Stillington's Embassy to Brittany?

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords  Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also  checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie

Thanks, David, would really appreciate that.

I notice Vergil doesn't actually date the incident - he just places it between something that happened in 1474 and Clarence's arrest.

Marie

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie

Hi David and all,

I've got a little further myself now with the Stillington & Catesby issues, so here's an update.

As regards Stillington, I found that the old Dictionary of National Biography article had the story of his being the ambassador to Brittany who tried to get HT handed over; the main source for this article seemed to be S. H. Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells (1829). I downloaded a free ebook version of Cassan, and found the offending reference on page 258. It doesn't come from Cassan's own findings, which are dull solid stuff, but from a long Latin passage he quotes from the Anglia Sacra.' Anglia Sacra turned out to be by Henry Wharton and to date from 1691. Wharton's account of Stillington is very lurid. In it, in very rough translation, he claims that:

...in the year 1475, in obedience to Edward's orders, he passed into Brittany as an ambassador too little resembling a man of the Church, in order to demand that Henry Earl of Richmond, the sole heir of the House of Lancaster, should be given into his hands. The Duke of Brittany abhorred this impious deed and refused to hand over the innocent youth to execution by the jealous king. Importunately, Robert insisted.... (etc., etc.)

Since Wharton gives the year of Bishop Stillington's embassy as 1475, it really does look as though he has muddled him up with Oliver King, who was Bishop of Bath and Wells from 1495 to 1503 and really was Edward's chief ambassador to Brittany in the summer of 1475.

As for Catesby's embassy to Brittany in 1484, this quotation sums up the evidence (or lack thereof) perfectly. It is note 38 of C. S. L. Davies' 1993 article Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor' (Nottingham Medieval Studies, Vol. 13):-

It is sometimes stated that Catesby was Richard's agent to Brittany; cf. Griffiths and Thomas, Tudor Dynasty, p. 111, and Horrox, Richard III, p. 28. Also, Henry Marsille, Vannes au Moyen-Age (= Bulletin de la Soc. Polymathique du Morbihan, 109, Vannes, 1982), 114. This is derived from an entry in the Vannes cathedral accounts of 'le grand escuier d'Engleterre' (apparently unnamed) making an offering on 12 September 1484, quoted by Allanic, Tour d'Elven, p. 49. Catesby was one of several esquires of the body. I would suggest that James Tyrell, master of the horse, and known to be employed on delicate foreign missions, is a more likely candidate; see W.E. Hampton, 'Sir JamesTyrell' in J. Petre, (ed.), Richard III, Crown and, People (Ric. III Soc., 1985 ), pp. 203-17.

Marie

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie

Hi Hilary,

I trust the Foedera as much as any other published collection of original docs - ie I think it's a genuine attempt to transcribe accurately documents that do exist, but probably contains some misreadings. If you're suggesting Rymer made the entries up, then I would suggest to you that this would have taken way longer than transcribing existing docs, and in order to make his forgeries plausible he would have had to research each little period in depth. It's amazing how much work some of these early antiquarians got through and how accurate their palaeography was - and remember, they read Latin as easily as we read English. The only way you could tell for certain would be to look up the originals of a random selection of the documents in the Foedera and compare them to Rymer's transcriptions.

What is more likely is that he may have missed dome docs, so that his coverage of, say, instructions to ambassadors may be incomplete.

One thing is certain, and that is that if ambassadors were sent abroad (or indeed messengers were sent anywhere) then they would be paid expenses on their return, so provided the relevant Exchequer accounts survive for the year in question it should be possible to find evidence of the mission there. Also ambassadors were customarily given gifts by the heads of state they were visiting, and the cost of these was also recorded - I've seen several entries for such gifts in the English Exchequer accounts of the 1470s - so if the relevant accounts survive for Brittany they would be another corroborative source.

Marie

...in the year 1475, in obedience to Edward's orders, he passed into Brittany as an ambassador too little resembling a man of the Church, in order to demand that Henry Earl of Richmond, the sole heir of the House of Lancaster, should be given into his hands. The Duke of Brittany abhorred this impious deed and refused to hand over the innocent youth to execution by the jealous king. Importunately, Robert insisted.... (etc., etc.) <snip?"

