Royal "friends" (was JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety)

"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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Hilary wrote:-

"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him?

I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king.

As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it.

I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell.

Marie

Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Hi Hilary,

No, Miles never fell out with the York council. Not at all. In fact, they continued to support him through thick and thin after Bosworth.

It's just that he seems to have been in York at the time of Richard's visit to the city in Sept. 1483 but is not listed in the minutes of the meeting about Knavesmire Common. My guess is that he was unhappy about Lovell's claim but because this was seen as a favour to Richard he discreetly withdrew.

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. Francis and his wife were amongst the long list of Fitzhugh family members and hangers-on pardoned in October 1470 (the presumption is that there had been a FitzHugh-led rebellion). The FitzHughs, again including Francis, applied for, and got, a safeconduct to enter Scotland after Edward won his throne back, but in July his wardship was granted to the Duke of Suffolk as a favour to Edward's sister the duchess. But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. He finally received livery of his estates towards the end of 1477. His immediate response seems to have been to make good his claim to some contested estates in the south, and he may have divided his time between his northern and southern interests - in 1480, for instance, he appears on commissions for both Oxfordshire and the North Riding of Yorkshire. Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. There is a letter he wrote to Sir William Stonor in 1482 dated from his mother-in-law's residence in Co. Durham. He was first nominated to the Garter in 1482, but was not successful until the next year. The January 1483 parliament was the first one to which he was summoned - he had probably just missed the summonses going out for the 1478 one - and is forthwith made a viscount. He pops up on a number of commissions, a few property deals, etc, between 1478 and early 1483. He's a young man just getting himself established.

As for his exact age, it doesn't seem entirely clear. The IPMs for his father are not consistent as to the age of Francis, the heir. But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.

Marie

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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Hillary said:

BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was.  H.

Reply:

Francis Lovell's mother-in-law Alice, Lady Fitzhugh, was one of the Earl of Warwick's sisters and one of his sisters-in-law Elizabeth Lady Parr, was the grandmother of Catherine Parr, Queen consort of Henry VIII. Everyone really was related!

Darlene

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 11/19/13, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Royal "friends" (was JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety)
To: "" <>
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 5:32 AM

 
     

Wow, thanks a milliion for all this Marie and I didn't know about the Lincoln connection at all. As you say, interesting. I can see where the theories about his return to Scotland after Stoke come from. As for Metcalfe; I think I've muddled him up with someone else. Thanks again. H

On Tuesday, 19 November 2013, 12:24, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hilary,No, Miles never fell out with the York council. Not at all. In fact, they continued to support him through thick and thin after Bosworth.It's just that he seems to have been in York at the time of Richard's visit to the city in Sept. 1483 but is not listed in the minutes of the meeting about Knavesmire Common. My guess is that he was unhappy about Lovell's claim but because this was seen as a favour to Richard he discreetly withdrew.As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. Francis and his wife were amongst the long list of Fitzhugh family members and hangers-on pardoned in October 1470 (the presumption is that there had been a FitzHugh-led rebellion). The FitzHughs, again including Francis, applied for, and got, a safeconduct to enter Scotland after Edward won his throne back, but in July his wardship was granted to the Duke of Suffolk as a favour to Edward's sister the duchess. But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. He finally received livery of his estates towards the end of 1477. His immediate response seems to have been to make good his claim to some contested estates in the south, and he may have divided his time between his northern and southern interests - in 1480, for instance, he appears on commissions for both Oxfordshire and the North Riding of Yorkshire. Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. There is a letter he wrote to Sir William Stonor in 1482 dated from his mother-in-law's residence in Co. Durham. He was first nominated to the Garter in 1482, but was not successful until the next year. The January 1483 parliament was the first one to which he was summoned - he had probably just missed the summonses going out for the 1478 one - and is forthwith made a viscount. He pops up on a number of commissions, a few property deals, etc, between 1478 and early 1483. He's a young man just getting himself established. As for his exact age, it doesn't seem entirely clear. The IPMs for his father are not consistent as to the age of Francis, the heir. But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.Marie

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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Marie wrote:

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. <snip> But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. <snip> Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. <snip> But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.

Carol responds:

Yes, very interesting. Given his age and that he was Warwick's ward, I wonder whether he (and perhaps his wife, who was Anne's cousin) have been more Anne's friends than Richard's at first? But he obviously developed a loyalty to Richard (specifically) later, which Richard rewarded. Many of Warwick's former retainers became Richard's devoted and loyal men. That could apply to Warwick's former ward as well. But, of course, he would have known Richard on some level when they were both at Middleham, and a younger boy can admire an older one (as Richard seems to have admired Edward at a much greater age distance).

