under Buckingham's spell. And if the precontract claim had been aired in council, and luscious Mistress Shore turned up at his door at that very juncture with a peace offering from the Woodville side, that may have been the final straw. Oh, if only we had more information. Marie

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

Well, one of the points I think about is that the company arrested on July 13 were Morton and Thomas Stanley, both connected with the Tudor faction, and Morton a Lancastrian adherent, tied to Edward IV during Edward's second reign. I don't believe that Morton supported Edward V at all - I believe he felt Edward IV was a successful usurper, and that he was under no obligation to support this usurper's son. I believe that, very early, he decided to work for Henry Tudor. Thomas Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, and, whether he liked it or not, the Tudor faction had to be factored into his decisions. Here is my very tentative feel about what Hastings might have been worried about: lack of cooperation with and from the Woodville faction both at present and after the coronation. Richard's weakened political hand after the coronation. The violence that therefore would follow the coronation. Richard summoning men from the North is already an indication that life was about to get very rocky. Also to be considered: his own position next to Richard as compared to Buckingham's position. I feel Hastings was afraid of a much-lessened influence. So, I go out on a very far limb here, one I climbed onto when I drafted my play about the 1483 events, and I put forth that it wouldn't be inconceivable for Hastings to (reluctantly?) join forces with the Tudor faction. I feel that if Richard discovered this, it would certainly trigger a violent reaction. Two rushed cents interrupted by four cats trying to help me type! Maria ejbronte@...

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Doug, I'm so sorry but I've tried to find your other post on Hastings and can't - things seem to disappear when I read them, thanks Yahoo. His sexuality apart (which doesn't seem to be in question) I have a real problem in believing that he sided with the Woodvilles against Richard. Firstly, we assume he was still as close to Edward but was he? Edward was not exactly kind to him when he tried to help Margaret of Burgundy in the late '70s. Secondly, there was an ongoing fued between Dorset and Hastings over land in Leics which went well on into H7's reign; it's well worth reading it's just like Robin Hood with ambushes, highway attacks in forests, stolen boats, archers with drawn bows etc. I just can't see Hastings going over to the Woodvilles to support a child monarch. As I've said before, how do we know a Woodville prince would put the same value on Hastings as his father did? It's a great mystery and I still can't get my head round it. In fact I probably find it the biggest mystery of all in this. Was Hastings framed, and by whom? H

Maria wrote:

There may not have been a formal Tudor faction, but I've mulled over Morton for a while now; I believe that he accepted Edward IV only because Edward had successfully conquered, but that he always viewed the Yorkists as usurpers; I believe that he believed he owed no loyalty to the son of Edward IV (let alone the son of Elizabeth Woodville) and that, indeed, he *would* have been casting lines for Henry Tudor very early after Edward IV's death, and that, possibly, he (and/or Margaret Beaufort) may have been tentatively fishing for recruits like Hastings.
Carol responds:

While I agree with you that Morton was never a Yorkist (he only accommodated himself to Edward IV's rule because Edward seemed unassailable) and it's possible that he and MB had been thinking of her son as the only possible "Lancastrian" claimant (or the only male, part-English possible claimant), but they would certainly have been the extent of the Tudor "faction" at this point.

I think it more probable that Morton, rather than recruiting Yorkists to his (dubious) cause, took the opportunity to exploit rivalries. He might have stirred up fears among Woodville supporters (such as Rotherham) that Richard would exclude them from his government as Protector, played on Hastings's resentment at not receiving as many rewards as Buckingham (and not having his chancellorship renewed, as Marie has pointed out), and so on. He might well have stirred Buckingham against Hastings as well.

So the idea would be to divide the Yorkists against themselves, perhaps causing a civil war over who would control the young king--or even inciting an assassination attempt by Hastings if his manipulative whispers fell on fallow ground. But Hastings as a Tudor supporter? I can't see it. He would simply have wanted to control the young king, and the first step would be to get rid of Richard. As Captain of Calais, he could deal with the Woodvilles later if they proved recalcitrant. Or perhaps they would be sufficiently grateful to him for assassinating Richard that he could name his own reward.