Carol responds:

Thanks as always for your excellent research. I wonder if Wharton was influenced by Commynes, who presents Stillington as a wicked man? His view of Edward and of Tudor seems influenced by Vergil. (How any more modern writer, whether Cassans in 1829 or the author of the DNB entry in the early twentieth century, could credit such a biased source--I mean Wharton, not Commynes or Vergil--is beyond my comprehension. "Innocent youth," "sole heir of the House of Lancaster," "impious deed," "jealous king"! I would laugh at the idea of Edward's being jealous of Tudor if the whole passage didn't turn my stomach.) It's sad that the testimony of such "sources," minus the obvious bias, becomes hardened into "fact." If only historians would stop quoting each other and go back to primary sources!

BTW, Marie, in another post, you seemed to credit the idea that Edward considered marrying EoY (or another daughter?) to Tudor late in his life. Is there any evidence for that other than the testimony of non-Woodvilles related to the second papal dispensation for Tudor and EoY?

Carol

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie

Carol wrote:

" BTW, Marie, in another post, you seemed to credit the idea that Edward considered marrying EoY (or another daughter?) to Tudor late in his life. Is there any evidence for that other than the testimony of non-Woodvilles related to the second papal dispensation for Tudor and EoY?"

Marie answers:

Sorry, Carol, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Edward was agreeable to the idea, but I do think the question was raised with Edward at some time because - ignoring Vergil's story of an actual offer made to HT in Brittany - Stanley claimed to the papal legate that this was so under oath in January 1486. As I have noted down, "He insinuated that the couple had recently discussed how they might marry given their relationship, and that the same conversation had at one time been had with Edward IV. However, his words can equally be interpreted as referring to conversations in which a marriage was mooted by one side, and the impediment of kinship thrown up as an obstacle by the other." My feeling is that Margaret Beaufort and her husband tentatively broached the matter with Edward, probably after the Treaty of Arras left Elizabeth on the shelf again, but Edward wasn't interested.

None of the other witnesses actually claimed to have heard such a conversation with King Edward; rather they insinuated it by referring to conversations on the subject of the consanguinity between other prominent people. The names they give, however, are interesting and - particularly as the witnesses included the likes of Christopher Urswick and Sir W. Knyvett - perhaps smack more of behind-the-scenes attempts by Margaret Beaufort to broker an alliance with the Woodvilles in the early weeks of the protectorate and during Buckingham's Rebellion (eg discussions between Archbishop Rotherham and Bishop Morton; and between Bishop Morton and Reynold Bray).

Marie

...in the year 1475, in obedience to Edward's orders, he passed into Brittany as an ambassador too little resembling a man of the Church, in order to demand that Henry Earl of Richmond, the sole heir of the House of Lancaster, should be given into his hands. The Duke of Brittany abhorred this impious deed and refused to hand over the innocent youth to execution by the jealous king. Importunately, Robert insisted.... (etc., etc.) <snip?"

Carol responds:

Thanks as always for your excellent research. I wonder if Wharton was influenced by Commynes, who presents Stillington as a wicked man? His view of Edward and of Tudor seems influenced by Vergil. (How any more modern writer, whether Cassans in 1829 or the author of the DNB entry in the early twentieth century, could credit such a biased source--I mean Wharton, not Commynes or Vergil--is beyond my comprehension. "Innocent youth," "sole heir of the House of Lancaster," "impious deed," "jealous king"! I would laugh at the idea of Edward's being jealous of Tudor if the whole passage didn't turn my stomach.) It's sad that the testimony of such "sources," minus the obvious bias, becomes hardened into "fact." If only historians would stop quoting each other and go back to primary sources!

BTW, Marie, in another post, you seemed to credit the idea that Edward considered marrying EoY (or another daughter?) to Tudor late in his life. Is there any evidence for that other than the testimony of non-Woodvilles related to the second papal dispensation for Tudor and EoY?