Carol

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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

'Was Hastings framed?' Yes, of course he was. By whom? By Catesby who was all along hand in glove with M. Beaufort/Stanley. His Will makes this quite clear, & of course his wife was related to M.B., who never overlooked a single relative.

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

Marie wrote:

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. <snip> But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. <snip> Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. <snip> But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.

Carol responds:

Yes, very interesting. Given his age and that he was Warwick's ward, I wonder whether he (and perhaps his wife, who was Anne's cousin) have been more Anne's friends than Richard's at first? But he obviously developed a loyalty to Richard (specifically) later, which Richard rewarded. Many of Warwick's former retainers became Richard's devoted and loyal men. That could apply to Warwick's former ward as well. But, of course, he would have known Richard on some level when they were both at Middleham, and a younger boy can admire an older one (as Richard seems to have admired Edward at a much greater age distance).

Carol

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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

ÿ This is a total non sequitur. It can be reasonably adduced that Hastings either seriously disrupted the meeting or that he had committed some treason earlier, perhaps corresponding with the Pontefract prisoners. ----- Original Message ----- From: morganjennie21 To: Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:20 AM Subject: RE: Royal &quot;friends&quot; (was JL Laynesmith on Cecily&#39;s reputation for piety)

'Was Hastings framed?' Yes, of course he was. By whom? By Catesby who was all along hand in glove with M. Beaufort/Stanley. His Will makes this quite clear, & of course his wife was related to M.B., who never overlooked a single relative.

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

Marie wrote:

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. <snip> But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. <snip> Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. <snip> But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.

Carol responds:

Yes, very interesting. Given his age and that he was Warwick's ward, I wonder whether he (and perhaps his wife, who was Anne's cousin) have been more Anne's friends than Richard's at first? But he obviously developed a loyalty to Richard (specifically) later, which Richard rewarded. Many of Warwick's former retainers became Richard's devoted and loyal men. That could apply to Warwick's former ward as well. But, of course, he would have known Richard on some level when they were both at Middleham, and a younger boy can admire an older one (as Richard seems to have admired Edward at a much greater age distance).

Carol

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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:- "It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies: We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates. And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands. Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

And to add to that there is nothing to suggest that the Catesbys, who had been trusted lawyers and prominent in local politics for generations, would risk everything to go hand in glove on a whim. Ending up on the block (though by default one did) or the battefield was not how they worked. They'd even locked horns with the Beauchamps in a legal dispute so they weren't ones to toady. As David says, there was no Tudor faction at this point and MB was probably still working out how to take advantage of the confusion and get her son home.

On Thursday, 21 November 2013, 9:14, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
ÿ This is a total non sequitur. It can be reasonably adduced that Hastings either seriously disrupted the meeting or that he had committed some treason earlier, perhaps corresponding with the Pontefract prisoners. ----- Original Message ----- From: morganjennie21 To: Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:20 AM Subject: RE: Royal &quot;friends&quot; (was JL Laynesmith on Cecily&#39;s reputation for piety)
'Was Hastings framed?' Yes, of course he was. By whom? By Catesby who was all along hand in glove with M. Beaufort/Stanley. His Will makes this quite clear, & of course his wife was related to M.B., who never overlooked a single relative.

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

Marie wrote:

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. <snip> But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. <snip> Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. <snip> But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.
Carol responds:
Yes, very interesting. Given his age and that he was Warwick's ward, I wonder whether he (and perhaps his wife, who was Anne's cousin) have been more Anne's friends than Richard's at first? But he obviously developed a loyalty to Richard (specifically) later, which Richard rewarded. Many of Warwick's former retainers became Richard's devoted and loyal men. That could apply to Warwick's former ward as well. But, of course, he would have known Richard on some level when they were both at Middleham, and a younger boy can admire an older one (as Richard seems to have admired Edward at a much greater age distance).
Carol


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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:- "It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies: We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates. And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands. Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

Morganjenni... wrote:-

" 'Was Hastings framed?' Yes, of course he was. By whom? By Catesby who was all along hand in glove with M. Beaufort/Stanley. His Will makes this quite clear, & of course his wife was related to M.B., who never overlooked a single relative."

Marie replies:

Why 'of course'? You saying that 'of course' Hastings was not involved in any plotting because...?

I am well aware - I think most of us are - of the relationship of Catesby's wife to Margaret Beaufort and his appeal in his will to "my Lord Stanley, Strange and all that blood", but I have to ask you a couple of questions (sorry it's gone into italic all on its own):

1) What was Catesby's reward from Stanley and MB?

2) If Stanley was 'hand-in-glove' with the Stanleys before Bosworth, how come he was singled out to be executed? Is it not possible that he had appealed to them after the battle as kinsmen?