As for Morton, he would bide his time, making the most of the chaos surrounding a child king and turning anyone he could subvert against the Protector even before the revelation of Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler. Whether he corresponded with MB and perhaps urged her to start a spy network or stir up anti-Richard sentiments at this early point is unclear. Probably not. Lord Stanley's supposed involvement (as her husband) seems to be a later invention, as Marie has pointed out.

But a few outsiders were clearly involved in the plot--someone named Forester, if I recall correctly--and, of course, Mistress Shore as go-between. Possibly, Morton hoped that Rotherham would fill that role, but Rotherham balked at assassination? At any rate, he was released quickly and seems to have accommodated himself to Richard as both protector and king. His signature is on the bishop's request to Richard to help them by dealing as justly in religious matters as in all others. (The full quotation is in "The Maligned King" about midway through.)

Carol

Carol

It's just me but I think it's much more likely that Morton and MB were fishing for recruits like Buckingham. Could they really ever trust Hastings? He'd been through too much with the Yorkists. But Edward had not trusted Buckingham and Buckingham, a Stafford like his aunt, almost certainly had a chip on his shoulder because of his forfeited lands. We always assume Buckingham was a Yorkist because he declared his support for Richard, but do we have any real evidence, other than his appearance at the marriage of Richard of York? I think most of us agree Buckingham loved Buckingham, and if that had to be Yorkist Buckingham or Lancastrian Buckingham would it really matter? As for spy networks, they had always been there - both within local and foreign factions. Oh that we had their notebooks! Robert Morton probably burned them. H.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2013, 17:27, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Maria wrote:

There may not have been a formal Tudor faction, but I've mulled over Morton for a while now; I believe that he accepted Edward IV only because Edward had successfully conquered, but that he always viewed the Yorkists as usurpers; I believe that he believed he owed no loyalty to the son of Edward IV (let alone the son of Elizabeth Woodville) and that, indeed, he *would* have been casting lines for Henry Tudor very early after Edward IV's death, and that, possibly, he (and/or Margaret Beaufort) may have been tentatively fishing for recruits like Hastings.
Carol responds:

While I agree with you that Morton was never a Yorkist (he only accommodated himself to Edward IV's rule because Edward seemed unassailable) and it's possible that he and MB had been thinking of her son as the only possible "Lancastrian" claimant (or the only male, part-English possible claimant), but they would certainly have been the extent of the Tudor "faction" at this point.

I think it more probable that Morton, rather than recruiting Yorkists to his (dubious) cause, took the opportunity to exploit rivalries. He might have stirred up fears among Woodville supporters (such as Rotherham) that Richard would exclude them from his government as Protector, played on Hastings's resentment at not receiving as many rewards as Buckingham (and not having his chancellorship renewed, as Marie has pointed out), and so on. He might well have stirred Buckingham against Hastings as well.

So the idea would be to divide the Yorkists against themselves, perhaps causing a civil war over who would control the young king--or even inciting an assassination attempt by Hastings if his manipulative whispers fell on fallow ground. But Hastings as a Tudor supporter? I can't see it. He would simply have wanted to control the young king, and the first step would be to get rid of Richard. As Captain of Calais, he could deal with the Woodvilles later if they proved recalcitrant. Or perhaps they would be sufficiently grateful to him for assassinating Richard that he could name his own reward.

As for Morton, he would bide his time, making the most of the chaos surrounding a child king and turning anyone he could subvert against the Protector even before the revelation of Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler. Whether he corresponded with MB and perhaps urged her to start a spy network or stir up anti-Richard sentiments at this early point is unclear. Probably not. Lord Stanley's supposed involvement (as her husband) seems to be a later invention, as Marie has pointed out.

But a few outsiders were clearly involved in the plot--someone named Forester, if I recall correctly--and, of course, Mistress Shore as go-between. Possibly, Morton hoped that Rotherham would fill that role, but Rotherham balked at assassination? At any rate, he was released quickly and seems to have accommodated himself to Richard as both protector and king. His signature is on the bishop's request to Richard to help them by dealing as justly in religious matters as in all others. (The full quotation is in "The Maligned King" about midway through.)

Carol

Carol