Carol

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie

"Sorry, Carol, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Edward was agreeable to the idea, but I do think the question was raised with Edward at some time because - ignoring Vergil's story of an actual offer made to HT in Brittany - Stanley claimed to the papal legate that this was so under oath in January 1486. As I have noted down, "He insinuated that the couple had recently discussed how they might marry given their relationship, and that the same conversation had at one time been had with Edward IV. However, his words can equally be interpreted as referring to conversations in which a marriage was mooted by one side, and the impediment of kinship thrown up as an obstacle by the other." My feeling is that Margaret Beaufort and her husband tentatively broached the matter with Edward, probably after the Treaty of Arras left Elizabeth on the shelf again, but Edward wasn't interested.

"None of the other witnesses actually claimed to have heard such a conversation with King Edward; rather they insinuated it by referring to conversations on the subject of the consanguinity between other prominent people. The names they give, however, are interesting and - particularly as the witnesses included the likes of Christopher Urswick and Sir W. Knyvett - perhaps smack more of behind-the-scenes attempts by Margaret Beaufort to broker an alliance with the Woodvilles in the early weeks of the protectorate and during Buckingham's Rebellion (eg discussions between Archbishop Rotherham and Bishop Morton; and between Bishop Morton and Reynold Bray)."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. That's more or less what I thought. But, of course, the Tudor version prevails in accounts by historians. How odd that, on the one hand, the "jealous" Edward wants the "innocent youth" (Tudor) executed because of his supposedly strong "Lancastrian" claim, and on the other, he wants to marry Tudor (in reality, a penniless fugitive) to his politically valuable eldest daughter as if he were a foreign prince. Whatever fits the historian's view of history and its participants, I suppose. (Not that Ricardians don't sometimes do the same thing.) We really need a scholar to reexamine all the sources for reliability, contradictions with primary sources, and bias.

...in the year 1475, in obedience to Edward's orders, he passed into Brittany as an ambassador too little resembling a man of the Church, in order to demand that Henry Earl of Richmond, the sole heir of the House of Lancaster, should be given into his hands. The Duke of Brittany abhorred this impious deed and refused to hand over the innocent youth to execution by the jealous king. Importunately, Robert insisted.... (etc., etc.) <snip?"

Carol responds:

Thanks as always for your excellent research. I wonder if Wharton was influenced by Commynes, who presents Stillington as a wicked man? His view of Edward and of Tudor seems influenced by Vergil. (How any more modern writer, whether Cassans in 1829 or the author of the DNB entry in the early twentieth century, could credit such a biased source--I mean Wharton, not Commynes or Vergil--is beyond my comprehension. "Innocent youth," "sole heir of the House of Lancaster," "impious deed," "jealous king"! I would laugh at the idea of Edward's being jealous of Tudor if the whole passage didn't turn my stomach.) It's sad that the testimony of such "sources," minus the obvious bias, becomes hardened into "fact." If only historians would stop quoting each other and go back to primary sources!

BTW, Marie, in another post, you seemed to credit the idea that Edward considered marrying EoY (or another daughter?) to Tudor late in his life. Is there any evidence for that other than the testimony of non-Woodvilles related to the second papal dispensation for Tudor and EoY?

Carol

Hi all,

This is picking up on some earlier posts, but I thought we might need a fresh start.

Question specifically for David, please. I set out in an earlier post why I am questioning of your claim that Stillington was the ambassador who almost got Henry Tudor returned to England in the mid 1470s, viz:-

"I have just looked through the Foedera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *no* embassies to any country that included Stillington's name. Stillington seems an unlikely choice to send abroad at this late date in any case as his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1471 had only lasted two years because his poor health had made it difficult for him to travel! The only embassies I've found to Brittany in the 1470s are:-

July 1472 - Rivers, John Sapcote esquire & William Slefeld

June 1475 -Lords Audley & Duras and Oliver King."

I've looked in Skidmore, and he identifies the embassy as one I'd missed, at the end of 1475 and headed by Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald. So where does the Stillington idea come from? I've now also checked Vergil, and he doesn't name the ambassadors. And I've looked through Commynes and can't find the suggestion there either.

So, please, I have asked before, but where is it that you read this? I'm sorry, but it's looking to me less and less likely to be true. I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward, but please please can you give us all a reference???

Marie