3) Why did Catesby, facing execution, not try to use his will to make reparations for Hastings' unjust death at his hands in the same way that he made reparations to people he had cheated over property? He remembered Buckingham's widow, but not Hastings' widow.

4) If the ambush was a put-up job to frame Hastings, are you saying that Catesby personally smuggled arms into or close to the council chamber in the Royal Apartments? Do we know he even had access to such privileged locations at this point?

Nope, afraid it doesn't do it for me.

Marie

1) If Cat were 'hand in glove' with

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

'Was Hastings framed?' Yes, of course he was. By whom? By Catesby who was all along hand in glove with M. Beaufort/Stanley. His Will makes this quite clear, & of course his wife was related to M.B., who never overlooked a single relative.

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

Marie wrote:

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. <snip> But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. <snip> Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. <snip> But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, have got to know Lincoln. Interesting.

Carol responds:

Yes, very interesting. Given his age and that he was Warwick's ward, I wonder whether he (and perhaps his wife, who was Anne's cousin) have been more Anne's friends than Richard's at first? But he obviously developed a loyalty to Richard (specifically) later, which Richard rewarded. Many of Warwick's former retainers became Richard's devoted and loyal men. That could apply to Warwick's former ward as well. But, of course, he would have known Richard on some level when they were both at Middleham, and a younger boy can admire an older one (as Richard seems to have admired Edward at a much greater age distance).

Carol

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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this historical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geographical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug

I had a look at the birth date of Lincoln which R Horrox in ODNB gives as c.1460, so Richard, Lovell & Lincoln look to be evenly spaced apart. This may have no real significance, but the older or more mature & responsible they got the less their age gaps would have mattered, I guess.
Jan.


From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 November 2013, 16:37
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Royal "friends" (was JL Laynesmith on Cecily's reputation for piety)

Marie wrote:

As for Francis Lovell: remember how young he was, and also he was not quite important enough for the York city council to be putting on huge welcoming parties and buying expensive presents every time he passed through. <snip> But in 1473 there are signs that he may actually have spent time in Gloucester's household - ie he and his wife joined the York Corpus Christi Gild and Thomas Metcalfe (Miles' elder brother) was appointed as auditor of his estates. <snip> Then he's knighted by Gloucester in Scotland in 1481. <snip> But he didn't receive full livery of his lands until November 1477, and is described as a minor in a letter of February that year, so my guess is that he was born in the autumn of 1456 and so was, as you say, four years younger than Richard. If he spent time in the Suffolks' household in the 1470s he would, of course, hav e got to know Lincoln. Interesting.
Carol responds:
Yes, very interesting. Given his age and that he was Warwick's ward, I wonder whether he (and perhaps his wife, who was Anne's cousin) have been more Anne's friends than Richard's at first? But he obviously developed a loyalty to Richard (specifically) later, which Richard rewarded. Many of Warwick's former retainers became Richard's devoted and loyal men. That could apply to Warwick's former ward as well. But, of course, he would have known Richard on some level wh en they were both at Middleham, and a younger boy can admire an older one (as Richard seems to have admired Edward at a much greater age distance).
Carol


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

Thanks Marie, yes that's right. I recall Miles seems to have fallen out with the York Council at some point. There just seems to be this histo rical blank about Lovell until the Scottish Wars apart from the fact that he and Anna joined the Trinity Guild? Fiction has him as a sort of chum/lodger at Middleham during the '70s, but apart from the fact that he was Warwick's ward and four years' younger than Richard, I wonder how close they really were until the Scottish wars? BTW I didn't realise till the other day that his sister was the mother of the Norrys executed for adultery with Anne Boleyn. Shows what a strange closed world it all was. H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 16:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Hilary. I think there's probably one more thing we should consider with Hastings but haven't - the elephant in the room - and that is his role as boon companion of the King's vices, as historians tend to phrase it; he does seem to have been that, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he loved Edward IV to death. I'm quite sure Richard must have mouthed off about such people and their role in Edward IV's death, in a general way whilst he was Protector, and this would have made Hastings feel very uncomfortable. With regard to remaining as Lord Chamberlain, you could ask yourself whether Richard was ever likely to allow an ageing lothario like Hastings to act as gatekeeper to the chambers of the new young king. As for Lovell, as I recall his role in the York House Books was that he was claiming that his tenants at Dringhouses just south of the city had a traditional right of common grazing on the adjacent Knavesmire common, which the folk of York were claiming exclusively for themselves. I don't think it went further than that - ie I don't think he was trying to swipe Knavesmire and enclose it. I don't know the rights and wrongs of the case, but Miles Metcalf as city Recorder seems to have opposed Lovell's claim initially, but then the matter was thrashed out during Richard's visit as King in 1483, and the city council - minus Miles who was in the city but seems to have chosen not to attend the meeting - found in favour of Lovell. Marie Marie

