Réf.: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: RE: Richard

Hilary,

Regarding the Lancastrian claimant post Tewkesbury - which is a very good question - my view is that there was none. I think that there was such a complete eradication of the potential claimants and their supporters that there was no viable option.

There was Exeter, but he had no support and died in 1475.

Jasper Tudor was the most likely to be the power behind a claimant, but he was in Brittany with Henry - in custody, but kept apart from his nephew.

Jasper was kept for some time at the Chateau of Josselin - the seat of the Rohan family, which is the same family as the Zouches of England.

I think we often think of the Wars of the Roses retrospectively, as lasting for a specific period and argue whether they ended in 1485, but I think in the 1470s the war was effectively over.

Jasper was heading for his cousin Louis when he was shipwrecked and the value of the pair was very minor. The threat was that Francis could let them continue their journey to France, where they could become a threat. There were many embassies from both England and France offering money and military support.

Kind Regards
David


------------------------------
Le jeu. 28 nov. 2013 11:04 GMT, Hilary Jones a écrit :

> Sorry if I've jumped in. Everything seems to be coming in out of order. When you write anything on the forum (and not via home email) it seems to be sending it for approval and delaying it. 
>
>
>
>On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:35, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> 
>David,
> 
>W would go along with that. Stillington seems to have had a formidable legal brain - he probably argued with Francis very eloquently.
> 
>One thing that's started to puzzle me. If there was no 'Tudor camp' until mid 1483 (and I'll go along with that), then who emboddied 'Lancaster' after Tewskesbury? Certainly not Margaret of Anjou and not, I would have thought, de Vere. So who were the plotters (and there must have been some somewhere) plotting to put on the throne? We know there were, what, eighteen folk in front of HT, but was there another 'candidate'? Sorry to ask such a daft question but I'd never really considered it before.   H 
>
>
>
>On Thursday, 28 November 2013, 10:21, JF Madore <jfmadore@...> wrote:
>
> 
>I join with you, Pamela. I am here to learn.
>
>
>
>On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:53:11 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> 
>May I say that I continue to be impressed and astounded by the erudite postings of so many of you who have done such research, and have so much knowledge. It is a joy to open the posts. Sadly, I am simply an admirer,  and can offer nothing. But,  thank you all for so much.
>
>On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 
>>DavidIf you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.
>>
>>In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England
> and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
>>After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent."
>> 
>>Marie replies:
>>I would still like to know the source for Stillington's embassy to Brittany, other than Vergil that is. I have just looked through the Feodera Syllabus, which includes a pretty comprehensive list of commissions to ambassadors, and found *n*o 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.
>>It's interesting that Oliver King succeeded Stillington as Bishop of Bath and Wells. Could this have caused Vergil to get mixed up between the two? I strongly suspect this may be the embassy in question - just squeezed in before the Picquigny deal put Elizabeth of York out of the marriage market. 
>>Richard sent Thomas Hutton to Brittany in 1483, as I'm sure you know. I don't know whether Catesby went over to Brittany in 1484. The only link I have found is that, along with Francis Lovell, Morgan Kidwelly, the Mayor of Southampton and four others, he was commissioned on 26th June 1484 to take the muster of the archers who were being sent over to help Duke Francis. Catesby was certainly not in charge of the archers since that position had been granted to Lord Grey of Powys 20 days earlier.
>>Does your book give sources for these statements, David? The original sources are everything.
>>Marie
>>
>>I
>>
>>
>>
>>" 
>>
>>
>>---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Carol responds:
>>
>>In my view, Hancock relies much too heavily on More for his arguments to be convincing (though his revelations about Catesby's connections are interesting). I wouldn't call him Hastings's (or anyone else's) "servant." He was quite a successful (and presumably
> skilled) young lawyer, which is no doubt why Richard valued his services. (Parliament later made him its speaker to please Richard.) It's possible that he had some role in composing the petition to Richard that later became the basis for Titulus Regius, perhaps
> consulting with Stillington regarding common law as opposed to canon law, on which Stillington was expert.
>>
>>Why Henry Tudor felt the urgent need to execute Catesby is unclear. That he immediately arrested Stillington and refused to allow him to testify regarding Titulus Regius is, I think, self-explanatory. (He knew that Stillington was its author and that its arguments
> were irrefutable--hence, rather than being disproved, it must be repealed and all copies burned unread.)
>>
>>Carol
>>
>>If you read the story of Henry Tudor's life before Bosworth, then the reason for the execution of Catesby and the imprisonment of Stillington is obvious and has nothing to do with Titulus Regius.
>>
>>In 1476, Stillington had been one of the leaders of the embassy to Brittany that had persuaded Francis II to give Henry up to them. Francis was not a strong character and while generally wishing to keep Henry in custody as a pawn to play against both England
> and France, he was persuaded to turn him over during Jean du Qelennec's absence from court. Henry was saved by the citizens of Saint Malo who rose against the embassy when they tried to break sanctuary when Henry escaped to a church.
>>
>>After Richard's accession, it was Catesby who went to Brittany and persuaded Pierre Landais to arrest Henry and send him to Richard. The Histoire de la Marine Francaise says he persuaded Landais to become Richard's agent.
>>
>>So the two people who were treated harshly after Bosworth had both provided Henry with near death experiences. It is modern "conspiracy" thinking to suppose that it was all centred around Titulus Regius.
>>
>>I believe that Henry's panic about TR is a modern fabrication - the fact that it was not read in parliament had little bearing on matters because everyone knew the content. The broad outline was recorded by Philippes de Commynes.
>>
>>Kind regards
>>David
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>