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

Thanks Marie. I certainly agree with your good point about the rival Buckingham influence in the north Midlands. As I've said elsewhere I've done more than a fair bit on the gentry et al in Staffordshire and you could certainly label it Lancastrian at heart if not overtly. Which is not of course surprising given both the Stanley's (to a lesser extent) and MB's contacts with the County and the Stafford family. Some of it goes as far back as the Battle of Shrewsbury when they seem to have turned out for Henry IV in some force - perhaps that's not so surprising given the geog raphical proximity. I do wonder how far Buckingham was exposed/became tainted with those views (despite his own ego), given Auntie Margaret and his base at Maxstoke? Interesting that. You also bump into Reggie Bray. The person you never seem to bump into is Morton - clever man! I also asked in another post about Lovell. In fiction he is always a 'good egg' but he was four years' younger than Richard and perhaps not the great childhood friend so often portrayed. He does seem very acquisitive landwise though, and it's interesting that though the York House Books praise Richard and Northumberland, Lovell's only appearance in them centres on yet more land acquisition. Perhaps Hastings was between a rock and a hard place? H.

On Monday, 18 November 2013, 12:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:-"It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what the King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it." Marie replies:We know little about the behaviour of the Council because we lack the records for this period, but there is evidence that differences of opinion were aired as forcefully as people dared, particularly in times of political crisis such as after the death of Charles the Bold. But I don't think there's was an absolute dividing line for these people between court/ national politics on the one hand, and home/ estates/ local politics on the other; there were always people after your estates, land law was a mess and forging of documents rife, so a man needed influence and friends at the top. Hastings had many offices which augmented both his income and his national influence. We all know what a Captain of Calais could achieve if he chose to defy the crown. And he was alsoMaster of the Mint - ie he controlled the money supply. But possibly Hastings' most influential job was that of Lord Chamberlain of the Household. He was the man who controlled access to the King, and that meant that he was the man everyone else needed to stay on the right side of. That gave Hastings enormous influence and would have prevented potential local rivals from challenging him. Now, I know that his first two offices - Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint - were confirmed by Richard when he became Protector, but although he is still referred to by people at large as the Chamberlain (eg in Stallworth's letter) I can't see any confirmation of this office in the Patent Rolls, nor do any of the entries in the CPR for that period refer to him as Lord Chamberlain so far as I can see. So I wonder if Hastings feared that this, his most influential office, was at risk of being granted to one of Richard's mates.And Buckingham certainly was a potential rival for local influence in the Midlands.Marie

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

It would be interesting to know what influence friends and courtiers such as Hastings really had on governance itself. It's easier to gauge it in HVII's time because of his middle class 'civil servants'. I don't get the impression it was like Versailles, where they abandoned their estates and spent their days basking and flattering. And I can't somehow see Hastings leaning over EIV's shoulder and telling him to impose a tax there or give a bit of land here. Despite all his faults EIV seems to have been a very hands on monarch when it came to administration. Do you know anything about the role of the Council, Marie, other than endorsing what th e King wanted? Did they ever oppose him? I would have thought that, like most, Hastings' main aim was land acquisition - he and Edward patrolled Leics and Warks very effectively. If it was land, he wouldn't gain anything by siding with the Woodvilles, because the Greys were his rivals in Leics and they had an ongoing feud. Neither was he likely to have locker room conversations with the young King which would somehow be to his advantage. I also don't honestly see why he should be threatened by Richard's friendship with Buckingham. Miffed, yes, but he'd never been as close to Richard as he had to Edward. And surely the Woodvilles would fill the Buckingham role during the reign of the young king. No, Hastings and the Woodvilles, I just don't see it. H.

On Sunday, 17 November 2013, 16:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> 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" Doug here: Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn't referring to Hastings being Edward's, umm, "bedmate", rather I was referring to how, seemingly, Hastings was quite willing to use his friendship/relationship with Edward to his (Hastings') advantage. If Hastings did take advantage of his relationship with Edward may it have been *because* Hastings saw that he couldn't count on Edward always supporting him? As for Hastings being reluctant to support the Woodvilles, as Maria pointed out, if it was a choice of Hastings retaining *some* of his previous power/authority working with the Woodvilles or being replaced by Buckingham, I can certainly see Hastings getting involved in some plot to keep Edward as King - even if that plot meant Richard had to die. Of course, that would mean that Hastings had probably really never had been Edward's "boon companion" and think of all re-writing of "histories" *that* would entail! Doug